



























f "o ^ rsr ^ . V 

O' ^ ^(l //y>^ ■» <!> ' 





K O ^0 ^ ^ . 

^ *'»/•«• ^ ♦onO ^ 

«^ * o, ^ .0^ %* M'v > V p" * o 







• ■'^ At ^*' 

^ ^ ■<?■’ ’ • ■ K" ^29 ' •* .- I 




b V 



'* C^ ■* 

^ \. c°’ .* 


; 


*' » N O ’ 





^ 0^ 






4.0 Ov. 

°.^ *•-’•’*/ \'^^‘\/ % •; 
- ^ v' .’•”' cv 

4 .^. ..^j^-. I 


'o,»-^ , 0 ^ ^ -c^ 




!! 


-0 c> '^' * • s ^ .A f 

r»v o N o 


^ ^O. ‘^T’ ,0^ <#-.0. '*.'^v ^■«-' 



o 0 

^ ® /1 * ’ A® 



» V 

2 


o O 


, s ^ A 



^0 

O 4^5 ^ ’“ 

^oTo^ ^ ° 

^ vP 



^>9 




4i* 


A 




<> "o*A <0^ A <v -o',',- 0’ 

qV o " 0 ^ A^ , t / * fA 




(A «-%> 




vft ^ <S 














































« ♦ sis /k ** ^ ^ 



ko'’ V'*^' "'- ‘ 

* V^ 


A- A 'o.»- .0^ 

C •Vc^v^'*- o 0 


O ‘flC'^ *' 

' ^ _ * 

A- *.,0'>* «'«• °^*‘«-’*’f° 

••- tV » ^ ■'?!' * ' 

vP_ ^ Vv vPV ^ 




O^ ,-jr t 

^ o A * 

oK 




o V 


* "k.o< 


• • 


\''^?^-'y''' 

^jf^\ y -^W” “k. / *' * 

; A'b'^'V ^Ma^“ “.v/iiw.' a5-"o^ 

'^o. ’ <v 'o .'. * ^0 _ _ 






<P. , o N o ^ *0 .»■'•♦ ^ aO' ■^-. ,-2 


o 


H • 4 O 

i>» y 


* •>* o 

• o V 


o A> ^ 


• .V ^O " 


O. ♦ - . • 






* O ,-* 

O ♦ 


O ^ (^V- -r 

° V 

® O 

* y 


® "^rv ^ 

^ A > ^ 




O A 'O^K* 

A ‘•:^. 


O 


'>» A 
^ V 


• 49 t, 

’.* aO '- 


JP-V. 


,0 


. 9 ^ .•.Vl’* 

4* .‘ 

i\: 


D H 0 ^ 


o ^ 

9^ 


^ ^ 9 H O 


t • O 


♦ 4? • 

* % 

c°^ .‘J^!*.' °o 



I "^o V^ 


'b'^^ ^. ••' • ^ ^ ^0^ *' ^R:> 

o' 







o V 




«• -a"^ ^O ^ ^ aO ■'*0^0^ ♦ . ii • A 

v.o. <0^ s'V'v "> V^ 

: vv • 


« 
o 


o A^"^ 

* V ^ 


O # A 




-'* < 0 ^ "''TrT' ’ A <> --■ 

0 c _ , ^ -4 % 
















t 


» 


\ 


% 


i 


1 






r 


f 


% 


t I 


u* 

{ • 


I 

I 



1 


^1. 













t 

f 


f 

I 





•m 


9 






4 


iki 





- * wy • * 


IT" 

« 




H 








|t 



? 


4 


I 





















REPORTS OF COMMIT 


OF THE 


SENATE OF THE UNITED ST 


I 


FOK THE 


FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS OF THE FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, 


1 8 7 9-’ 80. 


ly EIGHT VOLUMES. 

Volume 1 contains Nos. 1 to 9, 1st session, and Nos. 10 to 340^ 
‘2d session, except Nos. 277 and 303, parts 1 and *2. 
Volume 2 contains Nos. 277 and 303, parts 1 and 2. 

Volume 3 contains Nos. 341 to 487, except No. 388. 

^Volume 4 contains No. 388. 

Volume 5 contains Nos. 483 to 571. 

Volume 6 contains Nos. 572 to 670. 

Volume 7 contains Nos. 671 to 7*25, and 693, part 1. 

Volume 8 contains No. 693, parts 2 and 3. 


• > o ^ 

WASniyGTOX: 

GOVEUNMENT PRINTING OFPICE, ^ 

1880 . 














■V ' 



By tranter 

; ■: 1907 


j 



C < 

t r < 




I 







IISTDEX 



TO THE 


REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 


OF THE 


SEXATE OF THE EXITED STATES 


FOR THE 


FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS OF THE FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. 


Subject. 


A. 


Vol. 


Aaron, James. On the bill (H. R. 2041) granting a pension to. 

Abbott^ Charles W. On the bill (S. 533) for the relief of.. 

Adain.s, William L. On the bill (S. 500) for the relief of. 

Adams, John et al. On the bill (S. 89) for the relief of. 

Aiken, Nathaniel. On the bill (S. 260) granting a pension to. 

Albemarle and Chesapeake Company. On the bill (S. 626) for the re¬ 
lief of. 

Alderman, Charlotte T. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 

1231).‘. 

Allen, LcNvis D. On the bill (S. 1278) for *he relief of. 

Allison, Mary. On the bill (S. 1143) granting a pension to. 

Alexander, J. H. On the bill (S. 1257) for the relief of. 

Alexander, Sarah A. On the petition of 'itL’;.. 

Ambrester, Mary E. On the petition oC (To accom})apy bill S. 1810) . 

Anderson, A. L. On the bill (S. 277) granting a pension to. 

Anderson, W. H. II. On the bill (S. 1465) granting a pension to. 

Anderson, Levi. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 16<)2). 

Annie Johnson. On the bill (S. 1723) authorizing the Secretary of the 

Treasury to issue an American regi.ster to the bark. 

Appel, Daniel M. On the bill (S. 1D75) for the relief of. 

Appropriations known as permanent and indetinite. (To accompany 

bill S. 1424.) Relative to the .. 

Arid and waste land. On the bill (S. 768) relating to. 

Army. On the bill (S. 1488) to provide for promotions in. 

Army, non-commissioned officers of. On re.solution (to accompany bill 

1331) placing on retired list. 

Army. On the bill (S. 1614) to regulate the promotion of the officers of 

the. 

Armstrong, Henry A. On the bill (S. 139). 

Arctic Seas. On"the bill (11. R. 3534) to authorize and equip an expe¬ 
dition to. . 

Ashby, Eliza K. On the bill (H. R. 591) granting a pension to... 

A.storia and Winnemucca Railway Company. On the bill (S. 938) au¬ 
thorizing it to construct bridges across Young’s River, Arc. 

Aults, Elizabeth. On the bill (H. R. 2853) granting a pcn.sion to. 

Anthony, Thomas J. On the bill (8. 340) granting'a pension to. 

Ayres, jo.seph G. On the bill (8. 867) for the relief of. 


5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

3 

3 

3 


1 

3 

5 

5 

1 

1 

1 


1 

6 

1 


3 

5 

3 

5 


No. 


490 

215 

306 

331 

21 


472 


220 

425 

356 

473 

547 

692 

26 

479 

514 

576 

271 

334 

250 

561 

283 

652 

66 


512 


486 

542 

444 

508 

































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


ly 


Subject. 


B. 

Babbj Beujamin. On the bill (S. 1735) for the relief of. i 

Bacon, James M. On the bill (S. 758) for the relief of... 

Baird, Richardson K. On the bill (H. R. 47.59) granting an increase of j 

pension to..i 

Baker, J. H. On the bill (S. 781) for the relief of....^.| 

Baker, Samuel. On the bill (H. R. 5542) for The relief of..... 

BaldTviu, Herman. On the bill (H. R. 38f>l) granting a jtensiou to. 

Bampton, Benjamin C. On the bill (S. 542) for the relief of.. 

Barkley, R. W. On the bill (H. R. 4842) to reinstate in the Naval 

Academy, &c. 

Barnes, Ann. On the petition of. 

Barr, James A. On the bill (S. 50) for the relief of. 

Bass, Elisha. On the bill (S. 553) lor the relief of. 

Baum, George A. R. On the petition of. 

Beddo, William. On the bill (S. 927) for the relief of. 

Beeson, John. On the memorial of. 

Bell, Charles H. On the credentials of. (First session). 

Benner, Della. On the bill (H. R. 3980) granting a pension to. 

Benton, Edward T. On the bill (S. 1031) for the relief of. 

Biggs, Herman. On the bill (S. 254) authorizing the President to place 

on the list of retired officers of the Army... 

Binnamon, H. On the bill (S. 680) granting a X)en8iou to. 

Black, John H. On the bill (H. R. 2862) granting an increase of jten- 

sion to. 

Blair, Lewis J. On the bill (S. 1295) granting a pension to-.. 

Blanck, Dederick. On the bill (S. 338) granting a x)ension to. 

Bohn, C. On the bill (S. 687) for the relief of... 

Boll, Joseph, &c. On the x>etition of. (To accompany bill H. R. 3099). 
Boreland, James M. On the bill (H. R. 254) granting an increase of 

pension to. 

Bowen, Emery. On the bill (S. 635) granting a pension to. 

Bowers, Van B. On the bill (S. 298) for the relief of.. 

Bowman, William. On the bill (H. R. 2290) granting a xtension to. 

Boyd, Carlile. On the bill (S. 1150) for the relief of.■ 

Boyden, N. On the bill (S. 715) for the relief of. 

Braden, Edward, &c. On the bill (S. 56) for the relief of.I 

Braden, Spruille. To appoint him an ensign in the United States Navy. 

(To accompany bill S. 125, first session).I 

Bradeen, Jason C. On the bill (S. 1178) for the relief of.1 

Brady, Bernard. On the bill (H. R. 2120) granting a iiension to. i 

Braunstetter, Philip. On the bill (S. 336) granting a pension to. 

Brawner, Thomas S. On the bill (S. 748) granting a pension to.| 

Brevet appointments. On the bill (S. 219) relating to.■ 

Biidge. On the bill (H. R. 1381) for the construction across the Potomac j 

River, at or near Georgetown, of a free... j 

Bridges, Thomas S. On the bill (S. 229) for the relief of. j 

Briggs, C. H. On the bill (S. 230) for the relief of. 

Brightman, Samuel B. On the petition of.| 

Brocchus, Perry E. On the petition of. (To accom])any bill S. 1395)...' 

Bronson, Calvin. On the bill (H. R. 2269) for the relief of.j 

Brown, Judith. On the bill (H. R. 4264) granting a pension to.. I 

Brown, Martha E. On the bill (S. 801) for the relief of. j 

Browne, William R. On the bill (S. 1234) amending an act granting a I 

jicnsion to .. . 

Brownlow, Alexander S. On the memorial of. 

Bruner, Frederick R. On the bill (S. 848) granting a pension to. 

Bryant, William. On the bill (H. R. 3017) granting a pension to_ 

Bunker, Isaiah W. On the bill (H. R. 2864) granting an increase of pen¬ 
sion to. 

Burbank, Jacob E. On the bill (S. 313) for the relief of.'.!!!! 

Burbridge, J. W. & Co. On the bill (S. 1.545) for the relief of.1]! 

Burchard, Jabez. On the bill (S. 543) for the relief of. 

Burgess, Lawrence. On the bill (S. 16.52) granting a pension to tlie 
minor children of. 


Vol. 

No. 

/ 

711 

5 

524 

5 

503 

3 

398 

6 

628 

5 

566 

5 

51^ 

6 

595 

3 

352 

1 

149 

1 

278 

1 

118 

3 

398 

1 

254 

1 

1 

/ 

715 

1 

291 

3 

424 

1 

119 

6 

635 

3 

437 

1 

189 

1 

142 

7 

684 

3 

436 

6 

607 

1 

92 

6 

662 

6 

630 

1 

154 

1 

162 

1 

4 

6 

.591 

7 

705 

1 

31 

1 

340 

1 

130 

3 

383 

3 

448 

3 

446 

5 

494 

1 

323 

1 

248 

6 

606 

1 

232 

3 

358 

1 

87 

1 

264 

7 

690 

6 

586 

1 

308 

5 

531 

5 

530 

6 

578 










































































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


V 


i 


Subject. 


Vol. No. 


Rnrk, Harvey. On the bill (H. R. 7.")1) j^rantino; a pension to. 7 bS7 

Burke, James. On the bill (S. for the relief of. 1 197 

Burnett, Ward B. On the bill (S. 477) for the relief of. 1 *28 

Burr, Mary. On the bill (S. li^l) ^xi’unting a pension to. 1 243 

Burroughs, Thomas. On the petition of.’. 5 493 

Busby, \V. W.. Xc. On the petition of.i 1 2.55 

Byrne, Edward. On the bill (S. 1311) for the relief of.| 7 (.>29 


C. 


Cahill, Margaret. On the petition of. 

Caldwell, John W. On the bill (S. 7S4) for the relief of.. 

Cam])bell, .Jose])h B. On the bill (S. 44.5) for the relief of.. 

Campbell, J. B. On the lull (S. 317) for the relief of. 

Camlee, G. W. On the bill (S. 9U4) for the relief of. 

Cantwell, L. C. On the bill (S. 307) for the relief of. 

Carpenter, Thomas H. On the bill (S. 129) for the relief of. 

Carroll, Maxwell. On the petition of. 

Carter, Ellen W. P. On the bill (S, 3S2) <;rantin <4 a ])ension to. 

Case, Luman. On the bill (S. 1114) granting a pension to. 

Castleman, Samuel. On the bill (S. 187) for the relief of. 

Caton, Noah. On the bill (H. R. 2’^r>4) granting a pension to. 

Census. On the resolution in relation to supervisors of.j 

Chamberlin, Lowell. On the bill (.S. 1300) for the relief of..' 

Chambliss, William P. On the bill (S. 1000) for the relief of. 

Chandler, Theophilus P. On the bill (S. 22) for the relief of. 

Chaplains of the United States Navy. On the bill (S. 48) to promote the 

etticieney of. 

Chapman, Amos. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1809)_ 

Cheeks, John W. On the bill (.S. 40S) for the relief of. 

Chickering, John W. (,)n the bill (S. 131) for the relief of. 

Chickering, John W. On the bill (S. 131) for the relief of. 

Churchman, Henry J. On the bill (S. 475) granting a pension to. 

Claesgens, Peter. On the memorial of. (To accompany bill S. 1197).., 

Clancey, JohnF. On the bill (S. 1087) for the relief of. 

Clark, M. F. On the bill (S. 7(5) for the relief of. 

Clarke, Lizzie D. On the bill (S. 1478) for the relief of. 

Clay, Cecil. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1815). 

Clinton, Charles. On the bill (S. 430) for the relief of. 

Cotfey, Moses. On the petition of. . 

Cogley, Thomas S. On the bill (S. 1054) granting a pension to. 

Colby, Seymour. On the bill (S. 1318) granting a pension to. 

Collins, Charles. On bills (S. 285 ami S. 089) tor the relief of. (To ac¬ 
company bill S. 1340).. 

Colorado. On the bill (S. 709) to enable the State of, to take lands in 

lieu of sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, Ac. 

Combs, David W. On the bill (S. 1521) granting a pension to. 

Comfort, John C. On the bill (S. 417) for the relief of. 

Conklin, J, C. On the bill (S. 270) for the relief of. 

Connell, Arthur. On the petition of. 

Connor, James O. On the bill (S. .551) granting a pension to. 

Connor, B. B. On the bill (S. 1579) for the relief of. 

Cooper, C. W. On the bill (S. 785) for the relief of.. .. 

Cooper, Wickliffe. (To accompany S. Res. 8.) Correcting the military 

record of. 

Cooprider, Eli. On the bill (S. 13(53) granting a pension to. 

Cook, Daniel M. On the bill (H. R. 2019) to authorize the extension of, 

the patent of...... 

Cook, Hortensia H. On the bill (S. (5(5) for the relief of.. 

Corselius, E<lward. On the bill (S. 87(5) for the reliet ot. 

Costello, Margaret. On the bill (S. 1584) granting a pension to. 

Co.ston, Martha J. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 17(51) ... 
Council Blufts. On the bill (H. R. 10(54) to authorize the corporate au¬ 
thorities of, to use a certain lake, Ac. 

Court of Claims. On the resolution relative to the rooms lately occupied ; 
by the.. 


1 

3 

(5 

1 

5 

1 

1 

5 
1 

6 
1 
(5 
7 
6 
G 
1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

(5 

3 

3 

G 

7 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

3 

(5 

1 

1 

(5 

(5 

G 

1 


17 

398 

573 

72 

462 

61 

319 

4r»7 

168 

6(54 

129 

632 

723 

(527 

(526 

59 


209 
691 
46 
148 
419 
35 
190 
292 
94 
513 
695 
3^ o 
3G7 
603 
688 


290 


256 

697 

62 

305 

287 

175 

441 

398 


67 

484 

660 

1(53 

201 

602 

622 


657 


310 
































































VI 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


Co'wpens centennial committee. On the bill (S. 84) to furnish a bronze 

statTie of General Daniel Morgan to the. 

Cox, John. On the petition of. 

Crain, Simeon. On the bill (S. 38.5) granting a pension to.......| 

Crawford, G. W. J. On the petition of.: 

Creek orphan fund. On the bill (S. 451) to reimburse the.j 

Cunningham, John S. On the bill (S. 286) for the relief of.| 

Curtis, Belinda. On the bill (H. R. 2407) granting a pension to.j 

Curtis, Belinda. On the bill (H. R. 2407) granting a pension to.! 

Custer, Elizabeth B. On the bill (S. 459) for the relief of.i 

D. 

Dakota Territory. On the bill (H. R. 5502) granting certain lands for 

an insane asylum and for school purposes. 

Darling, Mrs. Flora A. On the xtetitiou of. 

Dart, Anson. On the petition of. 

Davenport, Patsey. On the bill (S. 1597) granting a pension to. 

Davidson, Francis S. On the bill (S. 517) for the relief of. 

Davis, Samuel B. On the bill (S. 578) granting an increase of pension to. 
Davis, William H. On the xtetition of. (To accompany bill S. 1208)... 

Davis, Mary A. On the bill (S. '*98) granting a pension to. 

Davis, John B. On the bill (S. 72) for the relief of. 

Davison, J ohu. On the petition of... 

Defrees. John D. On the bill (S. 1090) for the relief of. 

Dennis, Ann. On the petition of. 

Dent, Capt. J. H. On the bill (S. 1084) granting arrears of pensions to 

the heirs of. 

Denton, Charles W. On the bill (S. 1291) for the relief of. 

Deponia, Martin J. On the petition of. 

De Witt, J. Clinton. On the bill (S. 497) granting a pension to. 

District of Columbia. On the condition of the water supply of the_ 

District of Columbia. On the bill (S. 1125) to provide for building a 

market-house on scpiare 446 in the. 

District of Columbia. On the bill (S. 894) for the relief of certain offi¬ 
cers of the United States courts for the... 

District of Columbia. On the bill (S. 1681) to provide for funding the 

8 per cent, improvement certificates of the... 

Dodd, Brown & Co. On the bill (S. 1181) for the relief of. 

Doddridge and Davis. On the bill (H. R. 2803) for the relief of. 

Dodge, Israel. On the bill (S. 310) for the relief of the heirs, &c., of .. 
Dolan, John. On the bill (S. 556) appointing him second lieutenant 

and placing him on the retired list. 

)onoho, Monroe. On the bill (S. 996) for the relief of.. 

^mohue, Frank, On the bill (S. 427) granting a pension to. 

D^sey, John M., &c. On the bill (S. 212) for the relief of. 

D(»gherty, Charles. On the bill (H. R. 270) for the relief of. 

Doilgherty, Elizabeth. On the bill (H. R. 3261) granting a pension to.. 
Do:^ie, James W. On the bill (S. 370) granting an increase of pension 

Drii'oll, Benedict J. O. On the bill (S. 1576) granting a pension to_ 

Dunlbar, Robert W. On the bill (S. 214) for the relief of. 

Duricee, Stephen. On the petition of. 

E. 

Elections, report of the Select Committee to iiupiire into alleged frauds 

in the late. 

Elections, report of the Select Committee to inquire into alleged frauds 

in the late... 

Elections, report of Select Committee to inquire into alleged frauds in 

the late. (To accompany bill S. 1721). 

Elgie, W. J. On the bill (S. 1077) granting a pension to. 

Ellis, Marshall D. On the bill (S. 552) granting a pension to..*!!! 



526 

641 

116 

99 

599 

149 

550 

696 

246 


620 

200 

333 

366 

77 

91 

207 

364 

649 

270 

428 

517 

669 

475 

313 

211 

39 

296 

307 

621 

714 

53 

346 

138 

153 

29 

63 

449 

498 

223 

438 

150 

614 


497 

427 

572 

443 

30 


I 


/ 



























































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


VII 


Subject. Vol. 


Eni]»loy<^s of the government in the District of Columbia. On the bill 

^ (S. 831) for the relief of. 1 

I.nglish, A\ illiam. On the bill (S. 332) authorizing the appointment to 

a second lieutenancy in the Army of... 1 

Epping, Carl, <fcc. On the memorial of. 6 

Eppler, Ja,cob H. On the bill (S. 1070) granting a pension to.. 3 

Eubank, Nancy. On the bill (S. 950) granting arrears of pension to.... 1 

Evans. Isabel, L. and C. On the bill (S. 307) granting an increase of 

pension to. 1 

Evans, Samuel. On the petition of... 

Ewing, Robert. On the bill (S. 377) for the relief of.1 


F. 

Fairchild, Stej)hen. On the bill (S. 1517) granting an increase of pen¬ 
sion to. ... 

Fairly, Agnes. On the bills (S. 1452, H. R. 11) granting a pension to.. 
Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank, Paris, Texas. On the bill (S. 025) for 

the relief of (first session). 

Farrar, Abram F. On the bill (S. 672) granting a ]>ension to. 

Farrar, W. B. On the bill (H. R. 393) for the relief of. 

Farrow, Edward S. On the bill (S. 933) for the relief of. 

Ferrell, John H. On the bill (S. 412) granting a pension to. 

Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. On the bill (S. 100) for the relief of the officers 

of. 

Finley, Mrs. E. S. M. On the petition of. 

Finn, Masach. On the bill (H. R. 2003) granting a pension to. 

Fisher, John, guardian, Arc. On the bill (H. R. 3544) granting a pen¬ 
sion to. 

Fisher, Henry H. On the bill (H. R. 2408) granting a pension to. 

Flagg, Harriett. On the petition of. 

Flagg, Sarah S. On the ])etition of. 

Fletmier, Ann. On the petition of. 

Fletcher, Bird L. On the bill (S. 198) for the relief of. 

Florida, State of. On the resolution (S. 79) directing the Secretary 
of the Treasury to settle the accounts between the United States 

and the.. . 

Flynn, John. On the ]>etition of. 

Foley, Jerry. On the bill (H. R. 3783) for the relief of. 

Foote, Rear-Admiral A. H. On the bill (S. 1538) authorizing the clos¬ 
ing of the accounts of. 

Ford, Nehemiah. On the petition of. 

Fort Stockton, Texjis. On Executive Document No. 25. (To accompany 

bill S. 1205).... 

Fort Abercrombie, Ac. On the bill (H. R. 1305) abolishing the military 

reservations of. 

Fort Union. On the bill (S. 910) to authorize the United States to 

secure a title to certain timber reservations within the limits of. 

Fort Leavenworth military reservation. On the bill (S. 159) to pro- 

vi«le for the sale of certain portions of. 

Fort Harker. On the bill (S. 194) for the disposal of the military reser¬ 
vation of. 

Fort Lamed. On the bill (S. 193) for the disposition of the military 

reservation of. 

Fort Logan, Montana Territory. On the bill (H. R. 5894) to authorize 

the sale of... 

Fort Ri]>ley reservation. On the bill (H. R. 1153) to restore to the pub¬ 
lic domain a ]»art of.-.. 

Fort Sedgwick military reservation. On the bill (S. 1742) in relation 

to the. 

Fox, Susan. On the bill (S. 1097) granting a pension to. 

Frank, Charles H. On the bill (S. 1334) granting a pension to. 

Franks, Margaret B. On the memorial of. (To accompany bill S. 1203).. 
Freedmen’s Saving and Trust Company. (To accompany bills S. 711 

and S. 1581.) Relating to the. 

French, L. C. On the bill (S. 1307) granting a pension to.; 


6 

5 


1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

C 


fi 

(> 

1 

3 

5 

1 


3 

1 

1 

5 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 


1 

G 

1 

7 

5 

3 


No. 


1G4 

68 

.598 

210 

3G 

453 

122 


634 

499 

8 

435 

374 

297 

27 


43 

616 

719 

668 

611 

18 A 

351 

544 

79 


378 

114 

293 


541 

464 


204 

291 > 

300 

71 

135. 

136 

520 

196 


661 

217 

686 

505 

440 

488 


















































YIII 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


Vol. 


No. 


TTick, Eliza M. On the bill (H. R. 3021) granting a pension to. 

Fritschy, John F. On the bill (S. 6(53) granting a pension to. 

Fuller, E. C. On the bill (S. 770) for the relief of. 

Fultz, W. S. On the bill (S. 95.5) granting a pension to. 


6 , 613 

1 : 102 

3 j 396 

1 I *227 


li 


G. I 

Gaines, William. On the bill (H. R. 2902) to place on the retired list.; 

Gallagher, Hugh. On the l)ill (S. 1S3) granting a pension to.^ 

Gamble, William .J. On the bill (S. 1063) for the relief of.^ 

Gano, Phineas. On the bill (S. 1323) granting a pension to.i 

Gardner, Jared. On the bill (S. (591) for the relief of.i 

Gault, John, jr. On the bill (S. 105) for the relief of.| 

Getert, Peter. On the bill (8. 341) granting a pension to. 

^Gettysburg. On the letter of the Secretary of War, relative to the maps 

of the battle of. (To accompany bill S. 1490). 

Gibbes & Co. On the bill (S. 185) for the relief of.. 

Gibson, Narcissa. On the bill (S. 8.55) for the relief of. 

Gill, Ira. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. ^i46). 

Gill, William H. On the bill (S. 1710) for the relief of. 

Gillen, Paul E. On the bill (H. R. 33.51) for the relief of. 

Gillespie Ellen. On the bill (H. R. 1890) granting a pension to. 

Gillis, Catherine I. On the bill (H. R, 2377) for the relief of. 

Goldsborough, Elizabeth Wirt. On the bill (S. 3) granting a pension to. 

Goodlow, Armstead. On the petition of. 

Gotshall, John. On the bill (S. 149) for the relief of. 

Graham, George W. On the petition of. 

Granery, Michael, &c. On the bill (S. 695) for the relief of. 

Grapesiiot. On the bill (H. R.2802) for the relief of the owner of the 

bark.. .. 

Greene, J. B., &c. On the memorial of. (To accomj)any bill S. 1366)_ 

Views of the minority on same. (Part 2). 

Gregory, Ann. On the bill (S. 280) for the relief of. 

Grierson, John. On the bill (S. 944) for the relief of. 

Grivet, Phebe A. On the petition of. 

Gross, Frank P. (Jn the bill (S. 74) for the relief of.. 

Grove, Mrs. Virginia. On the petition of... 

Grubb, Jackson. On the bill (H. R.710) for the relief of. 

Guest, Anna I. On the bill (S. 972) granting an increase of pension to.. 

^ Gunn, Charles E. On the bill (S. 1340) for the relief of. 

'x. Gustin, Samuel I. On the bill (S. 549) for the relief of. 

\ Guthrey, William B. On the petition of. 

i 

H. I 

Hale, William H. On the bill (S. 617) granting a pension to. 

Hall, P. P. G. On the bill (S. 175) for the relief of. 

Halleck, Walter F. On the bill (S. .536) for the retirement of, witli'tlie", 

rank and pay of lieutenant-colonel .. 

Ham and Brown. (Jn the memorial of. 

'Hamilton, Schuyler. On the bill (S. 664) for the relief of_!!!!!]!!!] 

Hancock, Robert L. On the bill (S. 184) granting a pension to*.!!!!!!!/ 

■Handley, Walter S. On the petition of.!! *!** 

Hansell, William S., and Sons. On the petition of. (To accom'pa'nv'bin*' 

S. 1768).— ..‘.I 

Harben, Nathaniel P. On the bill (S. 200) for the relief oE .!!!!]!! 

Hardin, W. M. On the bill (S. 786) for the relief of.. I 

Hargrove, James E. On the bill (S. (309) granting a pension to*.!!!. 

Harner, John. On the bill (S. 1169) granting a pension to.!. 

Harris, Catharine. On the bill (S. 14'54) amending an act gra*nti'n<^ "a'i 

pen.sion to. ® j 

Hartridge, Theodore F., &c. On the bill (S. 8*1*6) for the relief of.' 

Haskin, Rebecca E. On the bill (S. 1535) granting an increase of'pen*-* i 

sion to... . ^ j 

Hatcher, Aaron. On the bill (S. 1360) granting a peus'iou to!! .* ].! 

Hayne, Michael. On the bill (S. 1133) granting a pension to. !!!*.i 


1 

1 

3 

5 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

3 

5 

5 
7 
3 

6 
1 
5 
3 
1 


202 

317 

423 

548 

226 


I 


44 

33 


382 

95 

168 

384 

560 

522 

689 


396 

577 

184 


525 


458 

134 


3 1 381 

1 i 303 

1 i 303 

1 * 260 

1 275 

1 13 

3 412 

1 : 113 

1 325 

7 701 

3 409 

1 257 

1 115 


1 i 108 
1 j 195 

j 

1 152 

1 98 

1 321 

1 22 

1 ! . 269 

6 623 

3 350 

3 398 

1 101 

5 565 

i 

7 709 

3 I 377 

5 ! 537 

1 ; 338 

6 , 587 

































































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


IX 


Subject. 


Vol. No. 


Hayward, Daniel. On tlie memorial of the heirs of. 6 617 

Heard, James A. On the l)ill (S. ;i74) for the relief of. 1 

Hehh, (Jeorj^e V. On the bill (S. I't'O) for the relief of. 1 141 

Hein, Ernst. On the petition of. (To accompany V>ill S. 14S4). 3 369 

Heintzelman, Margaret S. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 

1776). 7 699 

Helj>ei, llardie Hogan. On the bill (S. 365) granting a pension to. 7 (598 

Hendrickson, Mrs. Thomas. On the i>etition of. 1 80 

Henry, Elizabeth Vernor. On the petition of. 5 495 

Hensley, John. On the bill (S. 775) for the relief of. 3 398 

Henson, A. J. (Jn the bill (S. 77"<) for the relief of. 3 398 

Herrick, Zenas. On the petition of. 1 n 

Hil)bs, George D. C. On the bill (S. 1059) for the relief of. 1 284 

Hotf, Louisa Bainbridge. On the bill (S. 21) granting a pension to. 5 552 

Hotlinan, John W. On the bill (S. 1455) authorizing the appointment 

of, as second lieutenant in the Unite<l States Army. 5 563 

Holladay, Ben. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 231). 1 216 

Ibdlingsworth, George. f)n the bill (S. 303) for the relief of. 3 391 

Holman, Herman, Arc. On the bill (S. 618) for the relief of. 1 50 

Homestead settlers. On the bill (S. 316) for the relief of. 1 241 

Hoopes, Abner. On the bill (H. R. 32(54) granting a pension to. 5 501 

Hopj)erton, Mrs. Mary. On the ])etition of. 6 647 

Hornaday, Colby. On the l)ill ( H. R.745) granting a pension to. 7 (573 

Hostadt, John. On the bill (H. R. 3(556) for the relief of. 6 (5.58 

Hostie, Thomas. On the petition of. 1 327 

Hot Springs. On the bill (H. R.4244) for the establishment of titles 

in. 1 309 

Houlihan, Daniel. On the ])etition of. 1 318 

Howard, Janies G. On the bill (S. 188) correcting the military muster- 

in of. 1 69 

Howard, Edward. On the bill (S. 1038) granting an increase of pension 

to. 7 700 

Hubbell, John. On the bill (S. 95(5) granting a pension to. 1 170 

Hudson, Julia M. On the jietition of. 6 642 

Hunt, James. On the bill (S. 47) for the relief of. 1 131 

Hunt, Jacob S. On the ])etition of. 1 18 

Huson, Edgar. On the bill (S. 915) for the relief of. 3 385 

Hutchison, Samuel B. On the bill (H. R. 3100) for the relief of. 7 707 


I. 

Ingalls, John J. On the memorials relating to the election of, as a Sen¬ 
ator from the State of Kansas . 

Interior, Secretary of. On the bill (S. 1195) authorizing him to deposit 

certain funds in the United States Treasury in lieu of investment. 

Irving, Arthur W. On the bill (S. 1072) granting a pension to. 

Irwin, Joseph C. On the bill (S. 1312) for the relief of. 

J. 

Jack.son, Thomas J. On the bill (H. R. 753) granting a pension to. 

James, B. S. On the bill (S. (50) for the relief of..... 

Jettords, Su.san. (4n the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1045).. 

Jeffrey, Rosa Vertner. On the bill (S. 103) for the relief of. 

Jenkins, Cyprian T. On the bill (S. 8915) for the relief of. 

Johnson, IHrani. On the bill (S. 376) granting a pension to. 

Johnson, Hiram, &c. On the bill (H. R.(5033) for the relief of. 

Johnson, Jeanette S. On the ])etition ot.. 

Johnson, Thomas B. On the bill (S. 913) granting a pension to. 

Johnston, Samuel H. On the bill (S. 1403) granting an increase of pen¬ 
sion to. 

Jone.s, Jacob D. On the bill (S. 613) for the relief of. 

Jones, Mary W. On the bill (S. 871) granting a pension to. (To accom- 

jtanv bill S. 1501). 

Jones' Reuben S. On the bill (S. 455) for the relief of. 

Julius, Peter. On the bill (H. R. 3557) granting a pension to. 


'■Si f 


186 

266 

645 


6(57 

650 

107 

58 

404 

34 

725 

597 

570 

432 

273 


3 387 

1 93 

6 608 





























































X 


INDEX TO KEPORTS. 


Subject, 


Vol. 


No. 


K. 

Kansas, On tlie bill (H. R. 2481) to create an additional land district 

in tbe State of. 

Kansas City, Fort Scott and Gulf Railroad Company. On tbe resolu¬ 
tion (S. Res. 8.5) for the relief of. 

Kansas City, &c. On the bill (S. 829) extending tbe jirovisions of sec¬ 
tion 2997 of tbe Revised Statutes to tbe ports of. 

Kansas, State of. On tbe bill (S. 80) to ascertain tbe amount of money 

expended by, in repelling Indian invasions .. 

Kansas trust and dimini.sbed reserve lands. On tbe bill (S. 619) for tbe 

relief of certain settlers on. 

Kearney, Thomas. On the bill (H. R. 2188) for tbe relief of. 

Kelley, Nicholas H. On the bill (S. 591) granting a jjension to. 

Kennon, B. W. On tbe petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1501). 

Keunou, Beverly. On the memorial of. 

Kercbuer, Gallus. On tbe bill (S. 757) for tbe relief of. 

Key, John J., &-c. On tbe bill (S. 87) for tbe relief of. 

Kilbourne, Lucien. On tbe bill (S. 637) granting an increase of pension 

to. 

Kinder, Jefferson. On the bill (S. 446) granting a pension to. (First 

session)... 

King, James. On tbe x>etition of. (To accompany bill S. 1044). 

King, Jacob B. On tbe bill (S. 388) for the relief of. 

Kirby, D. T. On the bill (S. 965) for tbe relief of. 

Kirby, D. T. On the bill (S. 965) for tbe relief of. 

Klauser, Emanuel. On tbe bill (S. 368) for tbe relief of. 


6 

639 

7 

717 

3 

392 

1 

139 

1 

89 

1 

160 

1 

236 

3 

387 

1 

143 

5 

506 

1 

280 

1 

259- 

1 

6 

1 

106 

1 

147 

1 

193 

3 

420 

1 

49 


L. 


Lacbman, Martha A. On tbe billl (S. 851) granting a pension to. 

Lammey, Reese. On tbe petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1384). 

Lands located with military warrants. On tbe bill (S. 19). 

Lands. On the bill (S. 989) for tbe relief of settlers on tbe public. 

Latham, O. B. and O. S. On the bill (S. 1621) for tbe relief of. 

Lawson, Anthony. On tbe bill (S. 1109) for the relief of. 

League, Thomas J. On tbe bill (S. 1322) for tbe relief of. 

Leamy, George W. On tbe bills (S. 732 and H. R. 5803) granting a pen¬ 
sion to. 

Lecompte, Samuel D. On the memorial of. 

Leedom, Levi. On tbe bill (H. R. 1465) granting a pension to. 

Leef, Juliet, &c. On the bill (H. R. 2262) for tbe relief of. 

Viev!^ of tbe minority on same. (Part 2). 

Leggett, Mrs. Mary. On the bill (S. 985) granting a pension to. 

Lewis, Joseph N. On tbe bill (S. 299) foi tbe relief of. 

Lieb, Edward H. On tbe bill (H. R. 1463) granting an increase of pen¬ 
sion to.. 

Lieurance, Esther E. On the bill (S. 526) granting a pension to. 

Lindsley, James P, On the bill (S. 777) for the relief of. 

Lines, Henry F. On tbe bill (S. 326) for the relief of. 

Lingenfelter, Michael. On the bill (H. R. 1806) granting a pension to.. 
Little Traverse Harbor, on Lake Michigan. On the bill (S. 1610) for the 

erection of a light-house at tbe entrance of. 

Logan, John S. On tbe bill (S. 24) for the relief of. 

Long, Daniel D. On tbe bill(H. R. 2467) granting a pemsionto.! 

Long, Ella. On tbe bill (S. 1376) for tbe relief of. 

Long, Mrs Ellen Call. On tbe memorial of. (To accompany bill S. 1779)! 

Loiignecker, William. On the petition of. 

Longsbaw, Margaret. On tbe petition of.![! 

Lord, Mary A. On the bill (S. 742) for the relief of.!. 

Lord, Samuel, jr. On the bill (S. 62) for the relief of. (First session).*.* 

Louis, Rosalie. On the bill (H. R. 4887) granting a pension to..*! 

Lowe, Samuel A. On tbe bill (S. 364) for the relief of.*.!!**.. 

Lowry, Thomas. On the bill (H. R. 229) granting a pension to_!!!! 

Luckett, Elisha M. On tbe bill (S. 1216) granting a pension to !!!!!!!! 
Lull, Fannie. On tbe bill (S. 132) granting a pension to.!!!!! 


o 

1 

1 

5 

6 
3 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

6 

1 

3 

3 

5 

3 

1 

6 
3 
6 
1 
7 
1 
1 
7 
6 
6 
3 
1 


502 

315 

121 

553 

659 

403 

401 

675 

470 
4.33 

471 
471 
265 
165 

63ff 

219 

398 

450 

500 

477 

64 

609 

476 

648 

97 

694 

324 

7 

678 

644 

583 

431 

176. 






































































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XI 


Subject. 


Vol. 


No. 


Lynchbnrgh, Va. On the bill (H. R. *271)7) for the relief of citizens of.. 

Lyon, Nelson, X c. On the bill R. for the relief of. 

Lytle, P. P., cVc. On the petition of. 


3 4(i5 

1 '262 

5 50*2 


M. 


Mackey, Mrs. Hannah. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1711). 

Mackey, Thomas J. On the bill (S. 1716) ^rantin;; a pension to. 

Macon, Ga. On the bill (S. Ill) for the relief of the city of. 

Manville, Helen Francis. On the petition of.*.. 

Marietta, Ohio. On the bill (H. R. 3347) to authorize the Secretary of 
War to furnish four pieces of condemned ordnance for tlie soldiers’ 

monument at. 

Martin, .James, and Brothers. On the bill (S. 7S3) for the relief of. 

Martin, Rachel. On the bill (H. R. *2793) for the relief of J. 

Ma-sten, Claude, H. On the claim of. (To accompany bill S. 1088)_ 

Matthews, Jabez. On the jictition of. 

Mattison, Marietta. On the bill (S. 960) for the relief of. 

Maxwell, W. S. On the bills (H. R. 3064 ami S. 89*2) to remove the polit¬ 
ical disaliilities of. 

Mayhngh, Lucy E. On the petition of. 

McAnley, Angus. On the bill (S. 143*2) granting a ])ension to. 

McBrayer, John H. On the bill (H. R. 193)^) granting a i>ension to. 

McCati'rey, Thomas W. On the bill (S. 60*2) restoring to the pension- 

roll, &c . 

McCauley, Lelia E. On the petition of, (To accompany bill S. 1728).. 
McCarty, James C. On the bill (S. 363) granting an increase of pen¬ 
sion to. 

McCarty, S. A. On the petition of. (To accompany S. Res. 96). 

McConnell, Eliza. On the bill (H. R. 3*260) granting a pension to. 

McCnllom, Abram M. On the petition of. 

McDonald, John G. On the bill (S. 639) granting a pension to. 

McGee, William. On the bill (S. 1039) to authorize the restoration to 

the Army, Are., of. 

McGeehan, Thomas. On the petition of. 

McGovern, William. On the bill (S. 474) for the relief of. 

McKenna, James O. On the bill (S. 975) granting a pension to. 

McMurray, Robert A. On the bill (S. 6^2) for the relief of.; 

McNilt, Manly B. On the bill (S. 1103) for the relief of.' 

McReynolds, Andrew T. On the bill (S. 1006) for the relief of. 

Meagher, Peter. On the bill (S. 401) for the relief of. 

Meech, Pluebe. On the bill (S. 576) granting a pension to. 

Meighan, Mary. On the bill (H. R. *2643)) granting a iiension to. 

Merrick, Fowler, and Esseltyne. Ac. On the memorial <»f.: 

Metric system. On the bill (H. R. *2270) to pay for extra services in the i 

Forty-tifth Congress relating to the.i 

Military organizations. On the bill (S. 853) to pay the members of, »fcc 

Miller, 'Herman. On the iietition of. (To accompany bill (S. 981). 

Miller, Margaret. On the petition of. 

Miller, W. H. On the bill (8. 535) granting a pension to.: 

Mills, Margaret. On the bill (S. *251) granting an increase of pension to.| 
Missouri Cavalry Volunteers. On the bill (H. R. 95*2) for the relief of i 

the Phfteenth and Sixteenth Regiments of.l 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. On the bill (H. R. 5*203) providing i 
for the reaiiportionmeut of the members of the legislatures in the i 

Territories of.; 

Montana Territory. On the memorial of the legislative assembly of— I 
Montana Territory. On the memorial of the legislative assembly in rela- , 

tion to military telegraph. 

Moon, Squire. On the petition of.i 

Moore, Daniel E. Ou the bill (S. 776) for the relief of.; 

Moore, :^Iis. Emma M. On the bill (S. 1188) granting arrears of pen¬ 
sion to.. 

Moore, Mrs. Emma M. On the petition of. 

Moore, Isaac F. On the petition of. 

Moreland, Basil. On the bill (S. 115*2) for the relief of. 


5 

6 
1 
5 


1 

3 

6 

1 


5 

3 

3 


3 

6 

1 

3 

6 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

3 

3 

3 

5 
1 

6 
6 
3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 


7 i 


5 i 
1 


1 i 
3 I 

1 ! 
1 
1 

C 1 

I 


568 
584 
*27*2 

569 


3*28 

398 

643 

1*24 

456 

540 


360 

463 

557 

7(H> 


3F2 

581 

*244 

.395 

580 

117 

234 


459 

368 

*240 

363 

4*21 

353 

516 

55 

601 

604 

430 


45*2 

‘294 

*263 

181 

23 

316 

681 


5:18 

57 


85 

1*2 

398 

2*21 

180 

167 

575 



















































XII 


INDEX TO EEPORTS. 


Subject. 


Vol. 


No. 




Morgan, General Daniel. On the resolution (S. 84) to furnish a bronze | 

statue.-. 

Morgan, Daniel. On the bill (S. 84) to furnish a bronze statue of 
Morgan’s Louisiana Railroad and Steamship Company. On the bill (S. 

92) for the relief of.’ 

Morgan, James. On the bill (S. 1411) granting a pension to. 

Morgan, William O. On the bill (S. 899) granting a pension to. 

Morgan Peter K. On the bill (S. 1113) granting a pension to. 

Morris, Solomon. On the bill (S. 1100) for the relief of. 

Morris, W. J. On the bill (S. 1754) granting a pension to. 

Montgomery, Ala. On the bill (S. 464) for the erection of a public ' 

building at.. 

Mnlholland, Saint Clair A. On the bill (S. 1676) granting an increase of 

pension to. 

Murphy, Ailsey E. On the petition of. 

Myers, David H. On the petition of. . 

Myers, David H. On the bill (S. 991) granting a pension to. 

Myers, H. A. On the bill (S. 160) for the relief of. 


6 

5 

3 

5 

1 

3 

1 


1 

7 

1 

1 

3 


640 

526 

407 

483 

261 

343 

126 

612 


314 


702 

703 
14 

111 

445 


N. 

Naval Academy. On the bill (H. R. 5627) to amend section 1486, of the 

Revised Statutes in relation to engineer officers, graduates of the. 

Naval constructors. On the bill (S. 813) relating to the appointment of .i 

Naval officers. On the bill (S. 397) tor the relief of.i 

Naval service. On the bill (S. 826) for the relief of persons impressed 

into the.* 

Navy. On the bill (H. R. 3983) to provide a construction fund for the .. 

Navy. On the bill (S. 1210) for the relief of certain officers of the. 

Navy. On the bill (H. R. 5628) providing for the permanence of machin¬ 
ists in the.j.. 

Navy. On the bill (S. 918) for the relief of volunteer officers of.i 

Neat cattle. On the bill (H. R. 2006) relative to the importation of, &c.| 
Nebraska. On the memorial of the legislature of, in relation to the es- I 

tablishmeut of military jigs t.| 

Negroes. Report of the committee on the causes which led to the migra¬ 
tion from the Southern to the Northern States of the. (Part 2 and 3). 

Neill, James P. W. On the bill (S. 530) for the relief of.. 

Nelson, Emma G. On the bill (S. 281) for the relief of... 

Nelson, John, &c. On the bill (S. 208) granting a pension to. 

Netterfield, Herman. On the bill (S. 35) granting a pension to. 

Nevada. On the bill (H. R. 3708) to grant certain lands to the State of. 

Newcomb, Fanny. On the petition of.i 

New Era. On the bill (S. 557) authorizing the payment of the jirize- * 

money to the captors of.j 

Newlin, Annie P. On the bill (S. 810) granting a pension to. 

Newton, Walker A. On the bill (S. 1058) for the relief of. 

Nicaragua. On the resolution aiipointing a select committee to inquire 
into all claims of citizens of the United States against the Government i 

of. (To accompany bill S. 1650).| 

Nicholson, Somerville. On the bill (S. 201) for the relief of.i 

Niobrara, in Nebraska, to Fort Robinson, On the bill (S. 773) to estab- ' 

lish a military wagon road from. 

Nix, Jacob. On the bill (S. 620) granting a pension to. 

Nix, John B, On the bill (S. 347) for the relief of ....i 

North Carolina. On the resolution (S. 71) restoring the official letter- ' 

books of the executive department of the State of.' 

Northern Cheyenne. On the resolution (S. 120) to examine into 
the circumstances of their removal from the Sioux reservation to the 

Indian Territory. 

Norwegian bark Atlantic. On the bill (S. 850) to provide a commission ' 
for the adj udication of damages to. 


'Olcott, Egbert. On the bill (S. 235) granting increase of pension to 


6 666 

3 379 

1 279 

3 I 386 

6 653 

6 i 651 

I 

5 I 536 

3 i 380 

1 I 335 


1 i 86 


8 

3 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 


693 

461 

281 

187 

74 

656 

268 


1 

1 

3 


251 

233 

370 


5 

3 

1 1 
1 I 

7 

3 


7 



1 


532 

402 

132 

109 

710 

411 

703 

285 

267 






















































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XIII 


Siil»ject. Vol. 


Omaha. On the hill (S. S.'iG) extending the provisions of section 2997 ' 

of the Revised Statutes of the United States to the port of. 3 

O’Reagan Matthew. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1097).. 5 

Osage trust. On the hill (H. R. 2320.) for the relief of settlers upon 1 

Owen, Lizzie Wright. On the petition of.. 6 

C>wens, Thomas, &c. On the hill (H. R. 4606) authorizing the Presi¬ 
dent to ap]»oint assistant surgeons in the Ignited States Navy. 3 

Oyler, William D. On the hill (H. R. 23.59) for the relief of. 1 


P. 


Pacific Railroads. On resolution in relation to the discrimination of_ 

Page, D. M. On the hill (S. 12S8) to authorize the President to restore, 

to his former rank in the Army. 

Page, Frank A. On the hill (.S. 252) for the relief of.. ... 

Palmer, Mrs. Sallie A. On the hill (S. 1620) granting an increase of pen¬ 
sion to. 

Parsons, Amelia B. On the petition of.. 

Patrick, William P. On the hill (S. 480) for the relief of. 

Pattee, .John. On the itetitiou of. 

Pattee, Wallace. On the petition of. 

Paulding, Ann ^I. On the petition of. (To accompany hill S. 1802)_ 

Payne, David L. On the hill (.S. 440) granting a pension to. 

Payne, G. E. On the petition of. (To accom]>auy hill S. 1720). 

Payne, John A. On the hill (S. 1645) for the relief of. 

Pension cases. On the hill (S. 1.586) to regulate the fees of attorneys in. 
Pension claims. On the hill (S. 496) to provide for the examination of.. 
Pensions. On the hill (S. 1272) granting to certain persons an increase 

of. 

Persons. On the hill (8. 527) providing for the imprisonment of all per¬ 
sons sentenced hy United States couits, in the States wherein they 

were tried and convicted. . 

Perry, P. B. On the hill (S. 1546) granting a pension to. 

Phares, Jesse F. On the petition of. 

Phares, Jesse F. On the bill (S. 1185) granting a pension to. 

Phillips, Charles B. On the hill (S. 1276) for the relief of. 

Phillips, Peter. On the hill (S. 389) for the relief of. 

Pierce, Elizabeth II. On the hill (S. 545) granting a pension to. 

Pillshnry, Josiah H. On the hill (S. 762) for the relief of. 

Plass, Reuben H. On the hill (S. 259) for the relief of. 

Plattshurg. On the hill (S. 243) to secure a release hy the United States 

to the State of New York to some land in. (First session). 

Plunkett, Mary and Annie. On the hill (S. 1531) granting a pension to. 
Point San Jos^, California. On the hill (S. 890) relative to the title of 

certain settlers on lands in. 

Poland, James H. On the hill (S. 337) granting a pension to. 

Pollock, Sainnel. On the hill (S. 1706) granting a i»ension to. 

Ponca Indians. On the hill (S. 1298) for the relief of the. 

Pontiac, National Bank at, Illinois. On the hill (H. R. 2(549) to author¬ 
ize the Comptroller of the Currency to issue 8500 in neAv notes to. 

Port Huron and Northwestern Railway Com])any. On the resolution 
(S. 3) to authorize the city of Port Huron to grant the right of way 

to, A c. 

Porter, General Fitz-John. On the letter of the President, transmit¬ 
ting the ])roceedings of the board convened hy his orders on the case 

of. (To accompany hill S. 1139). 

Views of the minority (ui same case. (Parts 2 and 3). 

Postnia.sters. On the hills (S. 44, S. 246, and S. 262) for the relief of. 

(To accompany hill S. 903). 

Postal service. 'Special, to extend the time of. (To accompany hill S. 

. 516.) (First session). 

Postmaster-General. On the hill (S. 1419) to adopt a uniform canceling- 

ink and 8tamping-i)ad. 

Potts, Jose])h. On the hill (S. 293) granting a pension to. 

Poverty Island light-house. On the hill (S. (527) for the relief of work¬ 
men emidoyed in the construction of. 


5 

5 
1 

6 
1 
1 

5 
1 
7 

6 
5 
♦5 
5 
3 

5 


1 

6 

1 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

6 

3 

1 

6 

6 

1 


1 


1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

6 

3 


No. 


389 

558 

274 

592 

348 

32C> 


504 

562 

47 

579 

15 

48 
509 
112 
674 
665 
571 
624 
535 
418 


534 


161 

637 

192 

228 

451 

145 

414 

65 

289 

9 

610 

357 

177 

605 

670 


295 


203 


158 

158 

60 

3 

408 

600 

405 

















































INDEX TO REPORTS. 




XIV 


Subject. 


Vol. 


Powell, P. P. On the bill (H. R. 4439) to remove the disabilities ot... 

Powers, Eliza Howard. Ou the bill (S. 532) for the relief of. 

Preston, James. On the petition of. 

Price, Martin. Ou the petition of.. 

Prize-money. On the bill (S. 522) in relation to the distribution of. 

Public lands. On the bill (S. 666) relating to the.. .. 

Purman, J. J. On the bill (S. 14ri) granting an increase of pension to.. 


3 

1 

1 

5 

1 

3 

3 


Q. 


Quartermaster’s Department. On the bills (S. 192 and 577) to correct 

the date of the commission of certain officers of the. 

Views of the minority. (Part 2). 

Quartermasters’ supplies. On the bill (S. 529) to provide for the care 
and protection of.. 

R. 


3 

3 


' No. 


i 371. 

205; 
i 84- 
i 556 
249 
376 
439 


429 

429 

527 


I 


Railway companies. On the l)ill (S. 98) to settle accounts with certain- 

Railway service. On the bill (S. 1209) to tix the salaries of persons in the. 

Ransom, Dunbar R. On the bill (S. 390) for the relief of. 

Ransom, Dunbar R. On the bill (S. 390) authorizing the President to re¬ 
store to his former rank in the Army. 

Rauthe, Theodore. On the bill (S. 963) granting a pension to. 

Rathbun, Earl S. On the bill (S. 1808) granting a pension to. 

Rawson, Smith E. G. On the bill (S. 1082) for the relief of. j 

Rebel', Rachael J. On the bill (H. R. 2855) granting a pension to-- t 

Redden, W. O. On the bill (S. 1154) for the relief of the legal represent- | 

atives of. i 

Reed, Charles. On the bill (S. 342) granting a pension to. 

Reed, Charles. Or the bill (S. 957) granting a pension to. 

Reed, John N. On the bill (S. 52) for the relief of. 

Reed, John. On the bill (S. 1336) for the relief of. 

Reeve, James H. On the bill (S. 39) granting a pension to.[ 

Registered articles, &-c. On the bill (S. 843) to provide for the iudem- ' 

nity for lost.| 

Registers and receivers. On the bill (S. 490) relating to the fees of_ 

Reid, Sam. C. On the memorial of. (To accompany bill S. 1441). 

Reilly, Bernard, jr. On the bill (S. 147) to authorize the President to re¬ 
store to his former rank in the Army. 

Reuss, P. F. On the petition of. 

Revised Statutes to provide for the publication of a supplement to. (To i 

accompany joint resolution S. R. 19). First session.' 

Revised Statutes. On the resolution (S. 59) repealing j)art of section 

4693 of. 

Revised Statutes. On the bill (H. R. 5627) to amend section 1486 of the. 
Rhode Island. On the memorial of Greene, &c. (To accompauv bill 

S. 1366). .;. 

Views of the minority ou same. (Part 2). 

Richards, A. W. On the bill (S. 339) grantiug a pension to.! 

Richmond and Southwestern Railway Company. On the bill (S. 1593) j 

authorizing it to build bridges across Paniuuky River, &c. 1 

Riley, Thomas. On the bill (H. R. 2474) grantiug an increase of pension I 

to.. 

Rinquet, Frank. On the bill (S. 46) for the relief of.I 

Rio Grande. Ou the bill (S. 53) for the erection of posts for protection of. i 

Robinson, H. P. On the petition of. 

Robinson, Jerry. On the bill (S. 1017) granting a pension to. 

Robinson, Martha J. On the bill (H. R. 740) granting a pension to. 

Robinson, Solomon S. On the petition of. 

Roche, Hannah. On the petition of.I 

Rockafellow, B. F. On the bill (S. 1020) for the relief of. 

Rogers, Charles W. Ou the bill (S. 411) for the relief of. 

Rogers, Elisha F. Ou the bill (S. 1361) granting an increase of pension 

to. 

Rogers, ‘William A. On the petition of. 


1 239 

1 336 

1 146 


3 413 

3 349 

7 721 


496 

491 


3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 


397 

32 

242 

90 

468 

123 


1 I 100 

1 245 I 

3 347 f 

3 460 

3 345 \ 

V . 

( 

5 ' 533 

6 ' 666 

2 303 

2 303 

3 362 

3 : ‘ 485 

6 ' 589 

1 70 

1 I 40 

6 ' 593 

1 235 

3 481 

1 ! 183 

1 ’ 208 

6 ; 618 

1 159 

3 ; 354 

5 i 555 





























































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XV 


Subject. I Vol. 


Rolfe, Henry P. On the ])Ctition of. (To accompany bill S. 18)19). 7 

Koosevelt, Nelson J. On the bill (S. )1.>8) granting a pension to. 1 

Rose, James. On the i)etition of. 1 

Ross, William W. On the bill (S.707) for the relief of.i 1 

Rothrock, Thomas Hugh. Od the bill (vS. 970) granting a pension to... 1 

Rousseau, Maria A. On the bill (S. DDDi) granting arrears of pen.sion to. 3 

Ruby, Janies N. On the bill (H. R. 1P28) for the relief of., 5 

Rumbly, Thomas J. On the j>etitiou of citizens of Anderson County, 

Kansas, asking a pension for....•."... 1 

Ryan, Edmund T. On the bill (S. 103G) for the relief of. 1 i 

« 

S. 


San .Vntonio arsenal. On the bill (S. 54) to enable the Secretary of 

War to enlarge and protect the same... 

San Antonio and Mexican Border Railway Company. On the bill (S. 

115) authorizing the Secfetary of War to contract with the. 

Saint Louis. On the bill (S. 8*28) extending the ]>rivileges of sections 

2990 to 2997, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes, to the ])ort of. 

Sauljiaw, G. W. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 160G). 

Saxton, M. W. On the case of. 

Sayer, J. P. On the bill (H. R. 14G0) granting a pension to. 

Schell, Emma. On the bill (S. 1305) granting a pension to. 

Schroeder, Henry. On the bill (S. IGlo) granting a ])ension to. 

Schoyer, Samuel C. On the bill (H. R. 253) iucreasijig the pension of.. 

Scott, Rebecca T. On the bill (S. 1248) granting a pension to. 

Seaton, Lee R. On the bill (S. 499) granting a pension to. 

Seeley, David W. On the ])etition, Ac., of. 

S(dden, William. On the lull (S. 147G) for the relief of. 

Seymour, Henry P., Ac. On the bill (S. 710) for the relief of. 

Shannon, Joseph R. On the bill (S. :13) for the relief of. 

Shelley, William. (>n the bill (S. 733) granting an increase of pension 

. to. 

Shemelia, Mary A. r)n the bill (S. 182) granting a iiension to. 

Shei>ley, Mary E. Cn the jietition of. 

Shields, Edward, Ac. On the bill (S. 128) for the relief of. 

Shimoneck, William C. On the petition of. 

Shollenbnrger, Joseph B. On the ))etition of. 

Shouse, Hiram C. fju the bill (S. 1515) granting a pension to. 

Showman, Josejdi. On the bill (H. R. 28.57) granting a pension to. 

Shreve, Henry M. On the bill (S. 814) for the relief of. 

Shumaker, Lindsay M. On the petition of. 

Sidnej', Nebraska. On the bill (S. 754) relocating and improving mili¬ 
tary wagon-road from. 

Signal Service, United States Army. On the bill (S. 821) fixing the com¬ 
pensation of enlisted men in the... 

Simmons, Thomas M. On the bill (S. 47G) for the relief of. 

Slainni, Jane E. On the petition of. 

Slaughter, Henry. On the petition of. 

Smallwoo<l, Susan. On the bill (S. 1235) granting a pension to. 

Smith, Charles B. On the bill (S. 2.'^7) for the relief of the heirs of- 

Smith, Dennis. On the bill (S. 1.557) grantiug a pension to... 

Smith, Major D. C. On the bill (S. 1124) for the relief of the heirs of... 
Smith, George. On the bill (S. 4G5) granting an increase of pension to. 

Smith, Jacob J. On the bill (H. R. 20)19) granting a pension to. 

Smith, Henry C. On the bill (S. 797) granting a pension to. 

Smith, John! On the bill (S. 154) granting a pension to. 

Smith, Stephen D. On the bill (S. 1051) granting increase of })ensionto. 

Smith, Thornton. On the jtetition of. (To accompany bill S. 5G2). 

Snead, K., Ac. On the bill (H. R. 2iG7) for the relief of. 

Snider, .l(din. On the bill (S. 118G) granting a pension to. 

Snider, John. On the i)etition of... 

Snyder, .A..Mron. On the petition of citizens asking a pension for. 

Snyder, .John M. On the bill (S. 5*^2) granting a i»ension to. 

Soldiers’ ami sailors’ monument at Chalmette national cemetery, Louis¬ 
iana. On the bill (S. 137) to aid the comi)letion of. 


1 


)1 

3 

1 

3 ! 

3 

4 

3 
)1 
1 

5 . 
5 

1 

1 

G 

G 

4 
1 
1 
1 

5 
3 

3 
G 

1 

1 

1 

7 

5 

1 

1 

5 

:i 

7 

G 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 


No. 


720 

3)19 

19 

128 

171 

3.5.5 

5G4 

182 

)129 


41 

71G 

390 

454 

)104 

480 

474 

704 

4G9 

487 

24 
52)1 
511 
293 
155 

G31 

6G)1 

G82 

45 

214 

179 

521 

478 

399 

615 

133 

322 

286 

685 

518 

3)17 

199 

546 

4GG 

680 

590 

174 

25 
218 
230 
677 
229 
191 

82 

110 

56 
























































XVI 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


Soldiers and sailors. On tlie bill (S. 815) to increase the pension of cer¬ 
tain . 

Soldiers’ Union of West Virginia. On the bill (IT. R. -2771) granting 

condemned bronze cannon to... 

Soldiers of color. On the bills (S. 792 and S. 865) relative to the dis- 

.tribution of unclaimed pay and bounty moneys of. 

Soldiers’ Home. On the letter of the Secretary of War. (To accompany 

bill S. 1550).- .. 

Somerville and Davis. On the bill (S. 324) for the relief of.. .. 

South Carolina. On the bill (S. 1135) authorizing the Secretary of War 

to adjust and settle accounts for arms vith the State of. 

Sparr, Milton L. On the jietition of. (To accompany bill S. 1193). 

Sj)ear, Horace S. On the petition of. (To accom])any bill S. 1638)- 

Speer, Calvin T. On the bill (S. 223) to authorize the restoration of, to 

the rank of second lieutenant, United States Army, A c. 

Spencer, William C. On the bill (S. 662) for the relief of... . . 

Springtield and New London Railroad Conj]>any. On the bill (H. R. 55) 

granting right of way across Water Shops Pond. 

Spoftbrd, Henry M. On the memorial of.-. 

Staplin, George W. On the bill (S. 1464) granting arrears of pension to. 

Starr, Henry. On the bill (S. 13U6) for the relief of. 

Stearns, Hannah L. On the petition of. 

SteA’ens, James H. On the bill (S. 1166) granting a pension to. 

Stockstill, David W. On the bill (S. 366) for the relief of. 

Stockwell, William. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1729). 

Street, Harlow L. On the bill (S. 747) for the relief of. 

Stuart, Duncan M. V. On the bill (S. 809) for the relief of. 

Sutherland, Elizabeth. On the petition of. (To accompany bill (S. 

12.32). 

Sullivan, Patrick. On the bill (S. 426) for the relief of.. 

Supreme Court of the United States. On the bill (H. R. 1493) to define 
the duties of the rejjorter of the. 


Vol. j 


1 

1 

3 


3 

1 

3 

1 ! 


1 

6 


5 

6 i 
1 


3 

6 

6 

1 

3 


1 

1 


T. 


Tabor, N. A. W. On the bill (S. 983) for the relief of. 

Taylor Co., N. and G. On the bill (S. 1353) for the relief of. 

Taylor, Sophia Brooke. On the bill (S. 1249) granting a pension to-j 

Taylor, Mrs. Virginia. On the petition of. I 

Territories. On the bill (H. R. 5048) relating to the justices of tbe 

peace in the.| 

Terry, W. H. On the bill (S. 504) to correct the military record of.! 

Texas. On the bill (S. 967) to extend the jurisdiction of the northern 

district of... 

Thatcher, Samuel M. On the petition of.| 

Thomasson, Joseph F. On the ])etition of.i 

Thompson, C. J. E. On the petition of .. .•.j 

Thompson, G. W., Ac. On the bill (S. 759) for the relief of. 

Thornburg, Thomas T. On the bill (S. 1046) granting an increase of I 

pension to the widow of.’ 

Thornly, John. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1206).! 

Tibbetts, Charles W. On the petition of.. 

Tiedemann, Louis C. On the bill (S. 870) granting a pension to.j 

Tilton, Abigail S. On the bill (S. 205) granting arrears of pension to..! 

Tindall, Mary A. On the bill (S. 702) granting a pension to.. [ 

Todd, Harry I. On the bill (S. 1628) for the relief of.; 

Tolley and Eaton. On the bill (S. 170) for the relief of.i 

Towle, Albert. On the bill (S. 17) for the relief of.....i 

Towle, Albert. On the bill (S. 16) for the relief of.i 

Town, Hiram S. On the bill (S. 1202) for the relief of.’ 

Treasury Department. On the resolution appointing a committee to in- ' 

vestigate thetinauce reports, books, and accounts of the.^ 

Trekell, Carolina. On the bill (S. .534) granting a pension to.i 

Troisgros, E. On the bill (S. 677) for the relief of.j 

Tryon, Sjieucer W. On the bill (S. 982) granting a pension to. 

Tully, Redmond. On the bill (S. 592) for the relief of. 


1 

1 

5 

1 

7 

1 

1^ 

/ ; 

1 

1 

1 1 
3 


o 

1 ! 

3 ! 

1 i 
1 


No. 


75 

212 

359 

410’ 

51 

415 

172 

492 

151 

654 

103 

388 

549 

633 

81 

341 

625 

582 

76 
442 

224 

127 

400 


619 

416 

507 

156 


4.55 

447 


332 

10 

105 

104 

713 

173 

206 

545 

120 

676 

169 

683 

301 

52 

288 

406 

533 

222 

426 

231 

194 































































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XVII 


Subject. * 


Vol. 


No. 


Turner, Juiiiiis T. On the bill (S. 7:U) for'tlie relief of. 

Tyler, Julia Gardner. On the bill (S. 99*2) granting a pension to. 

U. 

United States courts. On the resolution (H. R. ) relating to the 
fees, salaries, and emoluments allowed tlie officers of. 

V. 

Vance, James, X'C. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1*20*5)... 

Vaughn, L. W. On the bill (S. 7b*2) for the relief of. 

Vaughn, R. On the bill (S. 7rt()) for the relief of. 

Vaughn, The mas A. On the bill (II. R. *2S()0) granting a pension to_ 

V'enable, S. W. On the ]>etition of. . 

Virginia Military Institute. On the bill (S. *290) to issue wall tents to, 

Ac. 

V’ollum, Edward P. On the bill (S. *290) for the relief of. 

Voorhees, Anne R. On the petition of. 

W. 

Wade, Mary. On the bill (H. R. *2450) granting a pension to. 

Wagner, Melissa. On the bill (II. R. *2*25) gran',ing a pension to. 

Walbridge, Holland & Brown. On the petition of. 

Walker, Mark. On the bill (S. *2) for the relief of.. 

Walker, Dr. Mary E. On the ])etition of. 

Walker, Paul. On the bill (I£. R. *2H59) granting a pension to. 

Wallace, Thomas B. On the bill (S. 305) for the relief of. 

War On the bill (S. 744) to amend the one hundred and third Article of. 
War, Secretary of. On the bill (S. ‘25S) to authorize the detail of an 
officer of the Army to take command t)f an expedition fitted out to go 

in search of the records of Sir John Franklin’s expedition. 

War, Secretary of. On the bill (S. 90) authorizing the delivery of four 
Napoleon guns, for the use of the Marion Artillery, to .4. B. Rhett, Ac. 

War. On the bill (S. 763) to make an additional article of. 

Ward, P. L. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1*267). 

Warner, Charles N. On the bill (S. 93) for the relief of. 

Warren, Henry. On the bill (S. 1*254) for the relief of. 

Webb, George*J. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1698). 

Welle, Anna M. On the bill (H. R. *2608) granting a pension to. 

Weil, Benjamin, Ac. On the bill (S. 1682) directing the Court of 

Claims to investigate the claims of... 

Weller, Frederick. ' On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1*233)... 

Wellford, P. A. On the petition of. 

West, Eliza. On the ptdition of .. 

West, Mary J. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1743). 

Wetmore, H. S. On the bill (S. 315) granting a pension to . 

White, Nicholas. On the bill (S. 83) for the relief of. 

White, Cornelia F. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 1564)... 

Whiting, Kate E. On the bill (S. 1*239) granting a pension to. 

Whiting, W. B. On the bill (S. 751) fjrauting a pension to. i 

Whitnev, Mattie S. On the bill (S. 1179) for the relief of. 

Wickwi're, George W. On the bill (S. 873) for the relief of. 

Wilie, George. On the bill (S. 1071) granting a pension to.. 

Williatns, Henrv. On the petition of. . 

Williams, JobirU. On the bill (H. R. 3077) granting a pension to.| 

Williams, Harrv E. On the bill (H. R. 3262) granting a pension to....I 

Williams, Henrv. On the bill (S. 1*201) granting a pension to.^ 

Williamson, Ma*rtha A. On the bill (S. 36*2) granting a pension to.I 

Wilson, Robert P. On the petition of. (To accompany bill S. 15*20)-^ 

Wilson, Henry. On the memorial of. 

Wilson, Hugh. On the petition of. .; 

Winder, W. A. On the bill (S. 1008) for the relief of. 

Wingate, Daviil. On the bill (S. 1130) for the relief of., 

S. REP.-II 


1 

7B 

7 

671 


1 

258 

1 

25*2 

3 

398 

3 

398 

3 

48*2 

1 

1 178 

1 

198 

1 

54 

3 

344 

5 

.567 

3 

434 

1 

144 

1 

137 

1 

237 

3 

467 

7 

718 

1 

42 

5 

5*28 

5 

529 

6 

638 

1 

247 

1 

3*29 

5 

551 

5 

559 

7 

67*2 


712 

1 

*2*25 

1 

21J 

6 

596 

6 

594 

1 

73. 

6 

574 


417 

3 

373 

1 

38 

3 

4*22 

3 

361 

1 i 

31*2 

1 

16 

5 

543 

6 

.588 

5 

489 

1 

20 

3 

394 

5 

.510 

1 

238 

1 

302 

1 

330 
























































XVIII 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


Wiuuebago Indians. On bill S. 224, S. R. 4, and on bill S. 1124, for 

the relief of. (To accompany bill S. 32^1). 

Winona. On the bill (S. 1192) to authorize the city of, to construct a 

bridge across the INIississippi River at. 

Wolff and Brown. On the petition of. 

Wollaston, Thomas P. On the bill (S. 1365) for the relief of.. 

Wood, Mrs. Rose M. On the bill (S. 1471) granting a iiension to. 

Woodward, George W. On the bill (H. R. 863) granting a pension to .. 
Worthington, Thomas. To assemble a court of inquiry in the case of. 

(To accompany joint resolution S. R. 15, 1st session ) . 

Worrell, James P. On the bill (S. 489) for the relief of. 

Wright, Crafts J. On the bill (S. 752) granting an increase of jicnsion to. 
Wright, Mrs. S. A. On the bill (S. 730) for the relief of. 

Y. 


Yarnell, Peter. On the petition of. 

Yerger, Sallie, et al. On the petition of. 

Yondell, Lamsford B., &c. On the petition of. (To accompany bill 

S. 1004). 

Yorktown. On the bill (H. R. 3966) relative to a monument at. 

Young, William. On the petition of. 

Z. 

Zimmerman, J. P., &c. On the bill (H. R. 2003) for the relief of. 































TABLE 


OF THE 


REi^oirrs 





COMMITTEES 


FOU THE 


FIK8T AND SECOND SESSIONS OF THE FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. 


Subject 


' Vol. 


No. 


COMMITTEE OX PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIOXS. 


Oil the credentials of Hon. Charles H. Bell, claiming a seat in the Senate: 

as a Senator from the State of New Hampshire. First session. I. 

On the memorials relating to the election of Hon. John J. Ingalls, a Sen¬ 
ator from the State of Kansas, hy the legislature of that State . I 2 

On the memorial of Henry M. Spoft'ord, claiming to he entitleil to thei 
seat in the Senate from the State of Louisiana now occupied by Will-| 
iam P. Kellogg. j 4 

COMMITTEE OX FOREIGX RELATIOXS. 


1 

277 


388 


On the bill (S. 8.50) to provide a commission for the adjudication of dam- j 
ages to the Norwegian bark Atlantic by collision with the United j 
States steam sloop-of-war Vandalia, and for payment of any award j 

made by said commission.; 

On the memorial of Sinn C. Reid, on the behalf of the captain, owners, 
officers, and crew of the late United States i»rivate-armed brig Gen¬ 
eral Armstrong, their heirs, executors, Ac. 

On the hill (H. R. 270) for the relief of Charles Dougherty. 


1 1 285 


3 1 347 

3 449 


COMMITTEE OX FIXAXCE. 


On the bill (S. 62) foi* the delivery to Samuel Lord, jr., receiver, of cer¬ 
tain bonds now in the Treasury of the United States. First session.. 
On the bill (S. 618) for the relief of Herman Holman and Crawford Fair¬ 
banks . .-.I 

On the bill (S. 324) for the relief of Somerville and Davis. 

On the bill (S. 17) for the relief of Albert Towle, postmaster at Beatrice, | 

Nebraska. I 

On the ])etition of Lamsford B. Yondell and others. (To accompany bill | 

S. 1004).. 

On the bill (11. R. 2188) for the relief of Thomas Kearney. 

On the bill (H. R. 2649) to authorize the Comptroller of the Currency to 
issue §500 in new notes to the national bank at Pontiac, Ill., to re¬ 
place a like amount which have never been signed. j 

On the bill (H. R. 710) for the relief of Jackson Grubb, of McMinn 

County, Tennessee...-. 

On the petition of Thomas Hastie .. 

On the hill (H. K. 393) for the relief of W. B. Farrar. 

On the bill (S. 436) for the relief of Charles Clinton. 

On the bill (H. R. 2802) for the relief of the owner of the bark Grape- 

shot . 

On the bill (S. 1353) for the relief of Naud G. Taylor A: Co. 

On the bill (S. 1090) for the relief of John I). Defrees. 

On the bill (H. R. 2797) for the relief of certain citizens of Lynchburg, 

Va., ifcc. 

On the bill (H. R. 2567) for the relief of E. K. Snead and his sureties... 

On the bill (S. 1628) for the relief of Harry 1. Todd. 

On the 1 ill (S. 759) for the relief of G. W. Thompson. 


1 7 

1 50 

1 51 

1 52 

1 88 

1 160 

1 295 

1 295 

1 325 

1 327 

3 374 

3 375 


3 

3 

3 


381 

416 

428 


3 

3 
•7 

4 


465 

677 

683 

713 






































XX 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. 


On the bill (S. 1424) in relation to permanent and indelinite appropria¬ 
tions.. 


COMMITTEE OX COMMERCE. 

On the bill (H. R. 2006) in relation to the importation of neat cattle for 

breeding purposes. 

On the bill (S. 856) extending the provisions of section 2997 of the Re¬ 
vised Statutes of the United States to tlie port of Omaha, in the 

State of Nebraska... 

On the bill (S. 828) extendiug the privileges of sections 2990 and 2997, 
inclusive, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, to the port of 

Saint Louis, in the State of Missouri.. 

On the bill (S. 829) extending the provisions of section 2997 of the Re¬ 
vised Statutes of the United States to the i)orts of Kansas City and 

Saint Joseph, in the State of Missouri. 

On the bill (S. 1192) to authorize the city of Winona to construct, op¬ 
erate, and maintain a wagon-bridge across the Mississippi River at 

Winona... 

On the memorial of Merrick, Fowler and Esseltyne, and other business 

men and firms of Michigan.. 

On the bill (S. 1610) asking for the erection of a light-house at the en¬ 
trance of Little Traverse Harbor on Lake Michigan. 

On the bill (S. 1593) authoriziug the Richmond and Southwestern Rail¬ 
way Company to build bridges across the Pamuuky and Mattaponi 

Rivers. .. 

On the bill (S. 938) authorizing the Astoria and Winnemucca Railroad 
Company to construct bridges across Young’s Bay or River and Lewis 

and Clarke’s River.) .7. 

On the bill (S. 1723) authorizing the Secretary.of the Treasury to issue 
an American register to the bark Annie Johnson. 

COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS. 

On the joint resolution (S. Res. 15) requiring the assembling of a court 

of inquiry in the case of Thomas Worthington. First session. 

On the bill (S. 243) to authorize the Secretary of War to release certain 
lands of the United States to the people of the State of l^ew York. 

First session.’ 

On the bill (S. 53) making appropriation for the erection of suitabie 

posts for the protection of the Rio Grande frontier.... 

On the bill (S. 54) to enable the Secretary of War to purchase land to 

enlarge and protect the San Antonio Arsenal. 

On the bill (S. 744) to amend the one hundred and third Article of War! 

On Executive Document No. .54. (To accompany bill S. 106). 

On the bill (S. 105) for the relief of John Gault,"jr. 

On the bill (S. 128) for the relief of Edward Shields and' others' 

On the bill (S. 468) for the relief of John W^. Cheeks. 

On the bill (S. 2.52) for the relief of Frank A. Page. 

On the bill (S. 480) for the relief of William P. Patrick. 

On the bill (S. 368) for the relief of Emanuel Klauser. .!'*!.'!!!! 

On the bill (H. R. 2803) for the relief of Doddridge and Davis . . . . . [ . . . . 

On the bill (S. 296) for the relief of Edward P. Vollum.!!! *!. 

On the bill (S. 401) for the relief of Peter Meagher.!.**.*.*. 

On the bill (S. 137) to aid in the completion of the soldiers’ and sailors’ 

monument at Chalmette National Cemetery, Louisiana. 

On the memorial of the legislative assembly of Montana Territior'y for 
the establishment of a cavalry post at or near Henry’s Lake in that 

Territory.*. 

On the resolution (S. Res. 8) correcting the military record of wickliffe 

Cooper, deceased.. 

On the bill (S. 332) authorizing the appointment of William English to 
a second lieutenancy in the Army. 













































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XXI 


Subject. 


Vol. 


No. 


On the bill (S. 188) correctinjjj the military ihnster-in of James G. How¬ 
ard ...".. 


69 


On the bill (S. 159) to ])rovi(le for the sale of certain i)ortions of the P'ort 

Leavenworth military reservation. 

On the bill (S. 517) for the relief of Capt. J. R. Campbell. 

On the bill (S. 747) for the relief of Harlow L. Street. 

On the bill (S. 517) for the relief of Francis S. Davidson. 

On the bill (S. 731) for the relief of Maj. Jnnins T. Turner. 

On the bill (S. 198) for the relief of Capt. Bird L. Fletcher. 

On the memorial of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Montana 

in relation to%nilitary telegraph..; 

On the joint memorial of the Nebraska legislature praying for the estab¬ 
lishment of a military post. 

On the memorial of Alexander S. Brownlow. 

On the ))etition of William B. Gnthrey. 

On the l)ill (S. 377) for the relief of Robert Ewing.. 

On the bill (S. 1100) for the relief of Solomon Morris. 

On the bill (S. 4*26) for the relief of Patrick Sullivan.^ 

On the bill (S. 1'7) for the relief of Samnel Castleman. 

On the bill (S. 219) relating to certain brevet appointments. 

On the bill (S. 773) making ai)proi)riations for a military wagon-road 

from Niobrara, in Nebraska, to Fort Robinson, in said State. 

On the bill (S. 754) to authorize the relocation and improvement of the 
military wagon-road from Sidney, Nebraska, via Fort Robinson, Arc..' 
On the bill (S. 194) for the disposal of Fort Harker military reservation. 
On the bill (S. 193) to provide for the disposition of the Fort Lamed 

military reservation. 

On the bill (S. 2) for the relief of Mark Walker. 

On the bill (S. 55(5) to authorize the Presi<lent to api)oint Sergeant John 

Dolan a second lieutenant and i)lace him on the retired list. 

On the bill (S. 80) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to ascer- 
tiiin and report to Congress the amonnt of money expended and in¬ 
debtedness assumed by the State of Kansas in repelling invasions and 

8n])pressing Indian hostilities. 

On the bill (S. 50) for the relief of Janies A. Barr. 

On the memorial of Beverly Kennon. 

On the bill (S. 389) for the relief of Peter Phillips.. 

On the bill (S. 390) anthoriziim the President to restore Capt. Dunbar 

R. Ransom to his former ranx in the Army. 

On the bill (S. 388) for the relief of Jacob B. King. 

On the bill (S. 131) for the relief of John W. Chickering. 

On the bill (S. 214) for the relief of Robert W. Dunbar.^ 

On the bill (S. 223) to authorize the restoration of Calvin T. Speer to 
the rank of second lientenant United States Army, and to pay him 

arrears of jiay. 

On the bill (S. 533) providing for the ndirement of First Lieut. Walter , 

F. Halleck with the rank and ])ay of lieutenant-colonel. 

On the letter of the President of Jniie .5, 1879, transmitting the proceed- 
iugs of the* board convened by his orders on the case of General Por- ; 

ter.. 

Views of the minority on same. (Part 2). 

^ Views of the minority on same. (Part 3). 

On the bill (S. 56) for the relief of Edward Braden and J. W. Angus- j 

On the bill (S. 965) for the relief of D. T. Kirby.I 

On the bill (S. .592) for the relief of Redmond Tnlly.1 

On the bill (S. 175) for the relief of P. P. G. Hall . 

On the bill (H. R. 1153) to restore to the public domain a part of the 
military reservation known as Fort Ripley reservatio^i, in the State ot 

Minnesota. 

On the bill (S. 952) for the relief of James Burk. 

On the bill (S. 290) authorizing the Secretary of War to issue wall-tents ; 

to the superintendent of the Virginia Military Institute.' 

On the bill (S. 287) for the relief of the heirs of Charles B. Smith. 

(Jn the ])etition of Mrs Flora A. Darling.j 

On the bill (S. 876) for the relief of Edward Corselius and seven other I 
j)ersons. 


1 71 

1 72 

1 76 

1 ' 77 

1 78 

1 79 

1 ' 85 

1 86 

1 , 87 

1 115 

1 122 

1 126 

1 127 

1 129 

1 , 130 

1 132 

1 133 

1 135 

1 136 

1 137 

1 138 


1 139 

1 140 

1 ' 143 

1 145 

1 146 

1 147 

1 148 

1 150 


1 , 151 

1 152 


1 ; 158 

1 ' 1.58 

1 158 

1 ' 162 

1 i 193 

1 ' 194 

1 ! 195 


1 196 

1 I 197 

1 ' 198 

1 , 199 

1 I 200 

1 ' 201 



























































XXII 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


Vol. 


On the hill (H. R. *2902) to place Williani Gaines, late ordnance sergeant 

United States Army, on the retired list. 

On the resolution (S. Res. 3) to authorize the Secretary of War to sell or 
lease to the Port Huron and Northwestern Railway Company a por¬ 
tion of the Fort Gratiot military reserve, &c. 

On the letter of the Secretary of War dated January 5, 1880. (To accom¬ 
pany hill, S. 1205). 

On the hill (H. R. 2771) to construe an act granting condemned hronze 

cannon to the Soldiers’ Union, of West Virginia.... 

On the hill (S. 98) to provide for the settlement of accounts with certain|j 

railway companies therein named. 

On the bill (S. 474) for the relief of William McGovern... 

On the hill (S. 1075) to authorize Dr. Daniel M. Apple, of the United 
States Army, to receive pay for discharging the duties of physician to 

the Mescalero Apache Indian Agency, New Mexico.-. 

On the hill (S. 613) for the relief of Jacob D. Jones. 

Oh the hill (S. 944) for the relief of John Grierson. 

On a resolution of the Senate. (To accompany hill S. 1331, authorizing 

‘ a retired list of non-commissioned officers, &c.). 

On the hill (S. 1031) for the relief of Edward T. Benton. 

On the hill (S. 1087) for the relief of John F. Clancey. 

On the hill (S. 710) for the relief of Henry P. Seymour and others. 

On the hill (S. 853) to pay members of certain military organizations 

therein named. 

On the bill (S. 933) for the relief of Lieut. Edward S. Farrow. 

On the hill (H. R. 3783) to remove the charge of desertion from the mili¬ 
tary record of Jerry Foley .. 

On the hill (H. R. 1305) aholi.shing the military reservations of Fort 
Abercrombie, Fort Seward, and Fort Ransom, all in the Territory of 

Dakota, &c. .*. j 

On the hill (S. 916) to authorize the United States to secure a title to 
certain military and timber reservations embraced within the limit 

of Fort Union military reservation..-.! 

On the hill (S. 1008) for the relief of W. A. Winder. 

On the case of M. W. Saxton. I 

On the hill (S. 313) for the relief of Jacob E. Burbank.| 

On the hill (S. 489) for the relief of James P. Worrell...i 

On the hill (S. 129) authorizing the restoration of the name of Thomas i 
H. Carpenter to the rolls of the Army, and providing that he be placed 

on the list of retired officers. 

On the hill (S. 93) to authorize the restoration of Charles N. Warner to 

his former relative rank and x»osition in the Army. 

On the hill (S. 664) for the relief of Lieut. Col. Schuyler Hamilton. 

On the hill (S. 821) fixing the compensation of enlisted men in the Sig 

nal Service, United States Army. 

On the petition of Perry E. Brocchus. (To accompany hill S. 1395). 

On the bill (H. R. 3347) to authorize the Secretary of War to furnish 
four pieces of condemned ordnance for the soldiers’monument at Ma¬ 
rietta, Ohio.. 

On the hill (S. 1036) for the relief of Edmund T. Ryan. 

t)n the ])etition of Ernst Hein. (To accompany hill S. 1484). 

0 1 the hill (S. 1058) for the relief of Walker A. Newton. 

On the hill (H. R. 4439) to remove the disabilities of Sergeant P. P. 
Powell. 


0 


1 ! 

I 


1 I 

1 I 
1 I 


1 

1 

1 

1 ! 
1 
1 
1 

1 

1 I 
1 


1 I 


1 I 
1 I 
1 i 
1 * 
1 i 


1 

1 

1 

1 

1 


1 

1 

3 

3 

3 


On the hill (H. R. 3966) to carry into efi'ect the resolution of Congress 
adojfied on the 29th day of October, 1781, in regard to a monumental 

column at Yorktown, Virginia, and for other xuiriK)ses.. 

On the resolution (S. Res. 79) directing the Secretary of the Treasury 
to adjust and settle the accounts between the United States and the 

State of Florida. 

On the letter of the Secretary of War in answer to Senate resolution of 

March 4, 1878. (To accomjjany hill S. 1490) .. 

On the petition of Robert P. Wilson. (To accompany hill S. 1520).. 

On the hill (S. 1154) for thereliefof the legal representatives of William 
0. Redden. 


3 

3 

3 

3 


3 


No. 


202 


203 

204 
212 

239 

240 


271 

273 

275 

283 

291 

292 

293 

294 

297 

298 


299 


300 

302 

304 

308 

311 


310 

320 

321 

322 

323 


328 

329 

369 

370 

371 


372 


I 378 

I 382 
I 394 

I 39T 

























































INDEX TO KEPOKTS. 


XXIII 


Subject. 



Oil the letter of the Secretary of War, transmitting a communication 
from the Commissioners of the Soldiers’ Home,.in Washington, 1). C. 

(To accom]>aiiy bill S. Ib-'id) .... 

On the resolution (S. Kes. 71) directing the restoration of the ofticial 
letter-books of the executive department of the State of North Caro- j 

On the bill (S. 74) for the relief of Lieut. Frank P. Grass. i 

On the bill (S. 3i)0) authorizing the President to restore Capt. Dunbar 

K. Kansom... 

On the bill (S. 113.5) authorizing the Secretary of War to adjust and 

settle accounts for arms with the State of South Carolina. 

On the oill (S. 131) for the relief of John W. Chickering.' 

On the bill (S. 9d5) for the relief of D. T. Kirby . 

On the bill (8.254) authorizing the President to jilace the name of Her¬ 
man Higgs on the list of retired otlicers of the Army. 

On the bills (S. 192 and S. .577) to correct the dates of ceA^ain quarter¬ 
masters of the United States Army, Ac. 

Views of the minority on same. (Part 2). 

On the bill (S. IbO) for the relief of H. A. Myers. 

On the bill (S. 230) for the relief Capt. C. H. Briggs. 

On the bill (S. .504) to correct the military record of William H. Terry ..j 
On the bill (S. 229) for the relief of Thomas S. Bridges.| 

On the jietition of (ieorge W. Graham. 

On the bill (S. 1039) to authorize the restoration of William McGee to 

"* the rank of second lieutenant in the Army. 

On the bill (S. 147) to authorize the President to restore Bernard Reilly, 

junior, to his former rank in the Army. 

On the bill (S. 53'’) for the relief of .James P. W. Neill. 

On the bill (S. 904) for the relief of M«j. J. W. Candee. 

On the bill (S. 1124) for the relief of the heirs of D. C. Smith. 

On the bill (S. 1330) for the relief of John Reed. 

Op the bill (H. R. 5^94) to authorize the sale of Fort Logan, Montana 

Territoiy, and to establish a new })ost on the frontier . 

On the bill (H. R. 3351) for the relief of Rev. Paul E. Gillen. 

On the bill (S. 7,5**) for the relief of James M. Bacon. 

On the bill (S. 149) for the relief of John Gotshall. . 

On the bill (S. R(*s. S4) to furnish a bronze statue of General Daniel Mor¬ 
gan to the Cowpens centennial committee of Sjiartanburg, S. C. 

On the bill (S. 529) to ])rovide for the better care and protection of 

qu.artermasters’ supplies . 

On the bill (S. 25S) authorizing the Secretary of War to detail an otti- 
cer of the Army to take command of the exjiedition fitted out by 
Morrison and Brown to search for the records of Sir .John Franklin’s 

ex])edition. Arc. 

On the bill (S. 95) to authorize the Secretary of War to deliver to A. B. 
Rhett, T. Pinckney Lowndes, and others four Napoleon guns, with 
caissons and harness, now at Grcensborough, N. C., for use of the Ma¬ 
rion Artillery, Charleston, S. C.I 

On the bill (S. 1710) for the relief of William H. Gill.j 

On the bill (S. 14S8) to provide for promotions in the Army of the ' 

United Spates.| 

On the bill (S. 1288) to authorize the President to restore D. M. Page to 

his former rank in the Army, and place him u)>on the retired list. 

On the bill (S. 14.55) authorizing the President to apiioint John W. Hoff¬ 
man a second lieutenant in the United States Army. 

On the bill (H. R. 1128) for the relief of .James N. Ruby.•.j 

On the petition of William S. Hansell and Sous. (To accompany bill | 

S. 175*) ..-.I 

On the bill (S. 1545) for the relief of Lieut. .John A. Payne.> 

On the bill (S. 355) for the relief ()f David W. Stockstill.j 

On the bill (S. 1555) for the relief <d' William P. Chambliss.| 

On the bill (S. 1355) for the relief of Lowell A. Chamberlin.| 

On the bill (S. 1311) for the relief of Edward Byrne.| 

On the bill (S. 11.55) for the relief of Carlile Boy<l.i 

On the bill (S. 1355) for the relief of Henry Starr.I 


3 


3 

3 

3 

.3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 


5 

5 

5 

5 


5 


.5 

5 

5 

5 


5 

() 

5 ) 

5 

5 

6 
5 
5 


No. 


410 ’ 


411 

412 

413 


415 

419 

420 

424 

429 
! 429 

I 445 
1 445 

' 447 

I 448 
I 455 
I 458 


459 


! 4t;o 
451 
; 452 

' 455 

458 


I 520 
I 522 

524 

525 


I 525 


i 527 


528 


529 

550 

5()1 

552 


I 553 
j 554 

523 
I 524 
5‘25 
I 525 
1 527 

I 529 
530 
I 533 




























































XXIV 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


I 


Subject. 


On the hill (S. 763) to make an additional article of war..... 

On the resolution (S. Res. 84) to furnish a bronze statue of Gen. Daniel 
Morgan to the Cowpens centennial committee of Spartanburg, S. C .. 
On the bill (S. 1614) to regulate the promotion and fix the rank of line- 

officers of the Army. 

On the bill (S. 662) for the relief of William C. Spencer. 

On the bill (H. R. 3656) for the relief of John Hohstadt.. 

On the bill (S. 1742) in relation to the Fort Sedgwick military reserva¬ 
tion ... 

On the bills (H. R. 952 and S. 295) for the relief of the Fifteenth and 

Sixteenth Regiments Missouri Cavalry Volunteers. 

On the bill (H. R. 6033) to pay Hiram Johnson and others certain sums 
of money, &c. 


Vol. 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

7 


COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS. 


On the bill (S. 125) to appoint Spruille Braden an ensign in the United 

States Navy. First session... 

On the bill (S. 286) for the relief of John S. Cunningham. 

On the petition of John Thornley. (To accompany bill S. 1206). 

On the bill (S. 48) for promoting the efficiency of the corps of chaplains 

of the United States Navy. 

On the bill (S. 533) for the relief of Charles W. Abbot and W. W. Barry.. 

On the bill (S. 522) relative to the distribution of prize-money. 

On the bill (S. 557) to authorize the payment of i)rize-money to the 

cai^tors of the steamboat New Era No. 5.. 

On the bill (S. 397) for the relief of certain naval officers.. 

On the bill (S. 1130) for the relief of David Wingate. 

On the bill (H. R. 4606) authorizing the President to api)oint Drs. 

Thomas Owens and William Martin. 

On the bill (S. 813) to amend section 1402 of the Revised Statutes rela¬ 
tive to the appointment of assistant naval constructors.7. 

On the bill (S. 918) for the relief of certain volunteer officers of the 

Navy. 

On the bill (S. 826) for the relief of several i)ersons impressed into the 

United States naval service... 

On the petition of Stephen A. McCarty. (To accom])any S. Res. 96)_ 

On the bill (S. 201) for the relief of Somerville Nicholson. 

On the bill (S. 626) for the relief of Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal 

Company. 

*On the bill (S. 867) for the relief of Joseph G. Ayres. 

On the bill (H. R. 3534) to authorize and equip an expedition to the 

Arctic seas. 

On the bill (S. 542) for the relief of Benjamin C. Bampton. 

On the bill (S. 543) for the relief of Jal)ez Burchard. 

On the bill (H. R. 562'5) relating to machinists in the Navy. 

On the l)ill (S. 1538) authorizing the closing of the accounts of the late 

Rear-Admiral A. H. Foote, U. S. N ... 

Oil the bill (H. R. 4842) to reinstate R. W. Barkley as cadet midshipman 

in the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. 

On the bill (S. 1210) for the relief of certain officers of the Nav'y. 

On the bill (H. R. 39-3) to provide a construction fund for the Navy, 

and for other purposes. 

On the bill (H. R. 5627) to amend section 1486 of the Revised Statutes 
in order to jireserve the meaning of the original law from which it 
was taken with reference to the rank of engineer officers, graduates 
of the Nav al Academy. 

COMMITTEE ON THE .JUDICIARY. 

On the petitions of Mrs. Virginia Taylor, executrix of Joseph Taylor, 
and Alexander Dounon, administrator of David Dunlap, petition of 
David B. Tennant, and the petition of Watson McGill and Company.. 

On the petition of Sallie Yerger, Maggie J. Miller, et al. 

On the bill (S. 527) that all persons sentenced to imprisonment by the 
ITnited States courts shall be confined in the prisons of the States 
wherein they were tri^^d and convicted. 


1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 


3 

5 


5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

6 
6 

6 


6 


1 

1 

1 


No. 


638 

640 

652 

654 

658 

661 

681 

725 


4 

149 

206 

209 

215 

249 

251 

279 

330 

348 

379 

380 

386 

395 

402 


472 

508 

512 

519 

530 

536 

541 

595 

651 

653 


666 


156 

157 


161 



















































‘INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XXT 


Subject. i Vol. 


On the j>etition.s of S. W. Venable, of Virginia, au<l Dunlap and Craw¬ 
ford, of Louisville, Ky.I 1 

On the petition of P. A. Wellford.I 1 

On the resolution of the House of Re})re.sentatives for the appointment i 
of a joint committee to investigate the present system of salaries, fees, * 
and emoluments allowed otlicers of the United States courts, and for 

other purposes.' 1 

On the bill (S. 280) for the relief of Ann Gregory.; 1 

On the bill (S. 87) for the relief of John J. Key and AV. G. M. Davis..; 1 

On the bill (S. 007) to extend the jurisdiction of the northern district of i 

Texas.: 1 

On the bill (H. R. 3004) to remove the political di.sabilities of \V. S. ; 

Maxwell. 1 

On the bills (S. 199 and 11. R. 2377) for the relief of Catherine I. Gillis., 3 

On the bill (H. R. 1493) detining the duties of the reporter of the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States, fixing his compensation, »&.c.^ 3 

On the bill (S. 1370) for the relief of Ella Long. 3 

On the resolution of the Senate, passed on the 10th of June, 1880, to 
impiire, ascertain, and report which of the Pacific railroads are dis- , 
criminating against the United States in favor of private shippers, ttc.i 5 
On the bill (S. 1082) directing the Court of Claims to investigate the ' 
claims of Benjamin Weil and La .\bra Silver Mining Company. 7 


COM.MITTEf''. ON POST-OFFICK.S AND POST-ROADS. 


On the bill (S. 010) to extend the time of .special postal service until 

service can be obtained by advertisement. First .session. 

On the bills (S. 44, S. 240, and S. 202) and the memorial of Harvey 
S])alding, for the relief of certain postmasters and late postmasters in' 

the States therein named. (To accompany bill S. 903). 

On the bill (S. 702) for the relief of Josiah H. Pillsbury. 

On the bill (H. R. 2003) for the relief of J. P. Zimmerman and H. P. 

Snow..-. 

On the bill (S. 843) providing for the delivery of dutiable articles in the 

mails and for indemnity for lost registered articles. 

On The bill (S. 411) for the relief of Charles W. Rogers. 

On the bill (S. 10) for the relief of Albert Towle... 

On the bills (S. 285 and S. 089) for the relief of Charles Collins. 

On the bill (S. 1209) to designate, classify', and fix the salaries of persons 

in the railway mail service. 

On the bill (S. 1103) for the relief of Manly B. McNilt. 

On the bill (S. 303) for the relief of George Hollingsworth . 

On the bill (S. 1202) for the relief of Hiram S. Town.. 

On the bill (S. 1419) anthorizing the Postmaster-General to adopt a uni¬ 
form canceling-ink and stamping-])ad. 

On the bill (S. 1020) for the relief of B. F. Kock.afellow. 

On the bill (S. 983) for the relief of N. A. W. Tabor... 

On the bill (H. R. 2793) for the relief of Rachel Martin. 

On the bill (S. 72) for the relief of John B. Davis. 

On the bill (S. fiO) for the relief of B. S. James. 

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LAND.S. 


1 


1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 


3 

6 

() 

6 

6 

G 


On the bill (S. 019) for the relief of certain actual settlers on the Kan- ; 

sas trust and diminished re.serve lands in the State of Kansas....' 1 

On the bill (S. 19) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to ascertain j 
and certify the amount of land located with niilitary warrants in the , 

States described therein... j 1 

On the bill (S. 316) for the relief of home.stead settlers on the public j 
lands 1 

On* the i)iil (S. 490) in relation to certain fees allowed registers and j 
receivers..........•....••• .................' 1 

On the bill (S. 768) for the reclamation of arid and waste lands. 1 

On the bill (S. 769) to enable the State of Colorado to take lauds in lieu ; 
of sixteenth and thirty-si.VJi sections, found to be mineral lands. 1 


No. 


178 

213 


258 

260 

280 


332 


360 
I 396 

! 400 

: 476 


504 

712 


3 


60 

I 65 

I 

96 

100 
159 
i 288 

; 2t)0 

i 

336 
:153 
' 391 

, 406 

' 408 

618 
; 619 

I 643 
, 649 

I 650 


j 89 

I 

121 

241 

i 245 
I 250 

I 256 













































XXVI 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


Ou the bill (H. R. ‘2326) for the relief of settlers upon the Osage trust 

aud diminished reserve lands in Kansas, and for other purposes.. 

On the bill (H. R. 4‘244) for the establishment of titles in Hot Springs, 

and for other purposes.. . 

On the bill (H. R. 2359) for the relief of William D. Oyler.. 

On the bill (S. 666) relating to the public lands of the United States. ... 
On the bill (S. 92) for the relief of Morgan’s Eouisiana and Texas Rail¬ 
road and Steamship Company... 

On the bill (S. 989) for the relief of settlers on the public lands, and to 
provide for the rejiayment of certain fees and commissions paid on 

void entries of public lands. 

On the bill (H. R. .5502) granting to the Territory of Dakota certain 
lauds in the county of Yankton, in said Territory, for an asylum for 

the insane, and for school purposes. I 

On the bill (H. R. ‘2481) to establish an additional land district in the 

State of Kansas. . 

On the bill (H. R. 3708) to grant to the State of Nevada lands in lieu 

of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections in said State. 

On the bill (H. R. 1064) granting to the corporate authorities of Council 
Bluffs, Iowa, for public iises, a certain lake or bayou, situated near 

said city. 

On the bill (S. 347) for the relief of John B. Nix... 


Vol. 


1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

5 

6 
6 
6 

6 

7 


No. 


274 

309 

3‘26 

376 

407 

553 

620 

639 

656 

657 
710 


COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. 


On the bill (S. 310) for the relief of the heirs aud legal representatives 

of Israel Uodge. 

On the bill (S. 890) relating to the equitable and legal rights of parties 
in possession of certain lands and improvements thereon in the State 
of California, and to provide jurisdiction to determine those rights... 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS. 


3 346 

3 357 


On the bill (S. 1195) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to deposit 

certain funds in the United States Treasury in lieu of investments_ 

On the bills (S. ‘224, S. Res. 4, S. 11‘24) for the relief of the Winnebago 

Indians, of Wisconsin. (To accompany bill S. 3*23). 

On the bills (S. 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 7?^1, 7^2, 7K3, 784, 78.5, 786, 
and 9‘27) for the relief of John Hensley and twelve other persons 

therein named. 

On the bill (S. 1*254) for the relief of Henry Warren. 

On the bill (S. 1152) for the relief of Basil Moreland . 

On the bill (S. 451) to reimburse the Creek orphan fund. 

COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS. 


1 186 

1 -253 


3 

5 

6 
6 


398 

551 

575 

599 


Ou the bill (S. 446) granting a pension to Jefferson Kinder. First session. 

On the petition of Samuel M. Thatcher. 

On the petition of Zenas Herrick.. . 

On the petition of Squire Moore. 

On the petition of Phebe A. Grivet. 

On the petition of David H. Meyers. 

Ou the petition of Amelia B. Parsons. 

On the petition of Henry Williams... 

Ou the petition of Margaret Cahill. 

On the petition of .Jacob S. Hunt. 

On the j)etitiou of .James Rose.... 

On the bill (S. 362) granting a pension to Amos Williamson. 

On the bill (S. ‘260) granting a pension to Nathaniel Aiken. 

On the bill (S. 184) granting a pension to Robert L. Hancock. 

On the bill (S. .5,35) granting a pension to W. H. Miller. 

On the l)ill (S. 499) granting a pension to Lee R. Seaton. 

On the bill (S. 154) granting a pension to .John Smith. 

On the bill (S. ‘277) granting a pension to A. L. Anderson. 

On the bill (S. 411) granting a pension to John H. Ferrell . 

On the bill (S. 477) for the relief of Gen. Ward B. Burnett. 


1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 


6 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 
‘25 
26 
07 

28 





















































INDEX TO KEPORTS. 


XXVII 


Subject. 


Vol. No. 



On the bill (S. 4*27) granting a j>ension to Frank Donohue. 

On the bill (S. 052) granting a pension to Marshall^ D. Ellis.. 

On the bill (S. 1136) granting a i)ension to Philip Braunstetter.I 

On the bill (S. 342) granting a pension to Charles Reed.: 

On the bill (S. 341) granting a pension to Peter Getert.! 

On the bill (S. 376) granting a ])ension to Hiram Johnson.i 

On the bill (S. 475) granting a pei^sion to Henry J. Churchman. I 

On the bill (8. 367) granting an increase of pen.sion to Isabel L. and 

Isabel ^I. P^vans. 

On the petition of Crafts J. Wright. 

On the petition of W. B. Whiting.I 

On the bill (8. 139) granting a i)ension to Henry A. Armstrong. 

On the bill (8. 315) granting a pension to Henry Stanley Wetmore. 

On the bill (8. 35) granting a pension to Herman Netterfield.| 

On the bill (8. 815) granting increase of jiensions to certain pensioned i 
soldiers and sailors who are entirely helpless from injuries received , 

or disease contracted while in the ignited States service.I 

On the petition of Mrs. Thomas Hendrickson. j 

On the petition of Hannah L. Stearns.. 

On the jietition of certain citizens of Carbon County, Pennsylvania_; 

On the jietition of Isaac Vansant. 

On the jietition of James Preston.. 

On the bill (8. 578) granting an increase of pension to Samuel B. Davis. 

On the bill (8. 609) granting a pension to James E. Hargrove. 

On the bill (8. 663) granting a pension to John J. PTitschy. 

On the petition of Josejdi P\ Thoniasson. 

On the })etition of .James King..| 

On the }»etition of Susan Jeti'ords.. 

On the bill (8. 617) granting an increase of ]»en8ion to William H. Hale. 

On the bill (8. 620) granting a pension to .lacol) Nix. 

On the bill (8. 582) granting a j>ension to .John M. Snyder. 

On the lull (8. 991) relative to claim of David 11. Meyers. 

On the petition of Wallace Pattee.! 

(Pn the petition of Mrs. Virginia Grove. 

On the ]»etition of .John P''lynn.! 

On the bill (.s. 335) granting a j)ension to Simeon Crain. 

On the ])etition of Abraham M. McCullom. 

On the ]»etition of George R. Baum. .i 

On the bill (8. 680) granting an increase of pension to H. Binnamon.. 

On the bill (8. 870) granting a pension to Louis Christopher P'iede- 

mann. 

On the bill (8. 39) granting an increase of pension to James H. Reeve.. 

On the bill (8. 855) for the relief of Narcissa GiJ)son. 

On the bill (8. 7(>2) granting a i)ension to Mary A. Tindall. 

On the bill (8. 956) granting a pension to John Hubl»ell.! 

On the bill (8. 970) for the relief of Thomas Hugh Rothrock.| 

On the petition of Milton L. Sparr. . 

On the bill (8. 1046) granting a pension to the widow of Thomas T. 

Thornburg... 

On the bill (8. 797) granting a jumsion to Henry C. Smith. 

On the bill (8. 551) granting a ])ension to .James O’Connor. 

On the bill (8. 132) granting a. jiension to P’annie Lull.. 

On the bill (8. 337) granting a |)ension to .James 11. Poland. 

On the ])etition of .Jo.se))h B. ShollenJuirger. 

On the i>etition of Mrs. Phnma M. Moore. 

On the petition of Margaret Miller. 

On the ]»etition of citizens of Anderson County, Kansas. 

On the petition of Solomon 8. RoJ)inson. 

On the petition of Armstead (ioodlow. 

On the memorial of Harriet PJagg. 

On the bill (8. 2(H) granting a i)ension to Archil»ald and .John Nelson... 

On the bill (8. 382) granting <a j)ensi«m to Plllen W. P. Carter. 

On the bill (8. 338) granting a pension to Dederick Blanck. 

On the memorial of Theodore L. Sayre and others.I 

On the petition of John Snider.j 

On the ]>etitiou of Jesse P\ Phares. 1 


1 29 

1 30 

1 31 

1 32 

1 33 

1 , 34 

1 35 

1 36 

1 37 

1 38 

1 66 

1 73 

1 74 


1 75 

1 . 80 
1 81 

1 82 

1 83 

1 84 

1 91 

1 101 

1 102 

1 105 

1 106 

1 107 

1 108 

1 109 

1 no 

1 111 

1 112 

1 113 

1 114 

1 116 

1 117 

1 118 

1 119 

1 120 

1 123 

1 168 

1 1()9 

1 170 

1 171 

1 172 

1 173 

1 174 

1 175 

1 176 

1 177 

1 179 

1 180 

1 181 

1 182 

1 18:1 

1 ! 184 

1 I 185 

1 I 187 

1 188 

1 I 189 

1 ' 190 

1 191 

1 192 









































































xxviir 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 



On the bill (S. 9.50) granting arrears of pension to Nancy Eubank .. 

On the bill (S. 497) granting a i)ension to J. Clinton De Witt. 

On the petition of William C. Shinloneck. 

On the bill (S. 1097) granting a pension to Susan Fox. 

On the bill (S. 1051) granting an increase of pension to Stephen 


D. 


Smith 


On the bill (S. 526) granting a pension to Esther E. Lieurance 
On the petition of A. A. Sims. 

On the bill (S. 1188) 


Moore 


granting 


arrears of pension to Mrs. Emma M. 


On the bill (S. 534) granting a pension to Carolina Trekell.. 

On the bill (S. 370) granting an increase of pension to Janies W. Doxie. 

On the petition of Elizabeth Sutherland.. 

On the petition of Frederick Weller.-. 

On the bill (S. 691) for the relief of Jared Gardner. 

On the bill (S. 955) granting a pension to William S. Fultz. 

On the bill (S. 1185) granting a pension to Jesse F. Phares. 

On the bill (S. 1186) granting a pension to John Snider. 

On the petition of Captain Thornton Smith. 

On the bill (S. 982) granting a pension to Spencer W. Try on. 

On the bill (S. 801) granting a pension to Martha E. Brown. 

On the bill (S. 810) for the relief of the estate of Thomas Jones. 

On the bill (S. 639) granting a pension to .John G. McDonald. 

On the bill (S. 1017) granting a pension to Jerry Robinson. 

On the bill (S. 591) granting a pension to Nicholas H.Kelley. 

On the petition of Dr. Mary E. Walker. 

On the petition of Hugh Wilson. 

On the bill (S. 9.57) granting a pension to Charles Reed. 

On the bill (S. 181) restoring to the pension rolls the name of Mary 

Burr... 

On the bill (S. 363) granting an increase of pension to James C. Mc¬ 
Carty .t. 

On the bill (S. 637) entitled “A bill granting an increase of pension to 

Lucieu Kilbourue.”. 

On the bill (S. 899) granting a pension to William O. Morgan. 

On the l)ill (S. 1072) granting a pension to Arthur W. Irving. 

On the bill (S. 848) granting a pension to Frederick R. Bruner. 

On the bill (S. 985) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Leggett. 

On the bill (S. 235) granting an increase of pension to Egbert Olcott_ 

On the petition of George Nichols and others. 

On the petition of sundry citizens of Iowa.:. 

On the petition of John Davison. 

On the bill (S. 1180) granting a pension to Elizabeth Wolf. 

On the bill (S. 1071) granting a pension to George Wilie. 

On the petition of Martin J. Deponai. 

On the petition of Reese.Lammey. 

On the bill (S. 251) granting increase of pension to Margaret Mills. 

On the bill (S. 183) granting a pension to Hugh Gallagher. 

On the petition of Daniel Houlihan.. 

On the bill (S. 742) for the relief of Mary A. Lord. 

On the bill (8. 1235) granting a pension to Susan Smallwood. 

On the petition of Hon. G. B. Thomas.. 

On the bill (S. 3.58) granting a pension to Nelson J. Roosevelt. 

On the bill (S. 748) granting a pension to Thomas E. Brawner. 

Oq the bill (S. 1166) granting a pension to James H. Stevens. 

On the bill (S. 602) to restore to the pension rolls the name of Thomas 

W. McCaffrey. 

On the bill (S. 1113) granting a pension to Peter K. Morgan. 

On the petition of Anne R. Voorhees. 

On the i)etition of Dr. P. F. Reuss. . 

On the bill (S. 963) granting a pension to Theodore Raiithe. 

On the bill (S. 1361) granting an increase of pension to Elisha F. Rogers. 
On the bill (S. 1333) granting arrears of pension to Mrs. Maria A. 

Rossean. 

'On the bill (S. 1143) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Allison. 


No. 


210 

211 

214 

217 

218 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

229 

230 

231 

232 

233 

234 

235 

236 

237 

238 

242 

243 

244 

259 

261 

266 

264 

265 

267 

268 

269 

270 
276 

312 

313 

315 

316 

317 

318 
324 

337 

338 

339 

340 

341 

342 

343 

344 

345 
349 

354 

355 

356 







































































kNDEX TO REPORTS 


XXIX 


Subject. 


On the bill (S. 12:U) siniendiu*? an act entitled “An act jirantinj; a pen- 

Hion to William R. Browjie.’’ . ...j 

On the bill (S. 8711) for the relief of George W. Wickwire.i 

On the bill (S. WM)) granting a pension to A. W. Richards. i 

On the bill (S. it75) granting a pension to James O. McKenna .' 

On the bill (S. &9'S) granting a pension to Mary A. Davis.. 

On the bill (S. 1070) granting a pension to Jacob II. Epjder!.j 

On the bill (H. R. 1597) granting a pension to Patsey Daveiijxnt., 

On the petition of Moses Cotfey. 

On the i)etition of Thomas McCieehan . 

On the bill (S. 1259) granting a i)ension t(» Mrs. Kat(* E. Wliiting.! 

On the petition of Mrs, Hrittania W. Keniion.j 

On the bill (S. 545) granting a pension to Elizabeth II. Pierce. 

On the ])etition of ^Irs. Cornelia F. White .: 

On the bill (S. 49()) providing for examination and adjinlication of pen¬ 
sion claims. 

On the bill (S. PJIO) granting a pension to Elisha M. Lnckett. 

On the bill (S. 14(>J) granting increase of pension toSamnel H. Johnston. 

On the bill (II. R, 14(55) granting a pension to Levi Leedom., 

On the bill (H. R. *2*25) granting a pension to Melissa Wagner. 

On the bill (S. b7*2) granting a ])ension to Abraham F. Farrar. 

On the bill (H. R. *254) granting an increase of ]>ension to James M. ' 

Hot el and. ., 

On the bill (S. 1*295) granting a pension to Lewis J. Blair.i 

On the petition of Benedict J. O. Driscoll.. 1 

On the bill (S. 148) granting an increase of])ension to J. Jackson Pnrmau.| 

On the bill (S. 899) for the relief ot Duncan M. V. Stuart . 

t)n the bill (S. 1077) granting ajtension to William J. Elgie. , 

On the bill (S. 540) granting a ]>ension to Thomas J. Anthony.! 

On the petition of ^laxwell Carndl. 

On the petition of Lucy E. May hew. 

On the petition of Xehemiah Ford . 

On the l)ill (IL R. *2-59) granting a pension to Paul Walker. 

On the bill (IL R. *2.55) increasing the i»en8ion of Capt. Samnel C. 

Schoyer . 

On the bill (S. 1505) granting a i)ension to Mrs. Emma Schell. 

On the bill (11. R. *28.57) granting a pension to Joseph Showman. 

On the bill (S. 14fl5) granting a pension to Win. IL IL Anderson.i 

On the bill (H. R. 14(50) granting a ]»ension to .James P. Sayer. I 

On the bill (H. R. 740) granting a pension to Martha J. Robinson. j 

On the bill (H. R. *28(50) granting a pension to Thomas A. Vaughn. j 

On the bill (S. 1411) granting a pension to .James Morgan.j 

On the bill (S. 15(55) granting a iiension to Eli Cooinider.I 

On the bill (S. 1‘248) granting a jicnsion to Rebecca T. Scott. 

On the bill (S. 1507) granting a pension to L. C. French . 

On the bill (S- P201) granting a pension to Henry Williams. 

On the bill (H. R. ‘2041) granting a pension to Janies Aaron.i 

On the bill (IL R. *2855) granting a pension to Rachael ,J. Reber. 

On the petition of Horace S. Spear.j 

On the petition and bill of Thomas Burroughs. , 

On the ])(‘tition of Samnel B. Brightman.j 

On the jietition of Elizabeth Vernor Henry.! 

On the bill (H. R. 5*261) granting a pension to Elizabeth Dougherty-1 

On the bills (S. 145*2 and H. R. 11) granting a pension to Agnes Fairly.| 

On tlie bill (H. R. I'-OO) granting a pension to Michael Lingenfelter- 

On the bill (H. R. 5*264) granting a pension to Abner Hoopes. 

On the Jietition of P. P. Lyttle and others. 

On the bill (H. R. 4759) granting increase of pension to Richardson K. 

Baird...' 5. 

On the bill (S. l*2-(9) granting a pension to Sophia Brooke Taylor. 

On the memorial of Henrietta Wilson. 

On the Jietition of Levi Anderson.'.. 

On the bill (S. 851) granting a jiension to Martha A. Lachman. 

On the bill (S- 100(5) for the relief of Andrew T. McReynolds. 

On the Jietition of Anna Dennis. 


ol. 

No. 

5 

358 

5 

361 

5 

36*2 

3 

363 

3 

3(54 

3 

365 

3 

3(5(> 

3 

51(57 

5 

368 

3 

573 

3 

5187 

5 

414 

3 

417 

3 

418 

3 

431 

3 

43*2 

3 

433 

5 

454 

5 

455 

3 

456 

5 

457 

3 

438 

3 

439 

3 

44*2 

3 

445 

3 

444 

3 

457 

3 

465 

3 

4(54 

3 

467 

3 

4(59 

3 

474 

3 

478 

3 

479 

5 

480 

3 

481 

3 

4-‘2 

3 

483 

3 

4^4 

3 

487 

.5 

1 4-8 

.5 


.5 

1 490 

5 

! 491 

5 

49*2 

5 

493 

5 

494 

5 

495 

5 

498 

5 

499 

5 

500 

.5 

501 

5 

50*2 

5 

505 

5 

507 

5 

510 

5 

514 

5 

515 

5 

516 

5 

517 


































































XXX 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


Vol. [ No. 


On the petition of Henry Slaughter .... 

On the hill (S. 1515) granting a pension to Hiram C. Shouse. 

On the memorial of the legislature of the State of Minnesota. 

On the resolution (S. Res. 59) repealing part of section 4693 of the Re¬ 
vised Statutes.-. 

On the bill (S. 1272) to amend an act entitled ‘‘An act to increase pen¬ 
sions in certain cases.”. . 

On the bill (S. 1586) to regulate fees of attorneys in peosion cases. 

On the bill (S. (1535) granting an increase of ])ension to Rebecca E. 

Haskin. 

On the bill (H. R. 2853) granting a pension to Elizabeth Aults. 

On the bill (H. R. 3077) granting a pension to John L. Williams. 

On the petition of x\nn Fletcher. 

On the petition of Charles W. Tibbetts... 

On the claim of Dennis Smith. 

On the petition of Sarah A. Alexander. 

On the l)ill (S. 1323) granting a pension to Phineas Gauo. 

On the bill (S. 1464) granting a pension to George W. Staplin. 

On the bill (S. 21) granting a pension to Louisa Baiubiidge. 

On the bill (H. R. 2407) granting a pension to Belinda Curtis. 

On the petition of Peter Yarnell.. 

On the ])etition of William A Rogers. 

On the petition of Martin Price. 

On the bill (S. 1432) granting a pension to Angus McAuley. 

On the petition of Mathew O’Reagan. 

On the petition of George J. Webb . 

On the bill (S. 1169) granting a pension to John Haruer. 

On the bill (H. R. 3861) granting an increase of pension to Herman 

Baldwin.>. 

On the bill (H. R. 2450) granting a pension to Mary Wade. 

On the petition of Mrs. Hannah Mackey. 

On the bill (S. 913) granting a ])ension to Thomas P. Johnson. 

On the bill (S. 3) granting a pension to Elizabeth Wirt Goldsborough... 
On the bill (S. 1652) granting a pension to the minor children of Law¬ 
rence Burgess. 

On the bill (S. 1620) granting an increase of pension to Mrs. Sallie A. 

Palmer... 

On the bill (H. R. 3260) granting a pension to Eliza McConnell. 

On the petition of Lelia E. McCauley. 

On the petition of William Stockwell. 

On the bill (H. R. 229) granting a pension to Thomas Lowry. 

On the bill (S. 1716) granting a pension to Thomas J. Mackey. 

On the bill (S. 1471) granting a pension to Mrs. Rose M. Wood. 

On the bill (H. R. 2864) granting an increase of pension to Isaiah W. 

Bunker. 

On the bill (S. 1133) granting a pension to Michael Hayne. 

On the bill (H. R. 3262) granting a pension to Harrj' E. Williams. 

On the bill (H. R. 2474) granting an increase of pension to Thomas 

Riley..... 

On the bill (H. R. 2039) granting a pension to Jacob J. Smith. 

On the bill (S. 1178) for the relief of Jason C. Bradeen. 

On the petition of Mrs. Lizzie Wright Owen. 

On the petition of H. P. Robinson. 

On the petition of Mary J. West. 

On the ])etition of Eliza West. 

On the l)ill (S. 293) granting a pension to Joseph Potts. 

On the bill (S. 576) granting a pension to Plnebe Meech. 

On the bill (S. 1584) granting a pension to Margaret Costello. 

On the bill (S. 16.54) granting a pension to Thomas S. Cogley. 

On the bill (H. R. 2643) granting a pension to Mary Meighaii. 

On the bill (S. 1706) granting a pension to Samuel Pollock. 

On the bill (H. R. 4264) granting a pension to Judith Brown... 

On the bill (S. 635) granting a pension to Emery Bowen.* 

On the bill (H. R. 3.557) granting a pension to Peter Julius. 

On the bill (H. R. 2467) granting a pension to Daniel D. Long. 

On the hill (S. 1531) granting a pension to Mary and Annie Plunkett”.*.*. 


.5 

5 


5 

5 


o 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 


5 

5 

5 

5 

5 


5 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 


518 

.521 

523 

533 


534 

535 

537 

542 

543 

544 

545 

546 

547 

548 

549 
552 

550 

554 

555 

556 

557 

558 

559 
565 


566 

567 

568 
570 

577 

578 

579 

580 

581 

582 

583 

584 

585 

586 

587 

588 


589 

.590 

591 

592 

593 

594 
596 
600 
601 
602 

603 

604 

605 

606 

607 

608 

609 

610 











































































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XXXI 


Snl)ject. Vol. No. 


Oil the hill (H. R, 2468) {granting a iiension to Henry H. PTsher. 6 611 

On tin* hill (S. lTr)4) granting a ]>ension to W. J. Morris. 6 612 

On the hill (H. R. 3021) granting a pension to P21iza M. PTick. 6 613 

On the ])etition of Ste]>hen Dnrkeo. 6 614 

On the jietition of Lindsay M. Shumaker. 6 615 

On the Jietition of Mrs. P^iizaheth S. M. P'inley. 6 616 

On the liill (H. R. 5542) for increase of jiension to Samuel Baker. 6 628 

On the hill (S. 733) granting an increase of jiension to William Shelly.. 6 631 

On the hill (II. R. 2854) granting a jiension to Noah Caton.*... 6 632 

On the hill (S. 1517) granting an increiise of jiension to Stejihen P'air- 

chihl . 6 634 

On the hill (H. R. 2862) granting an increase of jiension to John H. 

Black... .. 6 635 


On the hill (H. K. 1463) granting an increase of jiension to Phlward H. 

Lieh. 

On the bill (S. 1546) granting a jiension to P. B. Perry. 

On the Jietition of .John Cox. 

On the Jietition of .Julia M. Hudson. 

On the hill (H. R. 22i)0) granting a jiension to William Bowman. 

On the hill (S. 182) granting a jiension to Mary A. Shemelia. 

On the liill (S. 1114) granting a jiension to Luman Case. 

<4n the hill (S. 440) granting a jiension to David L. Payne. 

<4n the liill (H. R. 753) granting a jiension to Thomas .J. Jackson. 

On the hill (H. R. 3544) granting a jiension to John PTsher. 

On the hill (S. 1084) granting arrears of jiension to the heirsof Cajitaiu 

J. H. Dent. 

On tlie liill (S. 092) granting a jiension to Mrs. Julia Ganlner Tyler. 

On the hill (H. R. 2608) granting a jiension to Anna M. Wehe. 

On the hill (H. R.745) granting a jiension to Colhy Hornaday. 

On the Jietition of Mrs. Ann M. Panhling. 

On the hills (S. 732 and H.R. 5803) granting a jiension to George W. 

Leamy. 

On the hill (H. R. 4887) granting a jiension to Rosalie Louis. 

On the hill (H. R. 863) granting a jiension to George W. Woodward. 

On the lull (8. 465) granting an increase of jiensioii to George Smith_i 

On the ji(*tition of Mary E. Shejiley. 

On the Jietition of Josejih and Catliarine Boll. 

On the Jietition of Jane E. Slainni.... 

On the liill (8.1334) granting a jiension to Charles PI. P’rank. 

On the hill (H.R. 751) granting a jiension to Harvey Burk. 

On the liill (8. 1318) granting a jiension to Seymour Colhy. 

On the hill (H. R. 1890) granting a jiension to PRlen Gillesjiie. 

On the hill (11. R.3017) granting a jiension to William Bryant. 

(4n the jietition of Army othcers. 

On the Jietition of Mary Pk Amhrester. 

On the Jietition of Margaret laingshaw-‘. 

On the Jietition of Cecil Clay.1. 

On the hill (H. R. 2407) granting a jiension to Belinda Curtis. 

On the liill (8. 1521) granting a jiension to David W. Combs.. 

On the hill (8. 365) granting a jiension to Hardie Hogan. 

On the Jietition of Margaret 8. Heintzelman- . 

On the hill (8.1038) granting an increase of jiension to Phlward HowariL, 
On the hill (8. 972) granting an increase of jiension to Mrs. Anna 1. 

Guest.-. 

On the hill (8.1676) granting an increase of jiension to Saint Clair A. 

Mnlholland. 

On the Jietition of Ailsey Pk Miirjihy. 

On the hill (8. 1615) granting a jiension to Henry Schncder.j 

On the hill (H. R. 2120) granting a jiension to Bernard Brady. 

On the hill (H. R. 1938) granting a pension to .)ohn H. McBrayer. 

(4n the hill (H. R. 3100) granting relief to Samuel B. Hutchison. 

On the hill (S. 1454) granting a jiension to Catharine Plarris.* 

On the hill (H. R. .591) granting a jiension to P)liza K. Ashby. 

On the hill (S. 1808) granting a jiension to Pkirl S. Rathhitrn. 

On the hill (H. R.‘2(i03) granting a jiension to Masach Finn. 

On the hill (H. R. 3980) granting a jiensiim to Mrs. Della B»*nner. 


6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 



636 

637 

641 

642 
6(32 

663 

664 
(365 
6(i7 
668 

669 

671 

(372 

673 

674 

675 

678 

679 

680 
682 

684 

685 

686 

687 

688 
(W9 

690 

691 

692 
(394 
(395 
69(3 
697 
(598 

699 

700 

701 

702 

703 

704 

705 

706 

707 
709 
722 
721 
719 
715 



































































XXXII 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


COMMITTEE ON REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS. 

Ou the bill (S.‘205) granting arrears of pension to Abigail S. Tilton. 

COMMITTEE Oil CLAIMS. 


Vol. ; No. 


7 ' 076 

I 




On the bill (S^ G25) for the relief of the Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank, 

Paris, Texas. First session. 

On the bill (S. 103) for the relief of Rosa Vertner Jeffrey. 

On the bill (S. ‘22) for the relief of Theophilus P. Chandler-a. 

On the bill (S. 307) for the relief of L. C. Cantwell . 

On the bill (S. 548) for the relief of .John C. Comfort. 

On the bill (S. 212) for the relief of John M. Dorsey and William F. Shep¬ 
ard . ... 

On the bill (S. ‘24) for the relief of John S. Logan. 

On the bill (S. 40) for the relief of Frank Rincpiet .. 

On the bill (S. 52) for the relief of John N. Reed. 

On the bill (S. ‘298) for the relief of Van B. Bowers. 

On the bill (S. 455) for the relief of Reuben S. Jones. 

On the bill (S. 70) for the relief of M. F. Clark . 

On the bill (S. 185) for the relief of Giltbes A: Co.. 

On the petition of William Longnecker... 

On the memorial of Abby A. Ham and Elizabeth H. Brown. 

On tlie petition of (George W. J. Crawford. 

On the bill (S. 108') for the relief of Claude H. Masten, &c. 

On the bill (S. 707) for the relief of William W. Ross. 

On the bill (S. 47) for the relief of James Hunt. 

On the bill (S. 095) for the relief of Michael Granery, &c. 

On the bill (S. 180) for the relief of George V. Hebb. 

On the bill (S. 087) for the relief of C. Bohn . 

On the ])etition of Walbridge, Holland, and Brown. 

On the {(ill (S. 99^) for the relief of Monroe Donoho. 

On the bill (S. 715) for the relief of N. Boyden. 

On the bill (S. 33) for the relief of .Joseph R. Shannon. 

Ou the bill (S. 06) for the relief of Hortensia H. Cook. 

On the bill (S. 831) for the relief of certain employes of the United States 

Government in the District of Columbia... 

On the bill (S. ‘299) for the relief of .Joseph N. Le a- »8. 

On the petition of Wolfe and Brown. 

On the jietition of Isaac F. Moore. . 

On the bill (S. 532) for the relief of Eliza Howard Powers . 

On the petition of William H. Davis. (To accompanj' bill S. 1‘208). 

On the petition of Hannah Roche... 

Ou the petition of Ben Holladay. (To accompany bill S. ‘231). 

On the bill (S. 459) for the relief of Elizabeth B. Custer. 

On the petition of P. L. Ward. (To accompany bill S. 1‘207).. 

On the bill (H. R. ‘2‘209) for the relief of Calvin Bronson. 

Ou the petition of .James Vance and William Vance. (To accompany 

bill S. 1208)....: 

On the memorial of John Beeson.... 

Ou the petition of Eva V. Busby and W. W. Busby. 

On the bill (S. 549) for the relief of Samuel 1. Gustin. 

On the bill (S. Ill) for the relief of the city of Macon, Ga.! 

On the bill (S. .533) for the relief of Elisha Bass.| 

On the bill (S. ‘281) for the relief of Emma G. Nelson, executrix, and ■ 

Aaron H. Nelson, executor, &c. 

Ou the'bill (S. 374) for the relief of .James A Heard. 

On the bill (S. 1059) for the relief of George D. C. Hibbs.j 

On the bill (S. 470) for the relief of Thomas M. Simmons.' 

On the Jietition of Arthur Connell. i 

On the liill (S. ‘2.59) for the relief of Reuben H. Plass. I 

On the bill (S. 170) for the relief of Tolley and Eaton. 

.On the bill (S. ‘270) for the relief of .Jeremiah C. Conklin. 

On the bill (S. 500) for the relief of William L. Adams.. 

On the bill (S. 894) for the relief of certain employes of the United States ' 

courts for the District of Columbia. ! 


1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 I 
1 
1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

I I 

1; 

II 

11 

}t 

I i 

II 

1 

1 i 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 I 


8 

58 

59 
01 
02 


03 

04 

70 

90 

92 

93 

94 

95 

97 

98 

99 
1‘24 
1‘28 
131 
134 

141 

142 
144 

153 

154 

155 

103 

104 

105 

106 
107 
‘205 

207 

208 
216 
240 
247 
‘248 


‘252 

254 

255 
257 
272 
278 

281 

282 

‘284 

286 

287 

289 

301 

305 

306 


307 







































































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XXXIII 


I 


Subject. 


Vol. I No. 



Oil the ])ill (S. 89) for the relief of John Adams and others 

Oil the petition of Anson Dart. 

On the bill (S. 200) for the relief of Nathaniel P. Harben. 

On the petition of Sarah S. Flagg. 

On the petition of Ann Barnes. 


1 331 

1 333 

3 I 350 

3 i 351 

3 1 352 


On the bill (S. 816) for the relief of Theodore F. Ilartridge and William 

G. Christopher, sureties, &,c . 

On the bill (S. 814) for the relief of Henry M. Shrev^e. 

On the bill (S. 1322) for the relief of Thomas J. League . 

On the bill (S. 1109) for the relief of Anthony Lawson. 

On the bill (S. 896) for the relief of Cyprian T. Jenkins. 

On the bill (S. 627) for the relief of workmen employed in the construc¬ 
tion of Pov'erty Island light-house. Lake Michigan. 

On the bill (S. 1340) for the relief of Charles E. Gunn. 

On the bill (S. 692) for the relief of Robert A. McMurry. 

On the bill (S. 1179) for the relief of Mattie S. Whitney. 

On the bill (S. 1063) for the relief of William J. Gamble. 

On the bill (S. 1278) for the relief of Lewis D. Allen_. 

On the bill (S. 677) for the relief of E. Troisgros. 

On the bill (S. 1579) for the relief of B. B. Connor. 

On the bill (S. 326) for the relief of Henry F. Lines. 

On the bill (S. 1276) for the relief of Charles B. Phillipps. 

On the bill (H. R. 2270) to pay for expert service relating to the metric 

system rendered to the Forty-fifth Congress. 

On the petition of Samuel Evans. 

On the petition of George W. Saulpaw. (To accompany bill S. 1606)... 

On the memorial of Samuel D. Lecompte. 

On the bill (H. R. 2262) for the relief of Juliet Leef, <Ac. 

Views of the minority on same. Part 2. 

On the bill (S. 1257) for the relief of J. H. Alexander. 

On the bill (S. 1291) for the relief of Charles W. Denton. 

On the bill (S. 1203) for the relief of Margaret B. Franks. 

On the bill (S. 757) for the relief of Gallus Kerchner. 

On the petition of John Pattee. 

On the bill (S. 1476) for the relief of the heirs of William Selden, de¬ 
ceased . 

On the bill (S. 1478) for the relief of Lizzie D. Clarke. 

On the bill (S. 1545) for the relief of J. W. Burbridge & Co. and Robert 

H. Montgomery. 

On the petition of George E. Payne. (To accompany bill S. 1720). 

On the bill (S. 445) for the relief of Joseph B. Campbell. 

On the bill (S. 83) for the relief of Nicholas White. 

On the petition of Jeanette S. Johnson. 

On the memorial of Carl Epping and wife and C. B. Phillips. 

On the bill (S. 364) for the relief of Samuel A. Lowe. 

On the bill (S. 1325) for the relief of Joseph C. Irwin. 

On the bill (S. 1365) for the relief of Thomas P. Wollaston. 

On the petition of Mrs. Mary Hopperton. 

On the memorial of Mrs. Ellen Call Long. (To accompany bill S. 1779). 
On the bill (S. 1(521) in addition to an act for the relief of O. B. and O. 

S. Latham, approved March 3, 18(53. 

On the bill (S. 1735) for the relief of Benjamin Babb and others. 

On the bill (S. 1181) for the relief of Dodd, Brown & Co. 

On the bill (S. 305) for the relief of Thomas B. Wallace. 

On the petition of Henry P. Rolfe. (To accompany bill, S. 1839). 


3 

377 

3 

399 

3 

401 

3 

403 

3 

404 

3 

405 

3 

409 

3 

421 

3 

422 

3 

423 

3 

425 

3 

426 

3 

441 

3 

450 

3 

451 

3 

452 

3 

453 

3 

454 

3 

470 

3 

471 

3 

471 

3 

473 

3 

475 

5 

505 

5 

506 

5 

509 

5 

511 

5 

513 

5 

531 

5 

571 

6 

573 

6 

574 

6 

597 

598 


644 


645 


646 

6 

647 

6 

648 

6 

659 

7 

711 

7 

714 

7 

718 

/ 

720 


COMMIITKE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 


On a resolution of the Senate, adopted June 6, 1879, in relation to the 

supply of pure water for the District of Columbia.. 

On the bill (S. 1125) to jmivide for building a market house on square 

446 in the city of Washington, District of Columbia.. 

On the bill (H. R. 1,381) to authorize the construction of a bridge across 
the Potomac River, at or near Georgetown, District of Columbia.... 
On the bill (S. 1(581) to provide for funding the 8 per cent, improvement 
certificates of the District of Columbia.. —... 


1 : 39 

1 ! 296 


383 

(521 


S. REP-III 





























































XXXI\ 


INDEX TO REPORTS. 


Subject. 


COMMITTEE ON PATENTS. 


Vol. 



On the petition of C. J.' E. Thompson... 

On the bill (H. R. 2518) for the relief of Nelson Lyon and Jeremiah S. 

James...'L. ... 

On the petition of Herman Miller. (To accompany bill S. 981). 

On the petition of Ira Gill. (To accompany bill S. 84(5). 

On the bill (S. 915) for the relief of Edgar Ilnson .. . 

On the bill (S. 1082) for the relief of Smith E. G. Ravrson. 

On the bill (S. 960) for the relief of Marietta Mattison. 

On the petition of Helen Francis Manville. 

On the memorial of the heirs of Daniel Hayward. 

On the petition of Martha J. Coston. (To accompany bill S. 1761). 

On the bill (S. 730) for the relief of Mrs. S. A. Wright. 

On the bill (H. R. 2019) to authorize the extension of the patent of Dan¬ 
iel M. Cook ..:. 


1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

5 

5 

5 

6 
6 
6 

6 


COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS. . 


Oh the resolution of the Senate, adopted January 15, 1880, in relation to 

the rooms in the Capitol lately occupied by the Court of Claims .. ' 1 

On the bill (S. 4d4) for th'e erection of a public building at Montgomery, 

Ala *. 1 

V , » 

COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES. 


On the bill (H. R. 5048) relating to justices of the xieace in the Terri¬ 
tories ..... 3 

On the bill (H. R. 5203) to provide fot the reapportionment of the mem¬ 
bers of the legislatures of the Territories of Montana, Idaho, and Wyo¬ 
ming. 5 


104 

262 

263 

384 

385 
496 
540 
569 
617 
622 
655 

660 


310 

314 


455 


538 


COMMITTEE ON RAILROADS. 

On the bill(H. R. 55) granting a right of way across Water Shop’s Pond, 
in Springfield, Mass., to the Springfield and New London Railroad 
Company. 

On the bill (S. 115) authorizing the . Secretary of War to contract with j 
the San Antonio and Mexican Border Railway Company.i 

On the resolution (S. Res. 85) for the relief of the Kansas City, Fort j 
Scott and Gulf Railroad Company.| 

COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF THE LAWS. | 

On the resolution (S. Res. 19) to provide for the publication and distri- 1 
bution of a supplement to the Revised Statutes, first session. i 

I 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR. 

On the bills (S. 792 and 865) which propose to distribute certain nn- 
claimed pay and bounty moneys belonging to colored soldiers and 
now in the Treasury of the United States. 

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND RETRENCHMENT. 

On the resolutions of the Senate of the 29th of May and of the 18th of 

June, 1879. (To accompany bill S. 1366). 

Views of minority. (To accompany bill S. 1366.) Part 2. 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE FINANCE REPORTS, BOOKS, 
AND ACCOUNTS OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. ’ 

On the resolution of the Senate adopted November 19, 1877 . 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR TAKING THE TENTH 

CENSUS. 

On the message of the President in relation to the removals of super¬ 
visors of the census and the appointments to fill vacancies caused by 
such removals.. 


103 

716 

717 


359 


303 

303 


539 


723 











































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XXXV 


Subject. 


Vol. 


.SELECT COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED 
WITH THE RE.MOV.VL OF THE NORTHERN CHEYENNES FROM THE 
SIOUX RESERVATION TO THE INDIAN TPHtRITORY. 


On the bill (S. 1293) for the relief of the Ponca Indians. 

On the resolution (S. Res. 120) instructing the Secretary of the Interior 
to report to the Senate proper boundaries of a reservation of lands in 
the Indian Territory for the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians with 
reference to providing arable lands for the Indians in severalty, &.c .. 


! 


7 


SELECT COMMITl’EE TO INQUIRE INTO ALL CLAIMS OF-CITIZENS OF THE 
UNITED STATES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF NICARAGUA. 


On the bill (S. Ib.'iO) authorizing the President to make the necessary 
arrangements to carry into elfect any convention between the United 
States and Nicaragua for the adjustment of claims which maybe duly 
concluded between the two governments. 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE FREEDMAN’h SAVINGS AND TRUST COM¬ 
PANY. 

On the resolution of the Senate adopted April 7, 1H79. (To accompany 
bills S. 711 and S- IS^il) . 


1 

i 


SELECT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO ALLEGED FRAUDS IN THE LATE 

ELECTIONS. 

On the resolution of the Senate adopted March 19, 1879. 

On the same. 

On the same. (To accompany bill S. 1721). 

SELECT CO.MMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE CAUSES WHICH HAVE LED 
TO THE EMIGRATION OF NEGROES FRO.M THE* SOUTHERN TO THE 
NORTHERN STATES. 

On the resolution of the Senate adopted December 19, 1879. 

On the resolution of the Senate adopted December 19, 1879. Part 2_ 

On the resolution of the Senate adopted December 19, 1879. Part II_ 


3 . 

5 i 

6 i 


I 


8 I 
8 : 
8 i 


No. 


670 


708 


532 


440 


427 

497 

572 


693 

693 

693 






















REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BY WHOM MADE, AND FROM WHAT 

COMMITTEE. 


COMMITTEE ON PEIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS. 


By Mr. Saulsbiiry. 

By Mr. Hill, of Georgia 


No. 

1,277 

388 


COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 


By Mr. Morgan. 285 

By Mr. Pendleton. 347 

By Mr. Hill, of Georgia. 449 


COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. 


By Mr. Kernan.. 
By Mr. Bayard.. 
By Mr. Ferry ... 
By Mr. Wallace . 
By Mr. Voorhees 

By Mr. Beck_ 

By Mr. Morrill .. 
By Mr. Allison .. 


. 7,683 

50, 51, 428, 465 
,...52,295, 375 
...88,416,677 

. 160 

. 325,374 

. 327 

.381,713 


COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. 

By Mr. Davis, of West Virginia. 334 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE. 


By Mr. Baldwin. 

By Mr. McMillan. 

By Mr. .Jones, of NeA'^ada 


-.335. 477, 485, 486 

389,390,' 392, 393, 430 
.. 576 


COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS. 


By Mr. Grover. 5 

By Mr. Cockrell.9, 49, 54,55,78, 86, 87,129,1.30,196,201,240,275, 397, 411, 412, 468, 

630,652,658,661,681 

By Mr. Maxey.40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53, 71, 72,77,115,162,197,198,199,204, 239,273, 

283,291, 300, 328 (429, views of the minority, part 2), 520 


623, 624, 62.5, 626,627, 633,654 

By Mr. Randolph.56,57, 67, 68, 69, 85,132,133,143,158,202,203,212,224, 522 

By Mr. Logan. 76, 79,126,145,146,147,148,150,151,152 (adows of the minoritA', 

158), 193,194,293,297, 302, 304, 413, 419, 420, 429, 560 

By Mr. Plumb.122,135,136,137,138,139,140,271,298,299, 311, 378, 524,638 

By Mr. Burnside.(vie\A-s of the minority, 158), 195,200,308,319,320,321,322,323, 

371, 372, 410, 445, 446, 447, 448,456, 458,459, 460, .525,526,527, 528, 

529,561, 562,563, 564, 629 

By Mr. Hampton.382, 415,461, 462, 640. 725 


COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS. 


By Mr. White. 

By Mr. Anthony. 

By Mr. Ferry. 

By Mr. Jones, of Florida. 

By Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania 

By Mr. Farley. 

By Mr. McPherson. 


. 4 

...149,206,541 

.^.209,215,279,508,666 

.249,348, 386 

251,379, 380, 395, 402, 519,530,536 

. 330,651 

.472, 512,595, 653 



































INDEX TO REPORTS. 


XXXVII 


COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY. 


No. 


By Mr. McDonald 
By Mr. Garland .. 

By Mr. Davis_ 

By Mr. Thnnnan . 
By Mr. Edmunds. 


156,157,178,213,280,712 

. 161,332 

.. 258,400 

.. 260,360 

..396,476,504 


COMMITTEE ON POST-OFFICES AND POST-ROADS. 


By Mr. Maxey ... 

By Mr. Bailey_ 

By Mr. Kirkwood 
By Mr. Groome .. 

By Mr. Ferry_ 

By Mr. Farley ... 


..3,100,336 

..60,96, 391,649 

.. 65 

159,290,643,650 
....288,353,406 
_408,618,619 


COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS. 


By Mr. Plumb.89,121,326,639 

By Mr. Booth.241,245,553,656 

By Mr. Hill, of Colorado. 250,256 

By Mr. Walker.274,309,710 

By Mr. Jones, of Florida. 376,407 

By Mr. McDonald.'. 620,6.57 

COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. 

By Mr. Jonas... 346,357 


COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS. 


By Mr. Pendleton. 186,551 

By Mr. Lof^an. 253 

By Mr. Williams. 398,575 

By Mr. Slater. 599 


By Mr. 
By Mr. 

By Mr. 

By Mr. 

By .Mr. 

By .Mr. 

By Mr. 

By Mr. 

By .Mr. 
By Mr. 


COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS. ' 

Kirkwood. 6,11,12,13, 25,26,27,28, 32,73,74,75, 84,173,174,191,192,228, 

229,358, 434,4.57, 478, 479,494, 495, 498,516, .556,570,584,591, 
615,668,669,679,685,696,703,704,705,706,707 
Withers.:.. .10,14,29, 30,31,66,81,82,83,91,106,107, 111, 113,114,238,225,226, 
227, 324, 341,342,354, 355, 373, 418, 432,433, 435, 436, 463, 474, 480, 
481, 482,483,484, 487, 488,493,499,500,501, 503,514, 515,517,518, 
534,535,537,577,581,588,589,603,671,672,673, 674,678,680, 697, 

. 709,719 

liuralls. 15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23, 33, 34, 35, 37,38,123,231,232,2.33,234, 

235.236,276,356, 489, 492,542, 543,544,545,546,547,548, .549, 
550,554,557,606,608,609,612,613, 614,628,636 

Call.19,24, 36,230,266,267, 349, 362, 363, 364,417,437, 439, 490,533, .552, 

555, 559,585, 586,590,596, (>07,663,664,665,667, 675,682,691,692, 

695,721,715. 

Groome.80,119,120,187,188,189,190,210,211,214,242,243,244,312,313, 

^ 340. 343, 431, 491,-507,510, 634,635,637, 642,687, 688,689,690, 

. • • 694,700,701,702 

Platt.101,102,105,116,117,118,175,176,177,179,181,182,183,217,218,219, 

220,264, 265,269,270, 337,338, 344, 387, 438, 464, 467, 469,502,578, .579, 

580,582,600,601,602,610,611,684,698,699 

McPherson.108,109,110,112,168,169, i70,171,172,180,184,185,221,365, 

366, 367, :m, 521,523, 565, .566,567, 568,593,604,605,616,686 

Farley. 222,223,224,237,2.59,261,268,315,316,317,318,339,345, :161,442, 

443,444,587,592,594,631,6:12,641,662 

Kellogg.-. 

Brown.-. ''''' 


COMMITTEE ON REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS. 


()76 


By Mr. Dawes 



































XXXVIII 


INDEX. TO REPORTS. 


COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. 


By Mr. Cockrell.8,59,61,6g, 63,90, 92,98,134,164,166,208,246, 305,351,425,450, 

475,597,646 

By Mr. Cameron, of Wisconsin .V. .58,93,99,124,141,142,167,216,257,286,289, 331,352, 

401, 421, 441,473,513, 531, 574. 

By Mr. Harris. .64,97,205,247,248,309,571,644,718 , 

By Mr. Groome.70,153,154,281,282, 404 5 

By Mr. Hoar.94,255,278, 333, 405, 471,647,714 t 

By Mr. Teller.95,131,144,155, 306, 350, 454, 511, 645, 720 { 

By Mr. Hereford.128,207, 252,287, 307, 377, 422, 451, 648,711 } 

By Mr. Pryor.163,254,284, 301, 409, 426, 453, 470 (views of tlie minority, 471), 505, ^ 

509,598, 659 , 

By Mr. McMillan.165,272,423,452,506,573 


COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ? 

\ 

39,621 
296 
383 

COMMITTEE ON PATENTS. ^ 

-...104,385,622 ' 

. 262 . 

. 263 f 

. 384 ^ 

496, 617, 655, 660 * 

. 540, 569 


By Mr. Hoar... 
By Mr. Platt... 
By Mr. Slater.. 
By Mr. Call.... 
By Mr. Kernan 
By Mr. Booth .. 


By Mr. Harris.. 
By Mr. RolUns . 
By Mr. Withers 


COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS. 


By Mr. Vest.... 310 

By Mr. Jones, of Florida. 314 


COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES. 


By Mr. Garland. 455 

By Mr. Butler. 538 


COMMITTEE ON RAILROADS. 


By Mr. Dawes. . 103, 717 

By Mr. Jonas. 716 


COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF THE LAWS. 


By Mr. Wallace 


2 


COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR. 

By Mr. Bruce. 359 

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND RETRENCHMENT. 

By Mr. Butler. 303 

By Mr. Rollins (views of the minority). 303 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE FINANCE REPORTS, BOOKS, AND ACCOUNTS 

OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 

By Mr. Davis, of West Virginia. 539 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO MAKE PROVISION FOR TAKING THE TENTH CENSUS. 

By Mr. Pendleton. 723 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO ALLEGED FRAUDS IN THE LATE ELECTIONS. 

By Mr. Wallace. 427,572 































INDEX TO REPORTS 


XXXIX 


SELKCT COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH THE 
REMOVAL OF THE NORTHERN CHEYENNES FROM THE SIOUX RESERVATION TO THE 
INDIAN TERRITORY. 

By Mr. Dawes. 670 

By Mr. Kirkwood. 708 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO ALL CLAIMS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES 
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF NICARAGUA. 

By Mr. Hamlin. 532 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE FREEDMAN’S SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY. 

By Mr. Bruce. 440 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE CAUSES WHICH HAVE LED TO THE EMI¬ 
GRATION OF NEGROES FROM THE SOUTHERN TO NORTHERN STATES. 

By Mr. Vance (in three parts). 693 







V'. -T 

1 i » * 


ynnr: ' Vv » 


• > 

ii » 

i . I 



■,X-;v'i^;#,v-'^-’’':’'''^ 

. - *1 • ^ ■ ' 






/• 


« 



> 




»• 


y 


1 


• / V* 

> ■• i», 


»• 

» 













SENATE. 


( Eeport 
) No. 388. 


46tii Congress, 
2d Session. 


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 


Mauch 22 , 1880 . —Ordored to be priiitcMl. 


Mr. lliLE, of Georgia, from tTie Committee on IT-h ileges ami Elections, 
submitted the following 

REPORT: 

The Committee on Frivileffcs and Elections^ to whom teas referred the me¬ 
morial of Henry M. Spofford, claiming to he entitled to the seat in the 
Senate from the State of Louisiana note occupied by William 1\ Kellogg., 
ash leave to submit the following report: 

On the 7th day of November, 1870, an election was held in the State 
of Louisiana for a governor and members of the legislature. In March, 
1877, AVilliam P. Kellogg presented credentials, signed by Stephen B. 
Packard, claiming to be governor, and certitying that said Kellogg had 
been duly elected to the seat in the Senate for the term beginning on 
the 4th of March, 1877, by the legislature chosen at said election. In 
October, 1877, Henry M. Spotford presented credentials, signed by Fran¬ 
cis T. Nichols, claiming to be governor, and certifying that said Spofford 
had been duly elected to the same seat by the legislature chosen at said 
election. These several credentials Avere referred by the Senate to the 
Committee on Privileges and Elections. On the LJdth of NoAXinber, 
1877, a majority of the committee reported that the committee had in- 
A cstigated the issue, and that Kellogg, on the merits, AA^as entitled to 
! the seat. A minority of the committee reported that the committee had 
I not fully investigated the issue, but had refused to do so, and asked 
I that the credentials of both contestants be recommitted, Avith instruc¬ 
tions to coinjilete the iin^estigation. The Senate refused to recommit, 
adopted the majority rei)ort, add Kellogg Avas admitted to the seat on 
the 28th of November, 1877. 

On the 21st day of ^larch, 187!), Henry M. Spotford presented Ids me- 
1 'orial to tlie Senate, complaining that he AAas denied tlie privilege of 
pr 'ducing important testimony on the former hearing, alleging that much 
ev lence of bribery and corruption by said Kellogg in procuring his pre¬ 
tended election had been since discoA cred, and asking that the case ‘Gje 
re t :amined, to the end that justice may be done.” 

This memorial Avas referred to this committee, and the Senate, subse- 
fpiently to that reference, ordered and authorized the committee to take 
testimony by the Avhole committee or by subcomnuttee, with full power 
to send for i)ersons and papers, and to do all things necessary and 
usual in such cases. 

Tlie committee have faithfully executed this order of the Senate. 

The memorialist and the sitting member appeared before the com¬ 
mittee in jierson and by counsel. On the oth ot June, 1871), the full 
committee commenced the examination of Avitnesses in this city. The 




II 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


examiuatiou was coutiiiiiecl iu November and December by a snbcom- i 
mittee in the city of Xew Orleans, and was again resumed by the full 
committee in this city, and was continued until both parties announced 
they had no further testimony to offer. Xeaiiy one hundred and fifty 
witnesses have been examined, and over twelve hundred printed pages 
of testimony have been taken, and are herewith reported to the Senate^ 
with the conclusions of law and fact at which the committee have ar- ' 
rived. 

In the opinion of your committee, the evidence now for the first time 
fully taken, clearly and abundantly establishes the following facts: 

I. That said William Pitt Kellogg, then holding the office of gov¬ 
ernor of the State of Louisiana, and pending the canvass in said elec¬ 
tion of 1876, did conspire with divers persons, and, in aid of such con- ^ 
spiracj-, did fraudulently use the influence and powder of his office of 
governor to prevent a fair, free, and legal election in said State, to the 
end that he might procure from the commissioners of election the re¬ 
turn of a legislature, a majority of whose members should be of the Ke- 
publican party, and presumed to be fiivorable to his election to the 
Senate. 

II. That, having failed in this, the said William Pitt Kellogg, still 
holding the office of governor, did conspire wdth divers persons, and, in 
aid of such conspiracy, did fraudulently use tbe influence and pow er of 
his office of governor to change the result as returned by the commis¬ 
sioners of election, to the end that he might procure, through false cer¬ 
tificates of election, the organization of a pretended legislature, a ma- . 
jority of whose members should be of the Pepublican party, and sup- ■ 
posed to be favorable to his election to the Senate. 

III. That said \yilliam Pitt Kellogg did conspire with divers others 
to prevent and, by force, through the Metropolitan Police, aided of the 
Army of the Uuited States, did prevent the lawTully elected members 
of the legislature, and especially those of the Democratic party, from 
assembling in the halls of the senate and house of representatives in 
the State-house of the said State of Louisiana; and did, by threats, by 
the use of money, by the promise of offices, and by other corrupt prac¬ 
tices, compel and induce to assemble in said halls, respectively, a mob 
of his co-conspirators, against the will of the people of Louisiana, many 
of whom liad not been elected, and some of whom had been neither 
elected nor certified, to the end that he might procure a pretended leg- ' 
islature for the inauguration of Stephen B. Packard as governor, who, ■ 
he well knew, had not been elected, and from which mob he might pro¬ 
cure the form of his own election to the Senate, and which pretended 
election he knew' such pretended governor wmuld certify. 

IV. That said William Pitt Kellogg having thus corruptly procured 
the assembling of a body of persons pretending to be a legislature, in i 
which were included persons not elected, and from which had been ^ 
forcibly excluded persons who had been elected and certified as mem¬ 
bers, did, by bribery, by the use of money and the promise of offices, ■ 
and by other corrupt practices, induce snid body of persons to go through 
the form of choosing him to a seat in the Senate of the United States. 

V. That said M illiam Pitt Kellogg, well knowing that the facts now ' 
proven to exist did exist, did falsely represent that no such facts ex¬ 
isted or could be proven, seeking thereby to induce a maiority of the ' 
committee, without taking the evidence which has now' been taken, to 
make a report declaring his title to the seat, and with intent to induce 

a majority of the Senate to admit him to the seat so fraudulently { 
claimed. 1 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Ill 


A I. That to prevent the discovery of tlie briberies, frainls, ami cor¬ 
ruptions now provtMi to exist, the said ^Villialn Fitt Kello^iH' did ])rocure 
a lar<^e number of tlie persons coinposin<i: said ])retended legislature to 
be ai>pointed to public ollices of profit in the custom-house at Xew 
Orleans and elsewhere, as indiR*ement not to disclose the truth. That 
after other persons, officers and members of said i)retended legislature, 
had freely and voluntarily admitted, under oath, their knowledge of said 
briberies and corruptions, and had been summoned to appear as wit¬ 
nesses before your committee, and were under the i>rotection of the 
Senate, said William Pitt Kellogg did, by bribery ami corrupt practices, 
induce such wituesse.s to testify falsely that they had not made such 
admissions, or that, if they had made them, they were not true. 

The committee realize the severity of these conclusions, but they are 
more than justified by the evidenc(*. In view of their severe chanicter, 
however, the committee are unwilling to confine this reiunt to a simple 
announcement of their findings, but will incorporate in the report itself 
a i)ortion of the abundant evidence which establishes their correctness. 

As illustrative of the evidence in sui)poit of the first conclusion before 
’stated, your committee will here refer to the following facts: 

1. Ill 187f> F. »I. Stokes was the parish judge of (irant Parish, ap- 
, pointed hy Kellogg. One Ward was the supervisor of registration for 

said parish, also api)ointed by Kellogg. Pefon* the registration was 
completed ^Vard hi(l his books, and came to New Orleans and n*prc- 
sented to Kellogg that he “ was bulldozed and driven from the iiarish.” 
Kellogg asked Stokes how the parish was. Stokes ri'plied that “when¬ 
ever the peojde of the jiarish was voting the Democrats carried the 
Iiarish.” Kellogg said, “ If the people there don't want an election, we 
will throw the parish out.'’ 

Stokes testifies most positively that the bulldozing pretext was false, 
and that the whole thing was fixiMl up to throw the ])arish out because 
it was Democratic. He says, “There was no bulldozing thereat all.'’ 

In answer to the direct (piestion, “A'as there Jiny real danger to him 
(Ward) in staying there (in the parish);’’ Stokes said, “Not a solitary 
jiarticle. There was no danger to any man in the parish if Ik* staid 
there and behaved himself. They treated him (Ward) very (piiclly and 
nicely as long as he staid in the hill country, and they paid his bills 
u]) there in the hill country.” The hill country was the strong Demo¬ 
cratic imrtion of the parish. 

Evidently to make a case of apparent fairness for the sitting meml)er, 
Jewett testified that “ Kellogg handed him a letter directing Ward to 
return to the parish.” This letter he gave to Ward “about the 1st of 
November.” In reidy to this. Judge Stokes testified that “he (AVard) 
never started back. It was no calculation to have him start. In the first 
jdace, to have started on the 1st of Xovember, he could not have gotten 
there, lie told Kelloijij at the time that the only way to the mouth of Ked 
Kiyer was to take a stage.” “ He (Ward) actually did not go back.” 
One fact puts the truth of this evidence of Stokes beyond jiossible 
doubt. Ward was allowed to remain in New Orleans until aft(‘r the 
time for completing the registration under the law had extured, and 
then the pretended order to return was given him. 

Thus defrauded, the people of the parish held an election without 
legistration, and the Democrats carried the parish, but it “was thrown 
out.” 

2. I>y the election laws of Louisiana the registration of voters was 
recpiired to be comi)leted nine days before the election. The law also 
reipiircd that when the registration was closed the books of registra- 




IV 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


tion from the several parishes should be sent to the chief registrar’s office 
in New Orleans. 

In this election of 1870, the books of registration, at least of tlie sev¬ 
eral wards in the city of New Orleans, were sent to the cnstoin-honse 
instead of to the office of the chief registrar. Peter AVilliams was the 
chief clerk and acting registrar of voters in 1870. Without his knowl¬ 
edge or consent, an order by telegraph was sent out to the supervisors 
of registration in his name, ordering the books to be sent to the custom¬ 
house. To this order the name of Williams was forged by Blanchard, 
Kellogg’s clerk. Williams adds: 

In the morning, when I came to the office, I expected to find the hooks there, but I 
did not, and I went down then to the custom-house and found the liooks there, and 
found tbem erasing names from them. 

Q, Who were erasing the names ?—A. The supervisors and their clerks. 

Q. That was at the custom-house ?—A. At the custom-house, sir. 


There is no denial by any one of this bold and sliameless fraud and 
forgery. It is shown by various witnesses that the supervisors and 
their clerks” were erasing names from these registration books during 
the night, and that a large number was erased, chiefly of Democrats, 
One of the Republican candidates for the legislature from the seventh 
ward of New Orleans (Moore) himself struck off ‘^a large number of 
registered Democratic voters.” 

As illustrative of the evidence which shows the correctness of the 
second conclusion announced above, the following facts are cited: 

1. Henry Houser was a member of the metropolitan police force, and 
was stationed as the night watch at Governor Kellogg’s house. A few 
days after the election he saw Blanchard, Jewett, Anderson, and Pack¬ 
ard frequently at Kellogg’s house at night. They often entered from 
the rear way. Witness frequently saw Blanchard and Jewett writing 
in one of the rooms upstairs. They would come about 7 or 8 o’clock, 
and remain from 11 to 12. They had papers which looked like election 
papers. He heard Kellogg concede that the election for the liouse of 
representatives had gone Democratic, and Blanchard told witness they 
were working on the election returns, and his understanding from them 
was that they were seeking, by throwing out parishes and Avorking on 
the returns, to change the result and make it Republican. They were 
thus engaged until after Packard’s inauguration. This Avitiiess is 
strongly corroborated in several particulars, not only by conceded facts, 
but also by the witnesses called to rebut his testimony.*^ 

2, There can now^ be no reasonable doubt that the scheme to reverse 
the verdict of the ballot-box was hatched at these clandestine night 
meetings at Kellogg’s own house, and the plan for carrying out the 
scheme under the false pretexts of violence and intimidation Avas here 
begun by those conspirators, of whom Kellogg Avas the chief. The 
frauds resorted to to change the result of the election in the seventh 
ward of New Orleans are now for the first time fully disclosed. This re¬ 
sult, changing three votes from the Democrats to the Republicans in- the 
house, must be added to the many heretofore knoAvn and admitted 


The retiirns from the parishes showed that Nicholls, the Democratic candidate for 
^ over Packard, the Republican candidate for the same office 

oi 8,010 votes. By the exercise ot the unlawful powers already pointed out, and hy 

3 426 vote^'^ changed to a majority in favor of Packard 

The evidence shows, and it is admitted by Mr. Kellogg, that Perkins Democrat 
had a majority for senator in the twelfth senatorial district he beat Weber ReSi- 
can, largely, but the returning board gave the latter a certificate of election Se- 
dith Democrat, had a majority over Hamlet, Republican, for the senate for the 
eighteenth senatorial district; the returning board gave Hamlet the certificate 




SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


V 

Saiulifonl, DeiiKXM'jit, Loat I’lnut, Ke]»iiblicaii, for tlio soiiato, in the t\v(*nty-seeon(l 
senatorial <listrict : the returning hoard i^ave Blunt the eertilicate. 

^ In ()na«*hita Parish, Breanl ainl Tayh^r, Democrats, heat Bairinjjton and Brewister, 
Kepnhlieans, tor the house of representatives, as the ]>arish returns sliow; Init the re- 
tnrninj.; hoard j^ave the He]>nl>licans certificates of election. In East Baton Kfm^e 
Parish, Dn Pn^ Williams, and Voting, Democrats, heat Birtl, Holt, and Lane, Kejinh- 
licjins, lor the house ot re]»resentatives; the returning hoard gave the certificates of 
election tt> the K’eitnhlicans. In La Fayette Parish. Marshall T. Martin, Democrat, 
heat Fernest Martin, Kepnhlican (these were hrothers), for the house of reitresenta- 
tives; the Ivepnhlican received the certificate of election. 

In West Feliciana Parish, McGee and Pyland, Democrtits, heat Swa/ie ami Early, 
Kepnldicans, for the house of representatives. The He]»nhlicans, however, receiv«Ml 
certith-ates of election. In Morehouse Parish, Washhnrn and Hammond, Dmnocrats, 
heat Slndton and Blair, Ke])nhlicans, for the house of representatives, hnt the certifi¬ 
cates of election wine given to the Kepnhlieans. In DeSoto Parish, Pitts ami M(‘ans, 
Democrats, heat Long ami .Johnson, Keimhlicans; the latter received c<‘rtiticate,s of 
election. The returning hoard refused to count any returns from the jiarishes of Cirant 
and East Feliciana ; the returns were thrown out alisolutely. The parish ndurns sh<*w 
that Lyons ami Porter, Democrats, were (dected from East Feliciana, and Kamhdph, 
Democrat, was electeil from Grant Parish. 

The jiarish n*turns show that the Democrats were (dected in eaidi instance above 
mentioned, and Mr. Kellogg admits that they rec(dved majorities. (Sc(‘ his statement 
made to the committee on Idth of Xovemher, I'^TT.) 

Oftlie Ho who wore said to he in the joint (‘onvention wliieh 

elected Kellogg-, IIJ art* jiositively shown not to have been t‘h*eted, hnt 
were trandnh*ntly given t^ertitieates. Seventy-idne were necessary to 
make a (|nornin. The “ work on the elet'tion returns” at Kellogg’s house 
was evidently effective, and hore fruit tiirongh the returning hoard, one 
and .sometimes two of whose members attended these clandestine night 
meetings. 

Mr. JSteven, a member of the Nicholls .senate, was seized and held by 
force, and was counted as i)rt*.sent against his protest, to enable this 
Packard .senate to go through the farce of a contest, and to seat two 
outsiders, named Paker and Kelso, who were not elected by the iieojile. 

The evidence in support of the third conclusion is furnished by the 
witnesses of both contestants. It is easy to understand that such a 
l)ody of men so fraudulently assend^led couhl not lie keiit together by a 
seihse of duty, or other legitimate means. ^Vccordingly, the State- 
house, whicih they seized, and in which they were gathered, was bar- 
ricad(‘d and surrounded with troops, and tlie members were k(‘pt in 
their halls day and night. Orders were given by the pretended otlicers 
of the legislature, and especially on the day of eleidion, to keep members 
lu'esent by forci*. Some who were absent in .s])it(* of these preir.uitions 
were fraudidently j^ersonated as present, and others were alloweil to 
record their votes the next day. Put many of the memb<*rs wen* imiie- 
cunious. “ They needed money to meet th(*ir necessities ; th(‘y had to 
live, and wanted to he helped from time to time as their money gave 
out.” Louis J. Souer, who figures ])rominently in all these frauds in be¬ 
half of K(*llogg, and who was a memb(*r of tin* low(‘r hou.si*, advam-eil 
‘‘out of his own money” about thre(*- thousand dollars, much of which 
he admits was never r(‘turn(‘d. dolm A. Walsli and other accommo¬ 
dating witn(*s.ses and friends of Kellogg also advanccil money. TlH‘se 
mlvances W(*r(‘called /oua.v, made on warrants or vouchers. It is im- 
])ossible to mistake tin* m(*aning of such t(‘stimony. M'hat Som*r calls 
loans are s])oken of by otln*r witnessi*s very differently, who say thesi* 
advances weie bribe's, but they W(*r(* to be loans if any (|U(*stiou 

should ari.se* about tln*ir character. The testimony given by tin* wit- 
ness(*s introduce*!! by K(*llogg hims(*lf is overwln*lmingjy convincing that 
force, fraud, and brd>e*ry W(*r(* all needed to k(*(*ii this motl(*y crowd of 


VI 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


conspirators against tlie people of Louisiana in their barricaded den of 

iniquity. . . „ . . , 

In support of the fourth conclusion the evidence is equally convincing, 
for, after all these frauds to cheat the voters, to change tlie returns, and 
to force an assemblage, Kellogg Avas in danger of losing the jirize. 
Warinoth testifies: “ There was a bitter fight for the Senatorship, not 
so much on my part, although I was spoken of, but between Kellogg 
and Pinchback.’’ The witness himself was a dark horse,” thinking, 
may be, neither could be elected, and the honors would fall on him. 

My eyes,” he adds, ‘^were not altogether blind to that contingency".” 
Even after Kellogg was nominated, he thought it Avas absolutely neces¬ 
sary for him to get all the A-otes in order to be admitted to the seat. 

Thus, both to secure the nomination and the election, the field for 
Lribery and other corrupt practices was enlarged. Kellogg now added 
threats also. He declared if he was not elected he would disband the 
concern anti turn them all OA"er to the Mcholls gOAWiiment. 

Quite a number of witnesses have testified directly and positiA cly that 
they saAv Kellogg pay money to difterent members to A ote for him for 
Senator. 

A large number are shoAvn to haA^e admitted that they receiA"ed money 
for A-otiug for Kellogg, and many of these admissions Avere made under 
oaths and taken A^oluntarily and Avithout inducement. 

The evidence establishing direct biibery, with money, of a large num¬ 
ber of tlie members is simply crushing. If a tithe of this eAudence is 
credible, there can be no escape from the conclusion that Kellogg 
secured his election by direct and unblushing bribery. Ofiices under the 
Federal administration Avere also iiromised to secure the same result, 
and how faithfully these promises A\^ere fulfilled is unmistakably disclosed 
in the eAudence. 

The eAudence referred to in support of the four first conclusions, before 
announced, can leaA-e no doubt in any rational mind of the correctness 
of the fifth conclusion as to the reasons AAiiich urged the sitting member 
so earnestly to oppose a full iiiA-estigation on the former hearing of this 
case. If such investigation had been made, as it was once ordered by 
the Senate and resolved by the committee, and the evidence now before 
us had been taken, it Avould be doing Adolence to all possible respect for 
the United States Senate to sujApose the sitting member could liaA-e been 
declared entitled,‘‘on the merits,” to take a seat in this body. It AA^as 
indispensably necessary to conceal the facts to discoA^er any merit in his 
title. 

In support of the sixth conclusion, the evidence is, if possible, still 
more convincing. 

On the 5th day of May last the Senate directed this committee to 
investigate the charges made by the memorialist. It is significant that 
this order was adopted by the Senate only after the most earnest and 
persistent opposition from the sitting member himself. 

The passage of this order by the Senate to take testimoiiA' dates the 
beginning of efforts by the sitting member and his assistants^ suppress 
eAudence, Avhich your committee belieA"e were never exceeded in energy 
and Amried devices. 

The folloAving special dispatches from Washington City appeared in 
the Times newspaper of KeAv Orleans on the 13th and IGth days of May, 
respectiA^ely: " ’ 


AA"asiiixgtox, May 12 , 1879. 

In view of the interest tbe leading Repuhlicans and the Administration take in the 
result ot the contest tor Kellogg’s seat, it is certain that any Republican who can be 






:^POFF()RI) VS. KP:LLOOG. 


VII 


shown to have worked against him at home will stand a slim chance of any recojuni- 
tion Innn Hayes or the next Administration if it l>e Kejnihlican. Kello;i;^ is jdaying 
his hand for all it is worth, and don't intend to have anv lire in the rear if he can 
helj> it. 

W. 11. R. 

Washixgtox, May 15, 1879. 

Fverythinji; is not lovely in Re])nhlican circles in Louisiana ; in fact, <|nite the re- 
^ ^ said to he some ]>eople in the ]»aity who are not hel})in;; the Hon. 

William Pitt Kellogj^ as they onu;ht, and one of them holds a hij^h position in the 
cnstom-honse. 

The ])arty an<l the President are hoth rallying to the assistance of the Hon. W. P. 
Kellogg with .some solidity, and the Republican in Louisiana who refuses to actively 
aid in this contest may make np his mind to go to the rear if Kellogg wins or the 
next Administration is Republican. 

The Hon. John Sherman and Attorney-Oeneral Devens have signified their willing¬ 
ness to aid Kellogg in this contest all they can, and some of the cnstom-honse rolls 
are very likely to be revised prettv soon. 

W. H. R. 

There can be no doubt as to the intent of this notice, andtlie evidence 
discloses with striking clearness the effect. It shonld be remembered 
in this (connection that the frauds which were to be investigated (conld 
only, in their nature, be tn'oven Ity those who were either inendters or 
officers of tlie ])retended Packard legislature, and by those Avho were 
I)ermitted to have free access to it, and by others who were in Ivellogg’s 
confidence at the time the frauds were committed. All others were 
excluded by bayonets from this barricaded mock legislature, thus con- 
spiring to defraud the people its members i)retended to represent. They 
were plainly notified of the consequences which they must expect, Ixffh 
from this Administration aiid the next, who would dare reveal what 
they knew of these frauds, or who failed actively to i)revent such reve¬ 
lation. 

The rewards were as unstinted as the threats were positive. The ex¬ 
amination by this (committee began the 5th of June. During this month 
of fJune there were thirty-nine of the members of this ihickard mob of 
Kellogg conspirators holding P’ederal offices, nearly all in the cnstom- 
honse at New Orleans, which constituted about one-half the number 
(claimed to be ])resent at the time of K(dlogg’s election. Thirty-nine no 
employed afipear by the testimony before ycnir (c()mmitt(?e. Other state¬ 
ments have been made to the ])ublic increasing the number of said Pack¬ 
ard legislators so employ(Ml to fifty-six. The object of these apimint- 
ments is not left by the evidemce to conj(ccture. The evidence is direct, 
positive, nnimpeached, and undisimted that the obJ(^ct was to prevent 
revelations against Kellogg. 

11. T. Drown testified that Morris ^Marks (revenue collector, and who 
was one of Kellogg’s most active supporters) said to witness in dune or 
duly, ‘d cannot take care of any of my friends now while this light is 
going on about Kellogg. 1 have toapiiointa setof (1—d d—d ciirsand 
hounds to keej) them from s(pi(‘aling on K(‘llogg.” Morris Marks was 
])resent during the investigation by the subcommittee in New Orleans; 
was a(*tively at work for ixidlogg; was himself a witness in behalf of 
K(‘llogg, and did not deny this statement of iMr. Drown. 

Similar statements and allusions frcMpiently occur in the (,‘vid(cnce, and 
th(*y are overwhelmingly corrob()rat(xl Uy many facts. Witnesses w(‘re 
ap]’)ointed to otlices immediately before they w(‘re to testify, and were 
also ai)i)ointed promiitly after th(\v had testifi(Ml satisfactorily to Kellogg. 
Witness(\s who were chmrly convicbM of i)er)nry and false swearing before 
this (committee were appointed to i)la(*es, plainly as rewards for such j^er- 
jury and false swearing. Witnesses who were proven to have made ad- 


VIII 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


missions that they knew Kellogg was not elected, or that his election was 
corrupt, and threatened to reveal what tliey knew if they were not given 
offices, promptly received the offices and as promptly testified that Kel¬ 
logg was elected, and by the fairest means possible! 

Tlie instances of this use of tlie public offices to hush witnesses, to pro¬ 
cure witnesses, and to reicard witnesses are as numerous as they are dis¬ 
graceful. Your committee do not believe such shameful civil service 
degradation can be found in the annals of any civilized people. It is 
prepiant evidence of all the charges of fraud and corruption against the 
sitting member. It cannot be supposed that such means were emidoyed 
to maintain a title which was good “ on the merits.” It cannot be doubted 
that such means were em])loyed only to maintain a title which was 
secured by fraud, and which could only be retained by perjury. Your 
committee are not authorized to say and will not say that the President 
and certain of his cabinet were willing parties to this corrupt use of the 
public offices; but they feel constrained to say that if they had been wil¬ 
ling parties they could not have been more accommodating and com¬ 
pliant to the sitting member. 

The evidence clearly reveals another very striking and unusual method 
ot using the public offices. Those Avho held the offices were not only 
themselves faithful to their chief and his title ‘‘on the merits” in their 
OAvn testimony, but they were active and vigilant to make others so. 
They ceased not to travel and labor in behalf of the sitting member to 
the utter neglect of their jniblic duties, and without any cessation of 
their pay from the imblic treasury. 

Several members and officers of the body which pretended to elect 
Kellogg admitted, as the evidence shows, voluntarily, that there was no 
quorum present, that absent members were falsely personated, that the 
roll as made up was false, and that Kellogg had used bribery and cor¬ 
rupt means to secure his election. The memorialist, knowing the char¬ 
acter of all these iieople who were parties to this enormous fraud, resorted 
to the natural precaution to have their statements reduced to writing 
and sworn to before venturing to summon them as witnesses. That such 
aftidavits had been made, and tliat a number of those who made them had 
been or would be summoned to Washington as witnesses in behalf of 
the memorialist, became known to tlie sitting member’s vigilant senti- 
nels 111 the custom-house. One employe of the custom-house came on 
to \\ ashington^ in advance of the witnesses, amoug other things “ to 
aiiaiige ^^ith Kellogg” for certain of the witnesses. A notorious detec- 
tn e also came on in advance and registered in this citv under an assumed 
name. This detective testified that lie was sent by an officer in the cus¬ 
tom-house to watch the counsel of the memorialist and to aid Kellogg, 
l our committee do not rely on the character of this witness toestablisli 
his Cl edit. Ills very service tor Kellogg was discrediting. Like most of 


^rp is w‘'yeii'title(l to credit as'iiis statenieiits 

are coiioboiated, ami laaiiy ot liis statements are most strikinalycor- 

(^tm-erm is shown by others to be true.' Tlie 

otlicei III the custom house who is char}.e<l to liave eniiiloyed this detee- 
ti\c was known to be very iiitiuential with the witnesses.^ lie took the 
same train with the witnesses on their departure from Kew Orleans for 
whi,p“''• the entire distance; hreidioited the 

Kellm^’-p^if’the ; lie telegraphed notice to 

with them eat w th thm T"''' "‘i "'‘‘«'‘i"8ton;and he remained 

here c oted It is slu v % with them until the exainination 

oidered l,v Vi,;V Show 11 too, that from the time this investigation was 
oideiedby the Senate until its close in this city an active telegraphic 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


IX 


coiTesimndeiice was on between the sitting ineinber and his assist¬ 

ants liere and the eolleetor ofcnstoins hiinselt in New ()i*leans. The tele¬ 
grams are in cipher, and are herewith reported to the Senate. Tliey 
most clearly relate to the witnesses, and are pregnant with all the indicia 
of fraud, collusion, and corruption. 

The witnesses arrived in Washington about 10 o’clock p. m. on the 4th 
of June, and their examination by this committee was to commence the 
next morning. Whatever arrangements, therefore, were necessary to 
be made with or ratified by the sitting member to induce them to deny 
the affidavits they had made in New Orleans had to be completed dur¬ 
ing that night and before the meeting of this committee the ensuing 
morning. Accordingly the emi)loy^s of the ciistom-honse and the de¬ 
tective who came in advance from New Orleans and several others 
already in Washington in the government’s employ and Kellogg’s serv¬ 
ice met the witnesses at the depot on their arrival. The detective swears 
that five of the witnesses were conducted b^^ him, under ])revious arrange¬ 
ment, to Kellogg’s office after midnight. He says the witnesses were 
afraid of prosecution if they denied their sworn statements made in New 
Orleans, and that to relieve this fear some law was read to them to the 
effect that they could not be indicted for such denial. Being satisfied 
on this point, the witnesses were willing to contract, and the detective 
says did receive and accept from Kellogg money and promises of offices 
during his Senatorial term, and in consideration thereof did jdedge 
themselves to disapi>oint the memorialist who had called them as wit¬ 
nesses on the faith of their sworn statements, and to testify in all re¬ 
spects in favor of the sitting member. Thomas Hurray did not attend 
this night conclave. He only of the witnesses was faithful to his state¬ 
ment made in New Orleans. He refused to accept the bribes offered 
him to do so. He and the detective both testified that such bribes were 
repeatedly urged upon him in increasing amounts. Hefiising persist¬ 
ently to accept all offers to testify falsely, he‘was then offered money 
not to testify at all. He was urged to disobey the summons of this com¬ 
mittee and escape into Canada, where he was to be well maintained un¬ 
til the investigation was closed, and he should receive a telegram in the 
words “TTie Union forever,” by which he was to understand he could 
safely return. All tliese offers he refused, and did ai)i)ear and testify, 
under tlie frowns of his comrades, to tlie truth of his jn evious statements. 

Another witness, Hilton Jones, accepted the bribe but hesitated to 
commit the perjury. In his stress he begge<l the counsel of tlie memo¬ 
rialist not to reipiire him to testify, because he would be compelled to 
swear falsely under the influence of big money.” Because ot this 
earnest aiija'af Ik* was not sworn by the memorialist. Tliis witness was 
asked by Kellogg, through his faithful detective, to return the money, 
the price of the perjury lie had tlius avoided committing; but he refused 
to return it. Subseiineiitly he was called by the sitting member before 
the subcommittee in New Orleans and made to execute his criminal 
bargain. Other devices were emjiloyed by the sitting member to siip- 
press truth and establish falsehood. Those who refused to swear falsely 
were assailed as untrue to their party and social ostracism itself was 
visited upon them. Sciiemes were contrived to entrap them into incon¬ 
sistent admissions. Witnesses who admitted they thought it legitimate 
to make and to swear to false statements were called to impeach the 
credibility of those who refused to imitate their exaniiile. Detectives 
wen* activ(*lv (‘iigaged under friendly professions in eflorts to involve 
the memorialist in like, briberies and frauds with those so abundantly 
jiroveii upon the sitting member, all of which, your committee cheerfully 


X 


8P0FF0RD VS. KELLOGG. 


rex^ort, not only failed, bnt recoiled heavily on the sitting ineinbei\ it- 
nesses were diligently trained to believe that the ejection of Kellogg 
from the Senate would be the defeat of the Eepublican x>‘trty in the na¬ 
tion and in Louisiana; that such defeat wonld render it imi^ossible for 
any Eepnblican to live in the State, and that i)erjnry was a virtue 
when committed for the success of the Ivexmblican x^^^i’ty! All these 
facts and very many more of like kind will be found in the testimony 
herewith reported to the Senate. 

That such is the testimony was not denied before your committee 
either by the sitting member or his able counsel. Indeed, it could not be 
denied without denying the x^laiii language of very many witnesses. Ibit 
it was earnestly insisted before your committee by both the sitting 
member and his counsel that this testimony would not justify the con¬ 
clusion that the sitting member was not entitled to the seat in the Sen¬ 
ate for two reasons, and first because, they alleged, the witnesses ought 
not to be believed. 

Two grounds are urged for disbelieving the witnesses: (1) because 
they were contradicted, and (2) because they were imxieached as not 
entitled to credit on account of bad character. 

The contradictions were almost exclusively by witnesses who were 
parties to the crimes jiroven. To illustrate: If a witness testified posi¬ 
tively that he saw money imid to a membei* for his vote, the imx)licated 
member was called to contradict this by testifying he did not receive 
money for his vote. Under this rule few criminals would be found guilty. 
It frequently hax)iiened, too, that the imi)licated member had xu’evioiisly 
and frequentl}" admitted, and often under oath, that he did receive 
money for his vote. So he contradicted himself as well as the witnesses. 
It will be seen from the evidence, too, that these contradicting witnesses 
had often been x^i’OAuded with offices or other consideration after they 
made the admissions tliey were called to contradict, and others were 
X)romptly appointed to offices in the ever-accommodating customhouse 
after they had faithfully made the contradictions. 

Your committee attach little, if any, weight to such contradictions. 
In our view they are often strongly confirmatory of the witnesses-in¬ 
chief. 

Besides, many of the material frauds x>roven are not disi^uted at all, 
and some are even admitted, because they were of a character which did 
not admit of contradiction. This is especially true of the frauds resorted to 
to [)revent a fair election by the x>eople; to change the result as returned 
by the commissioners of election, and the force and frauds emx^loyed to 
asseiid)le and keep together the pretended Packard legislature. 

Let us then x)roceed to consider the allegation that the testimony should 
not be believed because the witnesses were impeached on account of 
general bad character. 

Some few of the witnesses were not so im]>eached at all, and whv 
they were not iiiq)eached your committee do not understand, since the 
imxmaching resources of the sitting member seemed to be exliaustless. 
As it is, however, the testimony which is unimi)eached and uncontra¬ 
dicted is ample not oidy to justify but to require the adoi)tion of the 
resolutions herewith submitted. But your committee do not find it 
necessary to rest their conclusions solely on this unimx>eached and 
uncontradicted evidence. 

We admit that a great number of the witnesses called on both sides 
were of very bad character, not oidy for truth, but for every other virtue, 
and if their credibility depended solely upon character they ought not 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOCiG. 


XI 


to be believed. But the rules of law furnish safe ^^uides in weighing 
this evideiiee. 

The aecoiuplice of a criinivjal is necessarily of bad character, for he is 
a criiuinal himself. If he is not to be believed because he is an accMun- 
l)lice, and therefore of bad character, then an accomidice in no case 
ou"ht to be allowed to testify. But in s|)ite of bad character they are 
often the only accessible Avitnesses, and their evidence is often most sat¬ 
isfactory. AVere it otherwise, those criminals Avould often be safest 
whose crimes were greatest. 

In the case before us nearly all the Avitnesses examined AA^ere the ac¬ 
complices of Kellogg*- in the crimes and frauds AAdiich resulted in his pre¬ 
tended election to the Senate. They aa’cic all conspirators against the 
people of Louisiana. The very fact that they AA cre associates and ac¬ 
complices in this conspiracy furnished the most conclusiA^e proof of bad 
character. Xo other proof Avas needed to establish such bad character. 
The consi)irators AA^ere snrrounded Avith troops by order of their chief, 
Kello^j? himself, l)y his poAA er as gOA-ernor, and the Army was employed 
to protect them day and night from intrusion by people Avorthy of credit 
by reason of good character. Being faithless in their a cry assendding 
to all good people, the chief chance of redress for good ])eople Avas in 
the natural ho])e they AAOuld become faithless to each other, and reveal 
the frauds, briberies, and corruptions Avhich cemented the:n for cA'il. 
Their re\^elations appear in the evidence, and your committee do not 
doubt Avould far more abundantly appear if the Federal administration 
Avould AA'ithdraAA" the patronage Avhich has purchased the silence and 
perjury of so many of the gang. 

All the facts and circumstances of corroboration required by the 
rules of evidence to accompany the testimony of accomplices abun¬ 
dantly and most remarkably sustain the Avitnesses Avho testified to the 
frauds, briberies, and corrupt i)ractices upon which A\e have based our 
conclusions, and the impeaching Avitnesses are themselves most strik¬ 
ingly discredited by such facts and circumstances. Indeed, your com¬ 
mittee do not hesitate to adirm that much of the evidence must be 
believed, because the corroborations Avhich accompany and surround it 
make it impossible that it can be false. 

The sitting member insisted upon conducting much of the examina¬ 
tion in his own behalf, and this ])rivilege Avas accorded him. In the 
style of his questions and the conduct of his cause he often exhibited 
most striking corroboration of the Avitnesses Avho Avere testifying of his 
guilt. The corroborations brought out by himself not only occurred in 
his cross-examinations of the Avitnesses called by the memorialist, but 
also in his examinations of Avitnesses called by himself to impeach or 
contradict the Avitnesses of the memorialist. 

Your committee are unable to see hoAv an impartial legal mind can 
read the evidence taken and doubt the guilt of the sitting member U])oii 
CA'ery (*harge Avhich has been made against him, notwithstanding so 
many of the Avitnesses must be admitted to be disreiuitable. 

But the sitting member, through his very able counsel, also insisted, 
Avith great earnestness and skill before youiM'ommittee, that tin* Senate, 
at a former session, having, ‘‘after and ui)on evidence going to the 
merits of the case,’’ declared that Kellogg A\'as “uixm the merits of the 
case entitled to the seat,” this decision is tinal and conclusive, and can¬ 
not now be re-examine(l and reversed. This Avas the fust and chief 
position on Avhich the title of the sitting member was made to rest. 
Your committee hiive fully considered the (piestion thus presented, and 


XII 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


cannot doubt tlie correctness of the conclusions at which they have 
arrived. 

Stated in tlie light of the facts now known and herewith reported to 
the Senate, this position would read thus: That though the sitting 
inember was not, in fact, chosen by the legislature of Louisiana j and 
though the body of men alleged to have elected him was assembled 
through fraud, was held together by force, and was controlled by brib¬ 
ery ami corruption, and all this was accomidished by a conspiracy to 
defraud the State and ])eople of Louisiana, of which conspiracy the 
sitting member was himself the chief, yet, the Senate having decided 
in ignorance and by the suppression of these facts that the sitting 
member was entitled on the merits to the seat, the Senate is compelled 
to allow him to retain the seat after lull knowledge that every fact 
which was assumed to exist when he was admitted is and was false and 
untrue. The reply to such a position is sufficiently furnished in the 
statement of the ])osition itself. But your committee will not rest the 
argument here, and will consider it in the light of precedent and law. 
Counsel for the sitting mend)er says : 

**lf, therefore, this committee and the Senate shall set aside this judg¬ 
ment on the merits, it will present to the country and the world a spec¬ 
tacle not seen before in the century of our national existence just closed.^^ 

We might justly reply to this that this case, in the facts now proven, 
already i)resents to the country and the world a spectacle not before 
seen in this century or any previous century of this or any other nation. 
We trust such a spectacle will never again be ])resented, and that it 
may not be, it ought to be now condemned by all men and especially by 
this Senate. If it shall be understood that seats once procured in this 
body by any means hovv^ever false and fraudulent which bad men may 
emi)loy cannot be taken away, this Senate ma 3 " soon be largely com¬ 
posed of members not chosen by the legislatures of the States." Suc¬ 
cessful frauds will displace tlie positive reipiisition of the Constitution 
in the elections of Senators. A case without precedent cannot be de¬ 
cided by precedent. Fraud has certainly become a powerful agent in 
our politics, but we are not willing to admit it has yet become the su¬ 
preme law abov e review and beyond remedy. 

But while no case like this was ever before presented for delusion, yet 
principles have been announced in other cases which will furnish some 
guide to a proper determination of this (piestion. 

In the case of Bright and Fitch, in the Thirty-fifth Congress, the re¬ 
hearing asked was refused because ‘‘ all the facts and questions of law 
invmlv'ed were as fully known and presented to the Senate on the for¬ 
mer hearing, as they vvere then presented in the memorial of the legisla- 
tuie asking a rehearing.” It was held that in such a case the judgment 
fiist lendered by the Senate was final, and precluded further imiuirv 
into the subject.” 

Ill the Butler and Corbin case, in the Forty-tilth Congress, the report 
of the minority of the Committee on Privileges and Elections correctly 
sdated that no allegation was made “ that testimony was before exclu¬ 
ded which ought to hav'e been admitted, or that testimony vvuis ad¬ 
mitted which ought to hav e been excluded; no reipiest by either party 
to produce testnnony had been denied, and no pretense that testimony 
then ottered and excluded can now be produced. The jurisdiction is 
the same; the parties are the same; the subject-matter of contest is 
the same; f/ie/acts are the mmc, and the (luestions of law are the same.” 
Ihe report further said: “ If, on the former hearing, Mr. Corbin had 
been denied the luivilege ot introducing mateiial facts which he offered 


SPDFFOKD VS. KKLLOGG. 


XIII 


to prodiico; iflio presented material tacts now wliieli were then unknown ; 
if all the faets and (piestions of law now known and presented were not 
then as fully known and presented, the undersigned will not undertake 
to say his petition for a rehearing ought not, injustice and right, to he 
gravely heard and considered on the merits.’’ Tlie Senate adopted these 
views, though it is a signiticant fact that a large and intelligent minor¬ 
ity of the Senate vote(l to unseat Mr. Jhitler and to a<lmit Mr. Corbin, 
when not a single new fact or (luestion of law had been presented or 
ottered. 

Your committee freely admit that a decision rendered on the merits 
ought not to be afterwards reviewed and reversed on light or even 
doubtful grounds. In the courts the familiar rule is that new evidence 
to authorize a reversal “ought to be material and such as would proba¬ 
bly ])roduce a ditferent result.” In this case, your committee are wil¬ 
ling to apply a much stronger test, though there is no reason why a 
stronger should be required. Let ns ado])t and apply the rule so strongly 
and forcibly expoumled by a distinguished member of thir Smiate in 
following language: 

The Senate woiihl do niaiiifest injustice were it liastily and without tlu* most ])lain 
and most manifest riuison to rev(?rse a decision that had been made seating- a Senator 
on this door. The case must bo extnuuely stron;>‘ that woubl justify such a |>ro<-et*d- 
in;i^. All that I am free to admit, but to say that the technical rule of rvx 
that applies to courts of justice api)lies iu this chaiuber on a (uu'stiou of this kind is to 
confound all distinctions and to disregard all the laws of this body. (Congressional 
Record of May 7, page *.^4.) 

Let ns now apply this rigid rule to the present case: 

1. On the former hearing not a single ivifncss was exiunuied. 8oim* a<l- 
missions were made by the parties, and some reports of investigations 
by Congressional committees not on the issues involved in this contest 
“ were agreed to be c.onsidered in evidence as far as they were jierti- 
nent.” Tliis was done only to narrow the held of Investigation. 

On this hearing nearly one hundred and fifty witnesses have been 
examined, making over twelve hundred printed pages of testimony, of 
the most material and controlling character. 

Lh 0.1 the former hearing the memorialist begged and jdeaded for the 
jirivilege of having witnesses called and examined on hve ])oints not 
covered by the admissions and reports above referred to, and by whii^h 
witnesses he alleged he could ju’ove, among otlu'r things, the direct 
])ersonal complicity of the sitting member in glaring frauds in the pre¬ 
tended legislature'which elected him. All these ajqieals were refused 
by the majority of the committee, although an investigation had been 
]>reviously ordered I)}* the Senate and res(>lved upon by the committee, 
and the investigation was suddenly closiul against the protest of the 
memorialist and a minority of the committee. 

On the present hearing the witnesses have been examined, and the 
complicity of the sitting member in the frauds alleged has been most 
convincingly establisheds 

G. On the former hearing there was no evidence and no oiiiiortunity 
to jiroduce evidence showing conspiracies, briberies, and other corrup¬ 
tions by the sitting meiidier to procure a fraudulent legislature, and to 
control the members thereof in his own election to the Senate. 

On the present hearing such conspiracies, briberies, and coiTuiitions 
of the most startling, unblusliing, and unparalleled character have been 
positively testified to by numerous witnesses, and these briberies and 
corruptions have been sl’iown to extend to the witnesses in the case in 
the very face of the Senate. 


XIV 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Your coiiiinittee could multiplj" the features of contrast between the 
former and the present hearing in this case, but Ave forbear. Under the 
most technical rule of res adjudlcata there is not a court in civilized 
Christendom Avhich Avould hesitate to review and reverse a judgment so 
utterly uu authorized and unjust; and surely it cannot be contended that 
the Senate can have less imwer than a court to annul such a decision. 

Conceding then, for the argument, that the Senate in passing upon 
contests for seats in this body acts as a court, and that the technical 
rule of res adjudicata applies to decisions rendered in such cases, do courts 
not re-examine, reAdew, and reA^erse their decisionsAre not appeals, 
Avrits of error, motions for new trials, and bills of reAuew familiar to us 
all! The Senate, in considering such cases in the first instance, is not 
bound by the forms of proceedings in the courts. We haA^e no declara¬ 
tions, no complaints, no bills in chancery, nor pleas, demurrers, answers, 
and joinders of issue in the Senate. If the Senate proceeds to original 
judgment Avithout the pleading knoAvn to the courts, may not the Senate 
also proceed to review, re-examine, and reA^erse such judgments Avhen 
good cause is shoAvu, without resorting to the processes Avhich, in such 
cases, are known to the courts ? If the Senate is a court, then if the 
facts in a given case are such as would require the Amcation of a judg¬ 
ment if rendered by a court, surely the Senate Avould also be authorized 
to vacate such judgment. The exclusion by the court of material testi¬ 
mony on the first hearing, the discoAwy of neAV and material evidence 
since the hearing, the existence of frauds, forgeries, briberies, and per¬ 
juries in procuring the first judgment are all well-known grounds on 
either one of which courts, by some of the methods of proceeding, will 
reAiew and reAWse such judgments. All these grounds are shoAvn by 
the evidence and the records of this Senate to exist in extraordinary 
clearness, force, and repeated abundance in the case AA-e are now consid¬ 
ering. Is the Senate, by being likened to a court, to be bound by decis¬ 
ions Avhich a court Avould rigorously A^acate and annul! 

But the attempt to apply to the Senate the technical rule of res adju¬ 
dicata as it obtains in the courts is a palpable sophistry and not an ar¬ 
gument. In the correct and forcible language of Senator Thurman, be¬ 
fore quoted, it confounds all distinctions and disregards all the rules 
of this body.’’ 

In cases Avhere the contestants claim to represent the same State gov¬ 
ernment, and the issue between them is one of informality or irregularity 
or non-compliance Avith statutory provisions, there would be some show 
of reason for the application of this doctrine. In such cases there ought 
to be an end of litigation in the Senate as Avell as in the courts. A wise 
policy would certainly require in such cases the principle if not the rule 
of res adjudicata. It is to such cases the authorities cited by^ the eminent 
counsel for the sitting member Avere intended to apply. 

But the questions iiiA^olA^ed in the present case rise immeasurably 
above such issues. They are not questions of regularity, but of authority. 
They are not questions of discretion, but of duty. They exist more be¬ 
tween the State of Louisiana and this Senate than betAveen the contest- 
ants. In their nature these questions are not merely judicial, but politi¬ 
cal in the highest sense. ’ ^ 

The Constitution says: 



nf "Ot Chosen by the 

sislatuic of his, State ? But suppose, in ignorance of the fact that he 


SI'OFFOKD V8 KELLOGG. 


XV 


was not so ohosen, tlie Senate is indnetMl to deelare liiin entitled to the 
seat ‘‘on the merits,” after investi» 4 ation; does such erroneous decision 
sn]>plant the Constitution and ^ive him a title after the mistake becomes 
known ? 

Let us sui)i)ose an imt)ossil)lecase: Su])i)osc a majority of this Senate 
should for any purijose, partisan or otherwise, seat a man in this body 
who they knew was not cliosen by the lepslature of his State, would 
any luture Senate be comi)elled to continue such person in the seat ? 
Would not such continuance be as criminal as the ori<;iiial admission ? 
Will any man pretend that a plain Constitutional provision can be sui)er- 
seded by a mistaken decision of this Senat(‘.^ If tlie sittin*^ meiid)er 
was not chosen by the lejiislature of Louisiana every liour lie sits on this 
door after tliat fact is known is a violation of the Constitution. It is a 
(inestion of obedience to the Constitution. Can any ])erson estoj) this 
Senate, can the Senate estoi) itself, from obeying the Constitution ? Can 
the Senate estop itself from iiupiiring iotien ([uofies whether he was 
chosen by the legislature ? f'an it be so estopjied by its own erroneous 
decision on a former hearing ? 

In cases like the one now before us, your committee do not hesitate to 
adopt the language emiiloyeil by those eminent Constitutional lawyers, 
j\Ir. Collamer, of Vermont, and ^Ir. Trumbull, of Illinois, in the Fitch 
and IJright case in 185b. They said: 

“The i)ower of the Senate to judge of the election and (pialitication of 
its own members is nnlimitcMl and abiding. It is not exhausted in any 
particular case by once adjudicating the same, as the iH)W(‘r of re-exam¬ 
ination and correction of error and mistake, inciihmt to all judicial 
tribunals and proceedings, nmiains with the Senate in this r(‘sj)(‘ct, as 
well to do justice to itself as to the States represent(*d or to tin* iiersons 
claiming or holding seats. Such an abiding jiower must exist to jmrge 
the body from intruders, otherwise any one might retain his seat who 
had once Avrongly ])rocured a decision of the Senate in his favor by 
fraud or falsehood, or even by papers forged or fabricated.” 

In the light of the evidence now before the Senate the sitting mem¬ 
ber was admitted by a wrongly procured decision of the Senate in his 
favor by means (luite as criminal as those stated in the last ])aragTai)h 
quoted, since the means eiiqiloyed by him to secure his pretended elec¬ 
tion included conspiracies, briberies, and jieijnries often rejieated, and 
the knowledge of which was vigorously siqiiiressed on the former hear¬ 
ing. He was not chosen by the legislature of Louisiana. He was chosen 
by a body of men who conspired with him to defeat the will of the State, 
and who exclud(*d l)y force the members eleeted by the iieojile in order 
that the consjiirators might be enabled to acconqilish their work. 

The luimary authority to determine what is the legishituie of a State 
is and must be the State herself. When the Stab* determines that ques¬ 
tion for herself it is determined for all the world. Jn case there are two 
governments, or two bodies each claiming to be the true governm(*nt 
or the true legislature of the State, and the State has not determined 
the controversy, the duty may devolve upon others, and in this case 
111)011 this Senate to adjudge tiiat (piestion pro hoc rice. 

In danuary, 1877, a i>ortion of the members elected by the people 
united with (ithers not elected and seized the State house by co-opera¬ 
tion with the sitting member, who was then acting as governor, were 
barricad(‘d in the building, which was surrounded with troops, and 
refus(*d to ia*rmit other elected members to In* admitted into the build¬ 
ing. The barricaded iiersons called themselv(*s the h*gislature, and the 
excluded members met in St. Patrick's Hall and called themselves the 


XVI 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


legislature. This was the condition of things when the sitting member 
presented his credentials to this Senate and asked to be admitted to a 
seat on this floor. He was not admitted, but his credentials were 
referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Before the com¬ 
mittee took any action whatever the issue thus raised between these 
two rival bodies was settled by the State. It was decided that the 
bodj^ which assembled and organized in St. Patrick’s Hall was the true 
legislature of the State. This decision was accepted by all the people 
of Louisiana and by all the departments of her government, by the 
President and House of Bepresentatives, and by the circuit and district 
courts of the United States, and finally by all thei^ersons who composed 
the body which seized the State-house. The latter, which had been 
known as the Packard legislature, disbanded, leaving not a resolution, 
or act, or other thing which has ever been recognized as authoritative, 
or which has been claimed to be valid, save only the pretended election 
of the sitting member to this Senate, and this single act has been recog¬ 
nized only by this Senate. The former body, which had been known as 
the Nicholls legislature, performed all the functions of a legislature from 
the beginning, passed laws which are obeyed by all the people and 
enforced by all the courts. All the persons who had been elected left 
the pretended Packard legislature and took their seats in the Nicholls 
legislature, and those who had not been elected admitted they were 
not elected, without even a contest, and went home or into the custom¬ 
house or some other federal office. 

The regular legislature thus organized, composed of all the members 
elected by the people, chose the memorialist to the seat he is now claim¬ 
ing. The election was free, regular, legal, and witliout taint of corrup¬ 
tion of any kind, and his credentials are in due form. Of a legislature, 
which was composed, when full, senate and house, of one hundred and 
fifty-six members, the memorialist received over one hundred and forty 
votes. 

Since the former hearing in this case, the supreme court of Louisiana 
has also decided that the officers of the Packard government had, in 
Jaiiuary, 1877, no official status, and that no acts performed by them 
at that time, though purporting to be performed mrtute officii could have 
the force and effect of official acts.—(State ex rel. Lipo vs. Peck, 30 
Annual Eeports, 280.) 

And in addition to all this, the evidence now taken shows that the 
Packard legislature, which pretended to elect the sitting member, was, 
in fact as well as in law, not a legislature, but was a body of men 
assembled by fraud, held together by force and controlled by bribery 
with the aid and in the interest of the sitting member. " ^ 

Thus, the facts, the law, the integrity of this Senate, and the voice of 
a too long defrauded State of this Union unite in demanding the pas¬ 
sage of the following resolutions which your committee now submit for 
adoption by the Senate, to wit: 

That according to the evidence nowknoAvn to the Senate 
VVilhain Pitt Kellogg was not chosen by the legislature of Louisiana to 
the seat in the Senate for the term beginning on the 4th day of March 
18^and IS not entitled to sit in the same. ’ 

2. Resolved^ That Henry M. Spofford was chosen by the legislature 
of Loiiisuana to the seat in the Senate for the term beginning on the 4th 
day of March, 187/ , and that he be admitted to the same on taking the 
oath prescribed by law. ^ 


VIK\V8 OF THE MINOHITV. 


'Hie uiider 8 if 4 'ned, a Tiiiiiority of the Coimnittee of Privileges aud 
El^-tions, to wlioiii was refeiTod the memorial of Henry ]\I. Si)olford, 
claiming the seat now oecnpied by William Pitt Kellogg, submit the 
following as their views : 

On the 3()th day of November, 1877, the Senate ])assed the following 
resolutions: 

Ihsoh'cd, That William Titt Kellogg is, iijam the merits of the case entitled to a 
seat in the Senate of the I’^nited States from the State of Louisiana for the term of six 
yeap commencing on the 4th of Marcli, 1S77, and that lie he admitted thereto on 
taking the pro}>er oath. 

Ih'solred, That Henry M. S])otl'ord is not entith‘dto a seat in tlie Seiiat** of the Tnited 
States. 

The i>arty majority in the Senate has changed since Mr. Kellogg took 
the oath of oflice in inirsnance of the above resolution. Nothing else 
lias changed. The facts which the Senate considered and determined 
were in existence then as now. It is sought; by mere snjieriority ot 
numbers, for the first time to thrust a Senator from the seat which he 
holds by virtue of the express and deliberate final judgment of the 
Senate. 

The act which is demanded of this jiarty majority would be, in onr 
judgment, a gr<‘at ]mblic crime. It will be, if consummated, one of the 
great political crimes in Ameri(*an history, to be classed with the re¬ 
bellion, with th(‘. attem])t to take ])Ossession by fraud of the State gov¬ 
ernment in IMaine, and with the overthrow of State governments in the 
South, of which it is the fitting sequence. Political parties have too often 
been led by jiartisan zeal into measures which a sober judgment might 
disaiijirove, but they have ever resiiected the constitution of the Senate. 

'fhe men who.se iirofessions of returning loyalty to the Constitution 
have been trusted by the generous confidence of the American iieople 
are now to give evidence of the sincerity of their vows. The i>eople 
will thoroughly understand this matter, and will not be likely to be de¬ 
ceived again. 

We do not think ino])er to enter here ui>on a discussion of the (‘vi- 
dence by which the claimant of Mr. Kellogg's scat se(‘ks to (‘stablish 
charges affecting the integrity of that Senator. Such evidence can be 
found in abundance in the slums of great cities, it is not fit to be trusted 
in cases affecting the snndlest amount of juopei ty, much less the honor 
of an eminent citizen, or the title to an object of so much desire as a 
se^t in the Senate. This evidence is not only unworthy of respect or 
credit, but it is in many instances wholly irreconcilable with nndisj>uted 
fa 4 ‘ts, and Mr. Kellogg has met and overthrown it at eveiy point. 

(lEOlKiE F. HOAK. 

, ANGUS CAMEKON. 

dOHN A. LOGAN. 




S. Jiej». 388-li 


Wr 


f 






mOCEEDINGS 


OF THE 


C03DIHTEE ON I’KIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS, 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 

IN THE MATTER OP 


THE MEMORIAL OF HENRY M. SPOFFORD, 

PRAYING TO BE PERMITTED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE RELATIVE TO THE 
RIGHT OF WILLIAM P. KELLOGG TO THE SEAT IN THE SENATE 
HELD BY HIM FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, AND 
IN SUPPORT OF HIS OWN CLAIM THERETO. 


1 S K 

















I’K’OCEEDIXCJS OF THE COMMITTEE OX PRIVILEGES AXD ELECTIOXS, 
EXITED STATES SENATE, IX THE MATTER OF THE MEMORIAL OF HENRY 
M. SPOFFORl), PRAYING TO BE PERMITTED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE 
RELATIVE TO THE RIGHT OF WILLIAM P. KELLOGG TO THE SEAT IN 
THE SENATE HELD BY HIM FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, AND IN 
SUPPORT OF HIS OWN CLAIM THERETO. 


AVashington, April 1(), 1870. 

Pies(Mit, Senators Sanlsbury (eliairnian), Hill of (leor^ia, J>ail(\v, 
Houston, Vanee, Cameron of Wisconsin, Hoar, and Ingalls; also AVill- 
iain U. Kello^i’j?, tlie sitting ineinber, witli Ids counsel, Hon. S. S. Sliella- 
barger, and Henry AI. Spotford, the memorialist. 

The Chairman. The committee are now ready to hear the gentlemen 
in person or by counsel. 

Senator Cameron. Has Senator Kellogg had a coi)y of Air. Si)offord’s 
lietition presented to him '? 

Senator Keli.ogg. I received a copy last evening. 

Senator Ingali.s. Do you appear here by counsel, Air. Kellogg ? 

Senator Kellogg. AT‘s, sir; Judge Shellabarger reiuesents me. 

Air. Shellabarger. Am 1 called upon to i)roceed '? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir; if you desire to make any statement or 
argument you can do so. 

Air. Shellabarger. Air. Chairman and Senators, I came here sup- 
l)osing that the memorialist would open the ease. I did not know what 
the order or expectation of the comndttee was. 1 was in Kew York at 
the time that 1 saw the action of this committee, and came on from 
there last idght. I should like to understand therefore now, at the 
threshold, whether it is the judgment and sense of the committee, in 
order that Senator Kellogg shall have the benelit of the (piestion ot 
rcH adjudicataj as we call it (which conveys the entire idea that I have 
in my nnnd to the comndttee), and so that that (piestion may be pre¬ 
sented and considered by the comndttee, it must be interposed some¬ 
how in the nature of a jdea, or whether, on the other hand, the memo¬ 
rialist in coming and asking that this question be now investigated oc- 
cni)ies a position himself of presenting his ease, including in that case 
and its presentnition the (piestion as to whether the case is not already 
disposed of by the Senate. 

It is in regard to that point that I rise, and for the i)nr])ose of making 
the impdry. In order to know what I ought to do, it Avill be iiecessary 
that 1 should know the sense of the comndttee in that regard, if the com¬ 
mittee please. If not, I am of course, as w(‘ always are in a jmsition 
such as 1 occupy now, at tin? entire disposal of the comndttee, and it will 
be my jileasure to conform to their wishes. Hut it did appear to me that 
the Senate iii a case like this, just as any other court, would tak(> notice 
of its own records, and that it would su(( sponfe take notice of the (pies¬ 
tion whether this memorialist in presenting his petition has not to en- 
c()nid(U’ the question of his case having been already deiaded. 

In that view it wonldbe the natural course for my friend. Judge Sixif- 
ford, to present his case, including in that case the (]nestion of res adju- 



4 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


dicata. All I desire to know is what is the pleasure of the committee in 
that regard. 

The Chairman. I will make a statement to yon, Mr. Shellaharger, so 
that you may understand exactly what Avas done. The memorial of Mr. 
Spoft'ord asked the committee to obtain the authority to iiiA^estlgate cer¬ 
tain matters of fact and charges and specifications contained in his me¬ 
morial. AVhereupon yesterday, AA^hen aa e took up this question, a motion 
AA^as made that authority be obtained from the Senate to subpoena Ayit- 
nesses and send for persons and pai^ers; pending Avhich, the suggestion 
Avas made that Mr. Kellogg might desire to be heard by himself or coun¬ 
sel in reference to the question whether we shall proceed to take testi¬ 
mony in his case, and, therefore, the committee ordered notice to be 
served. If Mr. Kellogg has any objection to the adoption of the motion 
AYhich Avas made that Ave obtain authority to investigate by AAutnesses, 
Ave should like to hear you on that point. 

Mr. ShellABARGER. JVIr. Chairman, in reply to the last suggestion of 
the chair, I Avill say that undoubtedly Senator Kellogg i)roposes to rely 
at all times and in eA^ery stage of this inquuy upon the proposition that 
the case has been tried and decided and is disposed of, and that the 
Senate cannot, and the committee cannot, Avithoiit doing Adolence to the 
law of its OAvn being and organization, enter upon and retry a case 
finally disi)osed of. Therefore, if the point of the inquiry is to know 
AAdiether Senator Kellogg x^roposes to object to calling Avitnesses, I say 
at once that he does; and he iiroiioses, at the x>roi)er time and on all 
l)rox)er occasions, and ahvays subject to the xileasure of the committee, 
to iiresent the objection to the committee that the case is decided, and 
that you cannot oiieii it ux) without doing the same violence to the hiAv 
of the case that a court Avould be doing if it should do the same thing in 
regard to a decision finally made. That is our xiosition. IJxion that we 
AA ant to be heard at the xiroper time, and if it is our duty to oxien it 
noAV, I will x)roceed as Avell as I can j but I cannot x)roceed A'^ery much 
in Avriting, because I am not x)rex)ared. I belieA^e the committee has not 
voted upon that question yet. 

Senator Bailey. Ko. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Chairman, Avemay as well bring things to an issue 
(and I am fond of getting to an issue) in as brief a x>eriod as x)ossible. 
It seems to me it is veiy x)lain what course should be XRirsued in this 
matter. The memorial was read. Thereuxion notice aauis served u])on 
both parties to ax)X)ear here by themselA^es or counsel, and say Avhat 
they had to say why the x^Gtition should not be granted or acted uxion 
by this committee. They are here. Of course they can file a demurrer, 
or they can file a plea, or they can join issue of fiict; they can take either 
course. But for the purpose of bringing the matter to an issue, I moA^e 
that the chairman be authorized to a])])ly to the Senate for authority to 
take testimony, and thereupon to send for persons and papers, to admin- 
ister oaths, and do whatever else is necessary and usual in such cases, 
ihat AAill bring up the argument either by the x)arties or by the com- 
mittee. If we get that authority, we can go on Avith the iiiA^estigation. 
VVe shall be obliged to get that authority first. 

Senator Hoar. I suxqiose that Senator Hill’s idea in making the 
motion Avas to hear the parties upon that motion if they saAV fit to ad¬ 
dress themselves to it. 

• Hill. Certainly; I have, no objection. I think they have a 

right to be heard on it. 

Senator Hoar. I think that is a Auuy convenient course to pursue. 

Senator Hill. e have to determine that question first. 


SPOFFORI) VS. KELLOGG. 


5 

Tlie ('iiAiRMAN. G(Mitl(‘inc‘n you have heard the motion. If the par¬ 
ties desire to lx* lieard ui)oii the motion, they will be heard ujmn it. 

Mr. SpoFFoRi). I have set out a case in my memorial. If the counsel 
on the other side will admit that all the allej^ations in that memorial are 
true, I am ready to go into an argument on the question of law. It would 
then leave nothing but the question of law, of res adjuflicafa^ and the 
consideration of the ])lea he liles; but if he is not willing to admit the 
tacts, ot course there is matter for proof, and 1 want authority to take 
the })roof. 

MEMORIAL OF MR. SPOFFORD. 

Senator Hoar. If it would not take more than a minute to read the 
memorial I should like to hear it. 

The Chairman. It is not long; I will read it: 

To the honorable the Senate of the United States: 

The ])etition of Henry M. Spolior«l, a citizen of tlic State of Louisiana, res]iectfully 
represents: That he was (Inly (•hos(‘ii (April 24, 1S77) by the h?”;islature of Lonisianu 
a Senator from that State; for the term of six years hepnuinj; March 4, 1877, ami end¬ 
ing March 3, 1883; that he was then, and still is, jeossessed of the (|nalilications for 
said office ])rescribed by the Constitution and laws of the United States; that Will¬ 
iam P. Kellojijj^ claimed to have been elected to the same ])osition by another legisla¬ 
ture, which ])etitioner resp(*ctfnlly represents was not the h‘gislatnre of Louisiana, nor 
comi>etent to elect a Senator; that the i)retended election of the said Kellogg was 
really void; that the cred(*ntials of the said Kellogg, and afterwards those of your 
])etitioner, were referred by yonr honorable body, in the year 1877, to tin* Committee 
on Privih‘g(!s and Elections; that a jtartial or imjierfect investigation of their res)>ect- 
ive claims to the above-mentioned seat in the Senate was had before the said com¬ 
mittee, but the case made by yonr petitioner against the claim of the said Kellogg 
was not fully lieanl by tin* committee, because they came to a smbhui determination to 
close the same without giving him o]>]K)rtnnity to adduce ])roof, which he had con¬ 
stantly offered to adduce if leave w(‘re grant(‘d, having a material bearing u]K)n the 
cont«*st for said seat against K(‘llogg’s claim; that the jamdency of a controversy in 
th(‘ S(Miate relative to the disi)osition to be made of another contest between other 
]»arties over another s(‘at led to the hurried closing of the (‘vidence in the case between 
said Kellogg and petitioner by the committee, a maiority of whom speedily made 
report in favor of said Kell(»gg’s claim; that this abrupt closing of the case and refusal 
of ])etitioner’s riMpiest for h'ave to take evid(*nce was against tlie remonstrance of i>eti- 
tioner, who (b'sired to make a formal ]»rotest, but was told that no prectslent was known 
for such a juactice; that the rej)ort of the committ(‘e, hiade while the other contro¬ 
versy just nderred to was under (h'bate, in the Senate, led to confusion in consiihwing, 
discussing, and disi»osing of the two cases; that for the reasons aforesaid j)etitioner’s 
ease against the said Kellogg never had a full examination and hearing upon its merits, 
(dther in the committ(*e or in the Senate, and shouldtherefon*, ixditioner most respect- 
fnllv submits, be re-examined, to the end that justice may be done. 

J’etitioner fnrtlu'r rei)r<‘sents that the State of Louisiana through its h^gislature, 
(as will fully ai)p(*ar by a joiut resolution of the two houses of the gcmeral assembly, 
ajiprovtid F(d)rnaiy 1, 1878, to which riderence is here made), has i)rotested against the 
admission and r(‘tention of said Kellogg in said seat and the exclusion of your jmti- 
tioner therefrom as h'aving unfnllilled that ])rovision of the (Constitution ot the United 
States which declares “that the Senate of the Unit(Ml Stab's shall be composed of 
two Senators from each State, to he chosen hi/ the lajislature thereof, for six years.” 

Petitioner furtlnu’ repres(*nts that he ever has been and stilt is ready to furnish evi¬ 
dence to establish the live si>eeitications upon which he was not ]M‘rmitted to tak(^ 
jn'oof lu'retofon*, and ]>articnlaily evidi'iice of the direct and active intcrteianice <)t 
said Kidlogg in th<‘ ]>reparation of illegal comi)laints or protests against polls of which 
h(‘ had no knowledge. 

Petitioner further represt'uts that since the (‘ontest ,ator(‘said and very recently ho 
has discovered m‘W and material evidence to i)rove that tin' election ot said Kellogg 
was null and void, bv reason of improper, ilh'gal, and ('orrupt inlln('nc«'sexert('d by him in 
jjerson to bring aboiit his own election asSt'uator; to prove that he obtaini'dand held the 
title ofgov«'nior by eorrni)t bargain, not byeh'ction, and then usetl the power, patron¬ 
age, and resonrc('s ot' the governor’s ollict* to ])ro<*ur(' tin* rt'tnrn and organization ot a 
geni-ral assembly for the purpose of electing him Senator, and afterward emi>loyed 
both menace and briberv among tln)s(' whom he had assisted to havi'returned as mem¬ 
bers to indnee them to vote for him as Senator; and that but for such ilh'gal and c(»r- 


6 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


nipt iuterference personally exerted by the said Kellof?g’, he wonhl not have secured 
the nominal election under which he claims his seat. All ot which petitioner now 
offers to prove upon a review of the case. 

Wherefore, the premises considered, your petitioner respectfully prays that a full 
and complete examination of the claims of William P. Kellogg and ot your jietitioner 
to said seat in the United States Senate he now aAvarded, and alter such examination 
and a hearing the title of the said Kellogg to the saids(^at lie vacated and that ot your 
petitioner be recognized and eowtirmcd, and he be admitted to said seat. And your 
petitioner prays for all such references, orders, and relief as may be necessary and 
})ro]>er in the premises. 

And as in duty bound will ever prav. 

HENRY :\I. SPOFFORD. 


AKGUMEXT OF MR. SHELLABARGER. 


]\rr. ShellABARGER. I understaiKl, Mr. Cbainnati and Senators, from 
wliat is said by Jndge Siiolford, that it is proposed, if we have anything* 
to say in regard to the memorial, and before the committee shall vote 
upon the motion of Senator Hill, that we shall say it now. 

I began the preparation very recently of an argument in regard to 
this whole case—not in regard to tlie res adjudicata point merely, but in 
regard to the whole case—and have not coinjileted it. In so far as I 
have gone in that written preparation I will take the liberty, witli tlie 
leave of the committee, to present that part of my written brief, and 
add to it (unless the committee has resolved tliat I shall now proceed 
orally) any suggestions that may occur to me as I go along. 

Senator Hill. Allow me to suggest that the question before the com¬ 
mittee now is a very narrow one, and that is Avhether we shall jiroceed 
to take testimony. That is the only question now before the committee. 

Mr. Shell ABARGER. Tliat of course involves the question as to 
whether the case is in a condition to admit properly of an affirmative 
vote upon Senator Hill’s motion, and that presents directly and sharply 
the question of res adjudieata. 

Senator Hill. That is the question. If it is res (idjudiedtd^ we takre 
ho testimony; if it is not res adjudieaia^ we do proceed to take it. 

Senator Hoar. That would depend on the further iiossible question— 
I do not knoAA’ whether there is one; I have not analyzed the memorial 
enough to see—whether it all the facts be true it did not iiresent a fni ther 
case. 


Senator Hill. That is for Kellogg to determine. If he is satisfied to 
risk it on the facts as stated in the memorial, there is no necessity to take 
testimony. It he admits the tacts there and says taking those facts to 
be true the case is not concluded or the case is not sntlicient, that would 
be the issue. 

Senator Hoar. There might be a third. The committee might be of 
opinion that the facts being true would not warrant the going into what 
they regard as Mr. Kellogg’s opinion on the subject. I do not know 
that that would arise practically; I merely suggest that it might. 

Seiiator Hill. Of course the question would arise whether the* facts are 
snlhcient, or whether they entitle Kellogg or S[)otford to the seat. 

Senator Hoar. They might set forth, for instance, that the person was 
ot Indian descent or something else; and the other side might sav I 
do not i)io})ose to come in and admit that fact, for no committee would 
inquire to my title to the seat l)y reason of it.” 

Senator Hill. The materiality of the testimony of (*ourse is another 
thing. 


Mr. SHELLABARGER. I did iiot mean, Mr. Chairman, bv what I said, 
before Senator Hoar spoke, to indicate that the question of rc.s* adjudi- 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


7 


cafa is the only question presented by the memorial. Indeed, on hearin*^ 
the petition again read, I should be incline<l to think that a demurrer to 
the proposed evidence, in so far as it is indicated at all, would lie. 

What I proposed, however, to say this morning I intended to make 
applicable alone to the single question as to whether the status of the 
case now before the committee is that of an adjudicated case. I lay down 
this proposition: That the Senate, in the lawful exercise of its jurisdic¬ 
tion to judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its own mem¬ 
bers, has taken jurisdiction of the entire subject-matter presented to the 
Senate by the memorial of the contestant, and committed by the Senate 
to the committee, namely, the matter of the validity of the alleged titles 
of the sitting Senator and contestant to said seat respectively; has taken, 
heard, and considered the e\idence bearing u])on that subject; has tried 
and decided the same upon the merits; and that this decision of the Sen¬ 
ate is a judgment judicial and final in its nature and efiect, which the 
Senate itself may not now reconsider or reverse without doing an act of 
violence against the fundamental law of its own organization. 

Now, let me present a synopsis of the record facts bearing upon Uiis 
question of res adjudkata. 

On the ^oth of October, 1877 (see Ilecord, page lo(l), the Senate 
unanimously adopted the following resolution: 

JResdlved, That the Committee on Privilepres ami Elections on the contested <*ases of 
William Pitt Kello<?p; and Henry M. Spotlord, chiiminfi; seats as Senators from the 
State of Lonisiana, and whose credentials have been referred t«) such committee, he 
anthorized to send for persons and papers, and a<lminister oaths, with a view ol‘ en¬ 
abling said committee to determine, and report n[)on the title, respectively, on tin- 
merits of each of said contestants to a seat in the Senate. 

Under the authority of this resolution the said committee did i)roceed 
to take testimony and try the said cases of William Ifitt Kellogg and 
Henry M. Spoftbrd, so stwerally claiming the said seat, on the mm-its, 
and for that puri)ose, with the assent of both the claimants, rec(‘ived, 
considered, and treated as evidence the pertinent parts of the i)nblie 
records of the State of Louisiana, and all the pertinent i)arts of tlie evi¬ 
dence taken by and furnished in the four following reports: House 
lleport of the Forty-fourth Congress, second session, commonly known 
as the Field report; House lleport No. loO, Forty-fourth Congress, sec*- 
ond session, known as the Morrison report; Stmate lleport No. 7(11, 
Forty-fourth Congress, second session, known as the Howe report; and 
Executive Document No. 2, Forty-fourth ('ongress, second session, 
known as the Sherman letter or d(‘])osit with exhibit. For that assent 
of .Mr. Si)otford see page 7(1 of the proceedings of this committee, wliich 
you liave lunl ])rint(‘d; also see the statement in tlie debate in the Senate 
((\)ngr(‘ssi()nal Ilecord, 28th November, 18«7, i)age 74(1), by Senator 
Hoar, of this committee. This testimony in th(‘S(‘ four reports covered 

about ten thousand pages of i)rinted niattm-. 

On the 2()th of November, 1877, after such full trial and tinal disposi¬ 
tion by the committee of the said cases on the imu'its, the committee 
made a fall reiKvrt on the merits in Senate llei)ort No. 2(1 (se<* Congres- 
si<mal Ilecord, November 2(1, 1877, page (Ido), and th(‘ committee accom¬ 
panied its r(‘))ort with the following resolution: 

JicHohrd, That William Pitt Kellogg is, upon the merits of tin- ease, entith‘«l to a seat 
in the Senat<- <*f the United States ^om the State (»f l.onisiana for tie- term of six 
yeai-s, eommeneing on the 4th of March, 1S77, ami that he he a Imitted thereto upon 
taking the proju-r oath. 

Hctiolnd, That Henry M. Spoflord is mit entitled to a seat in the Senate of the Uiiifial 
States. 


8 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The immediate consideration of the resolution was asked. 

Mr. Spofford. Both resolutions or only one? There are two there. 

Mr. Shellabarger. The immediate consideration of the report was 
asked. That is found on page 635 of the Eecord, and it was refused. 
On the 28th day of i^'ovember the Senate voted to take up this resolu¬ 
tion. (See Eecord, page 730.) The whole case of both claimants, as 
presented by these resolutions, was most fully debated and considered 
through three days—the 28tli, 29th, and 30th of E'ovember, 1877. In 
that debate, as indicated by the index, more than half the Senate par¬ 
ticipated; it covered every possible opinion and view of the subject on 
its merits. On this last day the Senate came to a unanimous agree¬ 
ment (see Eecord, page 796) to vote first on the Kellogg-Spofford case 
at 2.30 o’clock of that day. The first vote was iix)on an amendment in 
these words: 

Besolved, That Henry M. Spofford he admitted as a Senator from the State of 
Louisiana on iAxe, pvima-facie title, and subject to the right of William Pitt Kellogg to 
contest his seat. 


Which was lost—yeas 27, nays 29. (Eecord, page 797.) 

A motion was then made to allow Mr. Spofford to x)roduce at the bar 
of the Senate the evidence offered by him to the committee, the evidence 
as set out on the third page of the minority report. This motion was 
witlidrawn, and the vote was taken on the original resolution as offered 
by the majority of the committee on the 26th of November, as above set 
forth, and the resolution was adoi>ted. 

Senator Hill. What motion did you say Avas withdraAvn ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. The motion to suffer the contestant to produce 
at the bar of the Senate the testimony lie had offered to the committee 
as set out on the third page of the vieAvs of the minority. 

On this final seating of Mr. Kellogg the vote is recorded on page 797, 
and stood yeas 30, nays 28; and thereufion Mr. Kellogg ^\‘ds sworn in 
and took his seat; and no motion to reconsider that vote was ever made 
in the Senate that I can find. 

Senator Hill. There Avas none. 

Ml. Shellabarger. It is ujion these facts Ave noAv base our projio- 
sition numbei one, that the case is adjudged—has passed into judgment. 

Mr. Chairmaii, I shall be very brief to-day. I trust that if this case 
goes on AA e shall be permitted at another stage of it to amplify and present 
more fully than opportunities to-day Avill enable me to do this imDortant 
question. ^ 

lu support of this proposition we state first—and T choose to state it 
HI the language of the highest authorities—I take from Mr. Coolev in 
his work on Constitutional Limitations, page 133_this: ^ 

questions concerning contested seats the House exercises judicial 


Wil’i Mr Cuslnng’s work on tlie Law and Practice of Legislative Asseni- 
blies, section 634, he states the rule in these Avords: 

The only other inciilental powers of a legislative assenihly heimr more striciv 
mialogous to tlnise exercised hy Judicial tril.unals, constitute its pidUMal lunvera'-il 
distinguished trom its legislative; and accordingly— ‘ ^ 

To this I desire to attract tlie attention of tlie committee— 

Professor Farrar, in ids manual on the Constitution, page 14.'!, st ites 


8P0FF0KD VS. KFLLOGG. 9 

tlie same in these words, when speaking of tlie i)ower to try the elec¬ 
tion of inend)ers of the two houses : 

This is in the nature of a judicial i)ower, and should he r(‘gnlated hy known princi- 
l»h‘s of law. 

Here the learned author luin^s in another imineiple that had not ap- 
])eared fully above, although it is indicated in what I just quoted from 
Cushing; it is the element that in luoceeding in exercise of its judicial 
])ower each house of Congress should be regulated by known i)riuciples 
of law, including, of course, in that, the known principle that when a 
court of last resort has on its merits decided a case, then to open it up 
and treat it as not decided is not according to the known i)rinciples of 
law, but is what the law calls violence. 

J>ut in the next citation that I juoduce this same element api)ears 
mon^ distinctly still, and it is from Chancellor Kent, 1st Kent’s Com¬ 
mentaries, side page 235. In speaking of this power to judge of the 
elections of members, he says: 

As each house acts in these cases in a judicial character, its decisions, like the decis¬ 
ions of any other court of justice— 

The Senate is a court of justice— 

■on^ht to he regulated hj' the known principles of law, and strictly adhered to for 
the sake of nniforiuity and certainty. 

These, Mr. Chairman, are some of the endless nund)er of authorities 
that might be ]>roduced, but none could be i)roduced of higher emimmee, 
unhiSs it would be the authority of the Senate itself, which would, of 
course, be a higher authority as applied to this ])articular subject- 
matter. 

Now let me suggest two or three things in this connection bearing 
ui)on the same idea, that this is a judicial jmwer, that when once exer- 
cis(‘d the judgment reached has all the elements and (pialities of a 
judgment of a court of last resort. Let me suggest first of all that the 
Constitution itself in the language it em])loys stamps ui)on itself that 
idea unmistakably, because* it us(‘s the word most fit of all other words 
to indicate* that a ele*e*isie)n in re*garel te) a seat is a judgment, for it says 
that the* hemse shall ‘‘juelge*,” using that worel. 

Next, whe*n that worel was emi)loyeel anel put inte) the* Constitutie)n, 
the lu-actice* eef the lleeuses e>f rarliament was known and settle*el in the 
way that 1 have* stateel, tor altlmugh ye)u canned trace the histe)ry e)f 
Parliame*nt back te) its be*ginning (fen* it is lost in tog, in shaele)w), 
yet the*re has be*e*n a long periexl e)f yenirs in whie*h it has been held that 
this elee*ision that the ('e)nstitution here sjeeaks e)f when it says the twe) 
houses shall “judge,” is a juelgment. 

It is true*, Mr. (’hairman and Semateers, that it came after a le)ng strug¬ 
gle in Knglanel te) be* settleel, e*s])ee*ially settled in the e*elebrate*el case 
known as the I’l inters'Case elecide*el by Lord Denman, and e)ther jmlges 
also dedivering o])inie)ns, tl?at the Imuses e*e)uhl ne)t de*fine* the exte*nt 
e)f the*ir e)wn j)rivile*ges; that it was ne)t e*omi)ete*nt fe)r the he)use*s to 
make that a ])rivih*ge whiefii by the law e)f Knglanel was not one* e)f the 
])rivile*ges e)f the* he)uses; but it was e*epially elecieled in that case* (se*e 

Aele)l. cV Kllis, 1), as it had be*en e)ften betbre, as in IJurdett rs. Abbe)tt, 
Id East., by Lord Klh*id)ore)ugh, that when the* He)uses of Larliame*nt 

judgeer' upe)n any inatteT ce)ming within thedr ])rivile*ges, sne*h as e*e)n- 
tt‘m])t e)r the light' to a seat, then the* elecisiem was a judgment in the 
ti ne anel h*gal se*nse e)f the we)rel. Thus it hael be*e*e)me se*tth‘d thoroughly 
at the elate* e)f the formation of e)ur (’e)nstitution that as to whateve*r 
we*re* the i)rivih‘ges e)i' the* twe) he)nse*s (anmngst them e*e*rtaiidy was the 


10 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


judging’ of the title of their members), their judgment was judicial in 
its nature, and when tinal on its face and according to the truth, it was 
no more subject to reversal than other judgments were. 

So, then, the word ^^judge,” as emi)loyed in the Oonstitution, gets its 
signification from the sense it liad in each ])articular transaction in 
the Parliament at the day of the formation of the Constitution. To make 
]>lain now what I mean, it is precisely like the case of jury,” as em¬ 
ployed in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that 
indicates what a jury is, or how many it sliall be comi)osed of, but it gets, 
instantly its conclusive signification, because it was a known word, and 
meant twelve men at the time tlie ('onstitntion was made, 1 ani 

only saying that Avhen that word judge” was employed in the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States, the signification of the character of this 
transaction, deciding 111)011 the title of a member to a seat, was recog¬ 
nized as a judgment, and when that word judge” was em])loyed in the 
Constitution, it was employed to signify tiiat the result of judging would 
be a judgment, and that it would have the attributes and (pialities of 
any other judgment. 

Another suggestion in the way of illustration and of enforcement. It 
was a mere matter of coin enience and of propriety, not a matter of 
substantial power, which indiu'ed the Constitutional Convention to make 
the two hous(‘s the judges of the election of their members. It would 
have been perfe('tly competent for the Constitution to have referred the 
judging of the seats of Senators to the Supreme Court of the United 
States. It would have been a very mistaken step, for then it would have 
deprived the two bodies of that independence of all other authority 
which is so necespiry to themselves. Still there was no defect of 
])ower. The Constitution miglit have done so. Xobody jit this table, 
nobody in this country, would hesitate to say that had they provided 
for the Supreme Court trying a Senator’s title, as they do provide, in 
all the States for the courts trying the title to the very highest offices— 
never the legislative otlice, it is true, but still the highest other offic ss 
of the State are handed o’s’er to the courts—then the decision of the 
Supreme Court once made would be a judgment and final. 

Senator Hoar. Is not that the law now in regard to the House of 
Commons in England of late years, that they try election (‘ases in the. 
courts'? 


Mr. SriELLAnARGER. Yes, that is true; and it is true in my State, 
and I suppose in all your States, that the titles of the highest function¬ 
aries of the States are tried by the courts. 

Senator Hoar, l^ou do not understand me. I understand, on the 
very point you are now suggesting, that the titles to seats in the House 
ot (Jommons are now ascertained by the highest courts in England. 

Mr. SiiELLARARGER. That 1 did not know. If that is so,It is a law 
that has esca])ed my {ittention. 

Senator Hoar. I think they have recumtly introduced that system. 

3Ir. SiiELLARARGER. There is nothing in the P>ritish constitution, 
1 arJiament being omniiiotent, that would iirevent them doing that in 
England ; but I was not aware of the fact that Senator Hoar has just 
called np^jitten P>ut that only is to enforce this idea, that‘the 

tact that this function is reserved to the two houses in the Constitution 
does not change the nature of the subject-matter of imniirv. It onlv 
has selected a different tribunal from that which might huve beeii 
selected, and if that other one had been selected we all can see and feel 
instinctively, so that it is impossible to doubt, that whatever court was 
made the court ot hnal trial, the decision Avoiild have been then a judg- 


8P()FF0KU V8. KFLLOGG. 


11 


iiient, and it would stand as matter of law just as stands the trial of tlie 
seats of any of the otlicials whose title is now given over to the courts. 

Stmator Hill. Let me ask a question. Conceding all you say, that 
we have settled this case, and that the Senate sat as a court; that its vote 
is a Judgment with all the binding force and validity of a judgment of 
a (H)urt; suppose a judgment of a court has been rendered after the ex¬ 
clusion by tin*, court of material testimony on the merits of the case^ 
would that judgment be conclusive or not ? 

Mr. Shellauarger. Tliat is another branch, as Senator Hill will 
agree with me, of the discussion, to which I shall come in a few moments; 
and of course the (piestion is an exceedingly pertinent one, audit wonhl 
not do at all to omit its consideration from this argument; and, if he will 
excuse me, I will come to it presentlj^ 

Now I want to make another statement, for to-day this is not to be a 
discussion, Imt a set of statements. I have gone through as thoroughly 
as 1 could, in the time that has been allowed me since I was calh‘d into 
this case, that long and rather mixed-up line of authorities and decisions 
that is to be found in our various books containing the contested-elec¬ 
tion cases in the two houses', and I want to lay down here an (‘xceed- 
ingly persuasive fact in the direction of my argument, that there is not 
in the whole history of the American ( Vmgress a single case to be found 
in either house where the record declares the fact that either house had 
tried the merits of a case as shown by the record, as this was tried on 
the merits, and in which they have retried it, or even, so far as, I can 
find, attempted to retry it. .My learned friend who is taking notes at 
my side, and who is the contestant, will present the case, if there is one. 
1 find it stated, and it is uncontradicted, in the argument that was con- 
du(*ded before you for Mr. Ibitler, of South Carolina, by my learned 
friend, and a very industrious lawyer, G(‘neral Caine, that there is not 
such a case to be h>und, not one; and 1 do not find that counsel on the 
other side, or any member of the committee, or anybody in the debate*, 
ever found a case where either House of Congress has attem])ted to retry 
a title Avhich they had deliberately tried on the nn*rits and decideel. 

Senator Hill. As one of the committee, I admit the full force of that 
statement to be true. 

.Mr. SiiELLARARGER. Ts iiot that an exc(‘edingly jiersnasive fact, that 
in all the eageiuess and avidity with which our whole history has bris- 
th*d in regard to this matter of getting seats in Congress and getting 
men out of Congress, and is it notone of the (*reditable facts to be found 
in onr legislative history that there is at least one thing that has stood 
the test of ages and has never been tranqded down. That om* thing is 
this—That when either house of Congress has heard, tried, and decided 
on its merits the title to a seat, then that judgment is irrev(‘rsible; and 
not one such judgment has been reversed in the one hundred years of 
onr life. .Vnd is not this vast fact an overwhelming authority from the 
Senate itself on my side that the thing is not comi)etent to be done since 
it never has b(*en done and never seriously urged to be done? The case 
that comes perhaps the nearest it was the one which was relied iqion by 
.Mr. Corbin—the committee gave no imixu tance to it evidently—tin- case 
from .Mississippi in bs;37 when* there was a called session of Congress to 
me(‘t in September, and by the laws of Mississii>pi the election for its 
members could not occur until Xovend)er which would follow that Se])- 
tendM*r special meeting. There the governor issued a proclamation for 
an eh‘ction for two members to the Twenty-tifth (Vmgress from Missis¬ 
sippi, and put it into his i)roclamation that they should not be Congress¬ 
men except f(U’ that session or until the November election. Certain 
gentlemen were elected, presented their credentials and asked (without 


12 


SrOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


tlieir credentials eAW being contested) tliat tlieir riglit might be looked 
ini 0 . Tlieir riglit was looked into. Obviously the question as to Avhether 
there was a vacancy at all that could be thus filled, as the case was pre¬ 
sented, was a question in the case; and if there Avas a A^acancy, also the 
question Avas considered in part by the committee as to hoAv long the 
election would continue, Avhether it AA-ould go out AAuth the ISToA^ember 
•election, or A\diether it would not and would continue during the Congress. 

The Chairman. Let me call your attention to one fact, and I do it 
for information, because you seem to have examined the contested-elec¬ 
tion cases. You obseiwe that the petitioner alleges, whether rightfully 
or not, that he Avas denied the opportunity of producing e\ddence of 
certain matters which he desired to proA^e. HaA^e you in your investi¬ 
gation into election cases found a case Avhere a reAuew was asked upon 
that ground ! 

Mr. ShellabArger. I haA^e not, Mr. Chairman, found any case Avhere 
a revieAv Avas asked at all after a trial upon its merits on any ground. 

Senator Hill. HaA^e you found any case where such a request to pro¬ 
duce testimony Avas refused by the committee or the Senate? 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. I think there is no such case, because no such 
case eA^er arose, so far as I know, and if I am wrong of course my history 
Avill be corrected by the Senators. There is sinqily an absence of all 
eases like this from the history of your ])art of Congress. I do not 
cite the fact that I haA^e just brought to your attention for the jmrpose 
of saying that there has been a case that has either refused to bear tes¬ 
timony or that this question has been considered at all, but I cite the 
fact as an authority of the very highest dignity that no case has been 
found AAdiere the thing was attempted. 

I need not go through the case from Mississippi. I Avill come pivs- 
ently to a more full consideration of the subject named by the Senators 
at the head of the table. The case from Mississippi Av^as simply a case 
Avhere the committee in the first instance decided that the seat was filled 
Avithout deciding for hoAv long it was filled. They came to a Amte after- 
Avards iu Avhich they declared that the seat AA'as A’acant at the time they 
came to act on it, after the expiration of the special session. That Avas 
a A^ery close Amte, and it appears by the record that enough of A’^otes un¬ 
seating the members that Avere first seated AA^ere influenced by the belief 
that the time of those first seated had expired to have changed the result. 
That case, therefore, has no kind of ap])lication at all to this case as jire- 
senting a question as to retiying a title that had been tried and decided, 
lor there Avere enough A^oting to change the result, and avIio had Amted 
on the former resolution to seat the men Avithout voting at all upon the 
question hoAv long that seat Avould continue, so the changed result did 
not.indicate anything at all in regard to the question of the power to 
unseat a man Avdio had been once seated on trial. 

The committee adjourned until to-morroAv at 10 o’clock a. m. 



Thursday, April 17, 1<S70. 



me..t yesterday I have occnpied my time iu redimYg to wdtiirg ^ 



SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 

I wanted to say as tar as I could get along with it, and with voiir indul¬ 
gence I will read it. • " 

io an iiKiuiry made by a member of the committee as to whether any 
case was ])resented by our pjirliamentary history where a contestant for 
a seat in the Senate had been refused by the Senate leave to introduce 
what he deemed material evidence, I reidied that I remeiid)ered no such 
exact case; and I said that the very fact that in the one hundred years 
ol our parliamentary life, considering the eagerness with which, on all 
sorts ot grounds, and on all sorts of lack of all grounds of contest, these 
seats have been contested, not a single case is to be found Avhere either 
house either had set aside any judgment on the merits a warding a seat^ 
where the records of the house disclosed the fact that the case had been 
tried on the merits, or had seriously considered the i)ropriety of such an 
act, was the highest possible authority establishing the ])ro]losition that 
the ])ower to re-try a case so decided is not regarded as existing in the 
houses. 

1 now Avish to cite the action of the Senate in one or two cases as 
illustrative of this matter as to how the Senate regards a judgment on 
the merits touching a seat in its bod}'. 

In the case of Fitch and Bright, ^Ir. Pugh, for tln^ majority of the 
committee, on the 24th ]May, 1(S.'>8 (Contested Flection Bases of i8(J4-'L5, 
]). Odd), re])orted that these i)ersons were entitled to tlieir seats, and the 
Senate considered and debated this resolution, and decided tliat they 
were so entitled. In the se(*ond session of the Thirty-tifth Congress 
tlieir title Avas again brought, by Lane and McCarty and a memorial 
from the legislature of Indiana, before the Senate, and the Senate again 
referred the matter to the Judiciary Committee, aud on the dd February, 
bS.")!), ^Ir. Bayard, from that committee, made a report Avhich Avas sus¬ 
tained by the Senate. The point of ditference betAveen ^Ir. Bayard and 
the majority of the committee on the one hand, and the minority on the 
other hand, in this re])ort, Avas Avhether the Smiate had so tinally ad¬ 
judged the case, Avheu the resolution of Mr. Pugh Avas adojited de(*laring 
Bright and Fitch entitled to their seats, that the question Avas no longer 
open to the Senate, or Avhether, on the other hand, the ])oAA'er of the 
Senate AA'as a continuing and inexhaustible ])o ver—Avas sucli aii eleimmt 
of soA'ereignty as that the Senate could not be estoiijied, by its former 
judgment, from an incessant ixqietition of judgments upon the samt‘ sub¬ 
ject-matter. That AA'as the real issue, and it Avas decided, tirst by the 
committee, and aftei AA ards by the Senate, Avhen, by a. A'ote of Jl to 20, it 
(h*cided to leaA'e Bright and Fit(*h in their seats. (See ( Vmtested Flec¬ 
tions of 1804-’(>r), p. (>o7.) 

In their reimrt the committee says: 

“ In the o])iuioii of tlio connnittoe tliis n'solution (that is, tho rt'solntion of Mr. Pn^li 
of Ma.A' ‘24, 1858, (loclarin<^ Fitch and Bii<;ht entitled to their s(‘ats), no motion liavinji^ 
hot'll liiadc to reconsider it, finally disposed of all ((iiestions prest'iitcd to the Senate 
involving tlie rt'spcctiA'e rights.” of Fitcli ami Jtright. * * ^ “The th'cision was 

niatle by an anthorit,v having exclusive jurisdiction of the subject; was jmlicial in its 
natnr<“, and being niatle on a contest in which all the facts and tinestions of law in¬ 
volving the valitlity of the election of Messrs. Fitch and Hright, and their respectivt^ 
rights to their seats, were as fiilfv known and presented to the Senate as tht'y art' now 
in the memttrial tif the h'gislatnre tif Indiana. The Jiidgmt'iit tif the Senate then rt'ii- 
th'ietl /.V fhxil, and prccdadcs inqnirif into the aithjed to ndtich it ndaien.'’ (Contest. Elect.^ 
18f;4-T)5; page 054.) 

XoAA', r do not cite this case to shoAv that it is out of the ]K)Aver of the 
S(*u;ite AAJieii it htis, iu ;i mere simuhited trial, iu violation of hiAV aud right, 
refusLMl ti hearing to a coutestaut, and luis decided his ctise pro/essedljf ou 
the merits, but AA'ithout tmy sidistautitd tritd ou the merits, to grant ti ucav 


14 


SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 


trial. This case does not decide that. What I do cite the case for is that 
which it does fully and exactly decide, namely, that this power to judge ot 
the election of a Senator is a judicial power; that the Senate, in exercising 
it, sits as a court; that its journals recording the proceedings are records 
of a court; that when the decision is reached that decision is a judg¬ 
ment to all intents and purposes—a judgment in such sense that it im¬ 
ports verity, and cannot he collaterally impeached, and can, as a judg¬ 
ment. he introduced in evidence, as, for example, in the Court of Claims, 
for tlie recovery of the salary of a Senator, and that against it no one 
Avho might claim that he was the true Senator nor the United States can 
aver or prove aught; that this judgment exhausts the jurisdiction of the 
Senate over the suhject-matter, and estops the Senate to retry the res 
judicata. 

Cited for this purpose, the case of Fitch and Bright is one exactly 
and strongly in point, and decides this fully. 

In the case of Spencer (see Senate report No. 331, first session Forty- 
fourth Congress), the Senate Avas memorialized hy the legislature of 
Alabama to retry the title of Mr. Spencer, so far as that title Avas 
dependent upon the character of the body which elected him, as Avell 
as upon other grounds. The memorial aa ^s accom])anied hy a ma^s ot 
papers and testimony taken hy the legislature, and also Avith specifica¬ 
tions hy the counsel who represented the State. Here Avas jiresented a 
vast mass of alleged fVicts iieA^er before presented to the Senate or con¬ 
sidered hy it in the former trial of the question Avhich Avas the true leg¬ 
islature of the State. 

But this committee had, on the 20th of Ajuil, 1874, reported to the 
Senate, under a reference and order of the Senate ni)on this matter— 
that is, as to which Avas the true legislature, and as to Avhich body, 
whether Avhat was knoA\n as the State-house legislature, which had 
chosen the contestant of the seat of Spencer, or the court-house legis¬ 
lature, which had chosen Mr. Spencer, was the lawful legislature—con- 
^sidered, decided, and reported to the Senate in favor of Mr. Spencer’s 
title, and the Senate had adopted the report of the committee. (See 
Senate report No. 201 of first session of Forty-fourth Congress.) 

When the committee on the 20th of May, 187G, came to report on the 
second hearing of the Si)encer case, it held, I belieA^e unanimously (the 
ehairman will remember Iioav that Avas ; I find no dissent in the rei)ort 
of the committee), that the former judgment of the Senate touching 
Avhich Avas the lawful legislature finally adjudged the matter, and the 
committee refused to open that part of the case or to retry the title, and 
confined the inquiry to the question AAdiether the seat of Mr. Spencer 
Avas procured by corrux)t or unlaAvful means. 

Now I Avill quote from the committee. The committee, speaking of 
the first contest and its results, say : 

The question in that contest (of 1874) was Avhether what was known as the court¬ 
house Icf^islature, by which Mr. Spencer was elected, or the capitol legislature, by 
which Mr. Sykes was elected, was the lawful legislature of Alabama. After a full con¬ 
sideration and argument of counsel, it Avas determined by the committee, and after¬ 
wards by the Senate, that the court-house legislature AA'as the lawful one, and that 
Mr. Spencer and not Mr. Sykes was entitled to the seat. 

The question having been definitely settled, it was considered l)y the committee that 
it was not competent for the committee or the Senate to reopen it,'and that it must be 
treated as res adjudicata. 

Now, idease note three things which this report of the committee and 
its approval by the Senate establish: 

First, lhat the tact that a A^ast mass of neAA" et^idence, bearing uxioii 
the question as to which Avas the lawful legislature, and upon the ques- 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


15 


tioii wliich claiinant was elected, and which evidence had never before 
been tendered or considered by the committee, was not sncli a fact as 
to deprive such former Judgment upon the title, of its binding validitv 
as a tinal jiid^inent of the Senate, nor did the tender of these new proofs 
sntlice as a ground for setting aside the judgment or for ordering anew 
trial of that issue. 

Second. That the committee here assert and hold, not that this former 
judgment was one rendering it inmlvimble for the Senate to oi)en it iij), 
but one which rendered it “inco.mfetent for the committee or the Senate 
to oi)en it iij).” 

Third. That the committee did not consider at all in this last contest 
the (piestion of Mr. Sykes’s title, but treated that as completely closed, 
and directed the impiiry not to the (piestion of contest, but wlndher the 
seat shonld be vacatecl byexjnilsion or by declaring the election void 
for bribery or other like cause. 

AVhat has now been stated results in establishing it as the law of the 
Senate that its judgment n])on the merits of a claim to a seat in the 
Senate is the judgment of a court having sipireme, exclusive, and tinal 
jurisdiction of the subject-matter—that, to again adopt the words of 
('hancellor Kent, the decisions of the Senate like those of any oihvi' court 
of justice ought to be “regulated by the known principles of law and 
strictly adhered to for the sake of uniformity and certainty,” and that it 
is not “ competent'^'’ for the Senate to ignore its own judgments or to ri*- 
ojien them except in accordance with “ the known ])rinci])les of law,” 
aj)plicable to courts of like exclusive and tinal jurisdiction, in dealing 
with their tinal judgments. 

And the last-cited S])encer case advances ns one st(‘i> beyond this, 
and establishes the doctiine that the tmider of new facts, bearing upon 
the accuracy of the first judgment, Avhich were not then considered, 
fnndshes no ground for opening ii]) the former judgment. 

And this brings me now to the direct (piestion as to Avhether the me¬ 
morial of Judge Spofford ])resents to the committee a case wherein, by 
the “known princii)les of law,” such courts will vacate their jndgimaits 
or grant a new trial years after judgment is rendered. 

Kediiced to their substance, the material reasons for vacating this 
judgment are (I now give yon the siibstanci* of the memorial): 

(1) That the committee and Senate did not fully hear the case in th(‘ 
first trial, nor take certain evidence asked by contt‘stant to be taken, 
and by him deemed material, but hastily closed the case against the 
contestant’s rmnonstrance. 

(2) That this hasty closing of the case in the committee, and its re- 
])ort in Kellogg’s favor, while the Ibitler-Corbin case was in discussion 
in the Senate, resulted in confusion in considering, discussing, and dis- 
])osing of the two cases j and hem*e, that this case did not receive a tail 
examination. 

(J) That the gemwal assembly of Louisiana, on 1st February, 1S7S, 
by resolution, [irotested against Kellogg’s being allowed to retain his 
s(‘at. 

(4) That the contestant is, and ever has been, ready to present th(‘ 
evidence on the “ tivi‘ points” nann^d on the third jiage of the views of 
the minority of the committi‘e; and especially that Kellogg participated 
in the prei>aration of illegal protests at the polls, of which he knew 
nothing. 

(o) That since the seating of Kellogg contestant has discovered evi¬ 
dence to ])rov(‘ that Kellogg’s el(*cti()n is void by reason of corruiit intlu- 
enc(*s exerti'd by him to s(‘cnr(‘ his election, and that he s(‘cnred the 


16 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


office of governor by a corrujit bargain, and tlien used that office to se¬ 
cure a general assembly to elect him as a Senatorj and then employed 
menace and bribery among them, so assisted by him, to secure their 
votes, and that but for the said practices of Kellogg he would not have 
received the election upon Avhich he relies. 

This is the full and the exact substance of this memorial. 

Kow I take up its parts. As to the third of these points, that the 
body which, on the 24th A]nil, 1878, undertook to elect Mr. Si)offiord 
had before that, on the 1st of February, 1878, protested against Mr. Kel¬ 
logg’s title, it is sufficient to say that the Senate has held as often as the 
question has arisen, as for example in the case of Potter vs. Kobbins 
(Clark and Hall, 877), and in the case of Fitch and Bright vs. Lane and Mc¬ 
Carty (FTection Cases of 1804-65, p. 034), that after an election had been 
ostensibly made the Senate alone has jurisdiction over the matter of its 
validity, and that even a good legislature cannot in any degree either 
withdraw the election, pass upon its validity, or affect the Senate’s 
])ower to judge in the matter as to vTiether or not it was an election. 
When this is the state of the i)ower, or rather lack of all power, in a 
real legislature of a State to deal with the question of a Senator’s title, 
then what a travesty upon the law does the contention here set up ])re- 
sent, which represents the vote of the very body which the Senate in effect 
decided, when it seated Kellogg, to be no legislature, but a lawless body 
as having power to unseat one whom the Senate decided lawfully elected 
by the general assembly of Louisiana. 

This third reason for vacating the judgment is therefore, we submit, 
wholly frivolous, unless indeed the Senate shall do two things to give 
it value. I mean now the vote of the Kicholls legislature that Kel¬ 
logg ought not to retain his seat. It is valueless, I say, unless the Sen¬ 
ate shall do two things to give that vote value—tirst, to beg the Avhole 
(piestion at issue, and assume the Nicholls legislature to have been, all 
the V Idle, the true and only legislature of the State; and, second, to hold, 
after they have thus assumed the whole question in dispute, that they 
will give to the assumed legislature i)owers, in the way of recalling elec¬ 
tions, which have been decided, from the beginning of the government 
down, that a real government does not possess. 

So much in regard to what I call here the third reason stated in the 
memorial. Kow I go to the second. 

The second reason for vacating this iudgment is in effect that the 
committee and Senate ‘‘ misbehaved ,in hastily closing the case, confus¬ 
ing it Avith the Butler case, and in omitting to give this case adequate 
consideration. This, as a distinct ground for vacating the judgment, is 
not the same one as that relating to the refusal to take certain proffered 
evidence; but is rather an arraignment in which the gravamen of the 
accusation is that the Senate did not so consider Avhat was, in fact, in 
the case before it, as to entitle the decision reached to respect as a iiidg'- 
ment. ^ 


This accusation of the Senate for such want of deliberation as renders 
Its judgment void is one so utterly without analogy in the practice of 
the couits of last resort as a ground for avoiding their judg ments ; is so 
at war with the truth of the matter as disclosed by the record of the 
committee and of the Senate, disclosing the most patient and protracted 
considpitionof the contestant’s case; and is so geiferal, vague, and desti¬ 
tute ot specific enumeration of facts, as to render any atteiniit by coun¬ 
sel to discuss it, as a cause for setting aside tlie action of the Senate, not 
only unnecessary but disrespectful to the committee. If the time shall 
etercouiem the history of the Senate when, upon a change happening in 


SPOFFOKI) VS. KELLOGG. 


17 


])5\rty ascendoiicy in that body, it sliall bo sufficient cause toindncetlie Sen¬ 
ate to orj^anize a crusade in (jiicstof evidence for setting* aside tlie solemn 
JndjjcnuMits of the Senate rend(*red years bidbre, when it shall be snlli- 
cient that some defeated candidate shall be found who shall have enter¬ 
prise enough, or courage enoii^ih, or lej>’al knowledge enough to petition 
the Senate to vacate the judgment which defeated him, on the ground 
that such judgment was reached hastily and without dm* consideration 
of the eviilence before the Senate, then, indeed, will the titles to seats 
in this body have become the s])ort and plaything of party caucus or of 
])arty fortune, and the Senate will have jiassed clown from that exalted 
plane where the Constitution meant to place it—above the shifting for¬ 
tunes of party and the whims of faction—and where it was meant to 
be the retiository of the conservative and stable forces of the govern¬ 
ment. 

I now turn to that part of the memorial which arraigns the committee* 
and the Senate for their refusal to take certain proffered evidence, and 
makes that the ground for saying that the judgment seating Kellogg 
ought to be disregarded as being no binding judgment of the Senate. 

i\lr. Chairman and Senators, before alluding to the legal as])ects jne*- 
sented by this (*ontention liy tlie contestant, it will be necessary to call 
to mind the matter as to just what degree and kind of evhh‘nce was, by 
order of the committee and the assent of both claimants, actually before 
and considered by the comnuttee, bearing u])on each one of the five* 
jeoints on which Mr. Spoflord asked to be allowed to offer evidence, as 
these points are enumerated on the dd page of the reicort of tin* 
minority of the committee. 

On the trial of this case it was, as I have said, agreed by all ])Jirtics 
to consider as in evid(*nce the testimony taken by the Senate comndttc'c*, 
known as the Howe committee; the report known as the Sherman re¬ 
port, containing the pro(*eedings of the returnipg-board; the (‘vidence 
taken by the comnuttee of the House, known as tlie ^lorrison (iommittge, 
and also by the committee of the House, known as the Field committee ; 
all such evidence and reports bearing uiion the election of ISTh. It was 
also agreed that the journals of the Xicholls legislature and the journals 
of the Packard legislature should be considered in evidence. All the 
five points designated by Mr. Sjiofford as ])oints uiion which he desired 
to ])roduce (*vidence were considered and passed upon by the committee, 
as will be se(*n by referen(*e to the resolution adopted by the committee 
on November 2lhl, after more than a month’s investigation of the case, 
printed on page hd of their juiblished proceedings: 

That it is tlu* sense of tlie eoniniittee that the matters ]>roi»ose(l hy .Tmlge Simtfoni,. 
as far as material, have heen fully aln*a(ly considered hy llimn in their |»revious action, 
and are fully covered either hy tin* admissions of Mr. Kellogg or tin* evidence alreaily 
befoie the committee. 

The Senate subsequently ratified this action of tin* (‘ommittei* in pass¬ 
ing finally upon flic (*ase. 

in regard to Mr. Spofford’s first ])oint, viz: 

1. That the facts rt'lativi* to the election of Tremoulet, (h’cssy, ;ind Polle, from the 
.seventh n‘])n‘sentative district of X<‘\v Orhuins, were snhstantially as set forth in the 
statement n'ad hy II. M. Spotford in his jirgnment before this committee on the 24th 
()ctoh<‘r, 1H77. 

Mr. Sjiofford referred to these fa(*ts on jiages .‘>1, and 110 of the' 
proc(*edings of the (*ommittee. Jt will lu* s(*en from the statement of ^Ir. 
Sjiofford ther(*in contained that he admitted that the consolidat(‘d returns 
show(*d the election of the three lx(*i)ublican members, Mooi-e, (Jardere, 
and Plackstone, from the sev(*nth i(‘iiresentative district of the city of 

L* s K 


18 


SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 


New Orleans, but claimed that a poll Avas improperly excluded by the 
supervisor ill making up the returns. There was evidence 
committee bearing upon and entirely covering this 
mony taken by the Morrison committee, part 2, pages 17o, J, loU, 
being the testimony of Gondolphi, supervisor of elections for said seventh 
district: also, on pages 184,185,186, being the testimony of Christopher; 
also, on page 187, being the testimony of Tonwade, and pages 188, 189, 
being the testimony of Davenxiort; also, on page 190, being the testi¬ 
mony of Monier ; also, on page 31 of the testimony taken by the Morri¬ 
son committee, part 1, being the testimony of Anderson ; also, on page 
57 of the same, being the testimony of Casanave.] This jiroot covers 
this entire matter. 

As to Mr. Spofiord’s second point, viz: 

2. Thcat tlie composition, votes for Senator, and political proclivities of the legisla¬ 
ture on the 24th April, 1877, when H. M. Spofford was elected Senator, were substan¬ 
tially as set forth in the aforesaid argument. 

This point was considered by the committee on page 84 of their pub¬ 
lished proceedings. The composition and the political proclitities of the 
legislature that chose Mr. Spoftord appeared in the journals of that legis¬ 
lature; and the journals of the Packard legislature and of the Nicholls 
legislature, and the returns of the members declared to have been elected 
by the returning board^ afforded all the necessary data to determine 
these questions. All this was in eAudence. 

As to Mr. Spofford’s third point, viz: 

3. That by the actual returns or statements as made in duplicate by the supervisors 
of registration (and assistant supervisors), with their ax)])oiiitees, the commissioners 
of election, and sent, one set to the clerk of the district court of each parish in the 
county and to the secretary of state in the city, and the other set to the returning- 
hoard (so-called), showed a majority of votes actually cast throughout the State of 
al)out 8,000 votes for Nicholls and Wiltz over Packard and Antoine for the offices of 
governor and lieutenant-governor in the election that took place in Louisiana Novem¬ 
ber 7, 1876. 

Evidence showing the facts in relation to this i)oint appeared in por¬ 
tions of the testimony taken by the Morrison, Hotve, and Sherman com¬ 
mittees, and tabular statements contained therein, showing relatively 
the votes for electors and for governor in 1876 and the action of the 
returning-board; and the joimnals of the Packard legislature and of the 
Nicholls legislature showed tabulated statements of the votes claimed 
respectively by the two iiarties as having been cast for Nicholls and 
Packard; and the testimony taken by the Morrison and HoAve commit¬ 
tees and the journals of the two legislatures where they counted the 
Azotes for governor showed in the State the number of votes cast and the 
number of Amtes rejected by the retui’uing-board. 

As to Mr. Spofford’s fourth point, auz : 

4. Besides these specific violations of the constitution and of the law under which 
they pretended to act, I charge that the conduct of the returniug-officers in 8Ui)press- 
ing polls and changing the result of the constitutional returns was clandestine, collu¬ 
sive, tyrannical, and unjust; that the real work of conducting an election under 
pretext of compiling votes was proceeded with in a secret chamber by a corps of ])ar- 
tisan clerks, while the occasional open sessions of the board were side-shows, devised 
to screen what was going on within; that arbitrary rules of evidence were established 
for pretended contests, and changed so often and abruptly tlnit no fair trial could be 
had or was had before the board; that illegal complaints were constantly received and 
illegal evidence admitted for the purpose of setting aside polls that were in the way 
of such candidates as the board desired to elect; and that Mr. Kellogg himself, then 
governor, joined in making illegal complaints and inducing the board to'considertheni. 

The Morrison, IIoAve, ami Field reports coiitaiued the testimony of 
all the members of the returning board, their clerks and attaches. Tire 


8P()FF0PvD V8. KFLLOGG. 


19 


Sherman re]>ort had tlio i)io(!ee(lings of the returning board day ])y day 
wluMi the returns were opened and considered. The part that Mr. Kel¬ 
logg took in tlie matter of inotesting and the oidy x^rotest made by him 
is sliown to have been taken in conjunction with other electors, and only 
as an elector. [See Sherman Kei)ort, page 74.] There is testimony in 
these reports before the (committee whicli entered upon and covered the 
subject of Kellogg’s relations with the returning board, and that subject- 
matter is therefore covered l)y the testimony which was before the com¬ 
mittee, and, ni)on that testimony, was considered and disposed of 
by the committee. [See Morrison’s Keport, part 1, pages 57-8, 
testimony of Casanave; same re])oi*t, i). (12, testimony of Kenner; same 
report, part 2, j). 385, testimony of Jewett; Howe’s Kejxn’t, j). 2935, tes¬ 
timony of same; ^Morrison’s Heport, i)art 2,])age 809, testimony of Wood¬ 
ward; and elsewhere in the testimony taken by the ^Morrison, Howe, 
and Field committees and ])nt in evidence in this case.] As to the con¬ 
duct of the retnrinng-ollicers in comxhling the results of the election, 
the evidence in the Morrison, Field, and Howe reports was full and 
comj)lete, every ])erson connected with the returning l)oard, either as 
mend)er, clerks, or attaches^ having been examined in extenso before said 
committees, and their i)roceedings are fully set forth in the Sherman 
Kejxn’t. As to their secret sessions every x)erson ])articipating in such 
secret session was fully examined by both political parties regarding 
tlieir x^roceedings in secret session and their manner of comx)iling votes, 
and this testimony is set forth in detail in said Morrison, Field, and 
Howe committee rex)orts. 

As to ^Ir. Spotford’s fifth i>oint, viz : 

5. I am infoniHMl and so cliarjje tliat the returns from Veriion Parish, after they 
came into iiosst'ssioii of the returuin^-Vttieers, ami wliile tliey were uuder tlieir control, 
were frandnlently altered liy a change of fi,inures, tantamount to a forgery of a pub¬ 
lic record; that the hoaril knew what tin* ti»j;nres upon those returns wore, before 
their alteration, ami yet after the alteration ])romnl<^ated the results of said forgery 
as the true returns ; that by such fraudulent alteration E. E. Smart, candidate for rep¬ 
resentative in the State assembly, who had, in fact, and according to the returns as they 
lirst came to the board, defeated his comiietitor, Prown, was left behind, and Brown, 
the (hdeati'd candidate, falsely deelared elected ; and that said Brown took his seat in 
the l*ackar<l house, amt lignres on the journal as inesent on the 2d of January, 1877, 
when there was a ]>retemled count of votes for governor and lientenant-governor in 
joint assembly, and perhaiis on one or two other occasions, but that he afterward 
abandoned that body and went home, acknowledging that ho never had been elected. 

Tlie whole (pi(‘stion as to the election in Vernon Parish and the 
returns from that parish appeared in the testimony of the Field, ]Morri- 
son, and Howe committe(‘S. As to the manner in which the election was 
conducted in Vernon Parish see testimony taken before the Morrison com¬ 
mittee, part 4,i>i>. 1,2,3,4, and5. Astotheoriginal Vernon Parish return 
and the alleged forgery thereof, the orujinal return itself was produced 
before the Field committee, and the testimony was full regarding it. 
[S(‘e Field’s Keiiort, testimony of Kenner, x)p. <85 to 88; see also 5Iorri- 
son’s Peport, testimony of Littlefield, pp. 89, 100, and 414; of Anderson, 
pj). 49, and 102; of \Vells, pp. 40, 191, 199, and 218; of (litford, x^p. 
.391 to 395; of Spcering, j)]). 409 and 420; see also Howe’s Peport, testi¬ 
mony of Littlefield, p. 2750; of Woodward, ]). 2il.38; of Davis, p. 2988; 
of Abell, p. 2880; of Faton, ]). 2957; of Palmer, ]). 3000; of Gitibrd, x>. 
.3041; of McVormick, 2980.J Prown of Vernon did not x^irticipate in 
the vot(‘ for Senator, and there were six or seven returning board mem¬ 
bers more than a (piornm besides Prown when the legislature was or- 
ganiz(‘d, and the vote for governor was counted, as the journal shows. 

.Mr. (Miairman, this analysis of the testimony which, by order of the 
Senate and with th(‘. asseid of the contestant, was received and con- 


20 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


sidered by the Senate in the trial which seated Kellogg, shows the 
following facts: 

(1.) That there is not a point or subject-matter, set out in the memorial 
of Mr. Spofford, as to which he asked and now demands opportunity to 
adduce proof, that was not covered by the proofs actually received and 
considered by the Senate. 

(2.) That these proofs so received and considered bj^ the Senate, which 
bear upon each and all of the ‘‘five points” named in the memorial, and 
named also at page 3 of the report of the minority of the committee, 
were full and complete; and as to most of the points named the evidence 
embraced all which could, in the nature of the case, be possibly com^^e- 
tent (if any was competent), such, for example, as the records of the two 
rival legislatures, the records of the returning-board, the records of 
returns from all polls and from all officers of election for the executive 
officers voted for in the State at that election. Coi^ies of records from the 
office of the secretary of state relating to and afiecting the organization 
of the houses of the general assembly were before the committee. 
And in its very nature the evidence was plenary and exhaustive of 
the most of the points on which Mr. Spofibrd relies; plenary and 
exhaustive, for instance, in regard to the number of votes cast at 
every poll in tlie State; plenary as to the steps taken by the returning 
board, step by step, throughout its entire history, so far as its actual 
action was concerned, because that was required by law, and was, in 
fact, kept as a matter of record and was before the committee; full and 
complete in regard to the records that were furnished to the sceretary 
of state under the statutes and constitution of the State, and which 
were by him sent to the speaker of the house of representatives for 
the purposes ot organization. In regard to all these vital matters the 
testimony was all there and all which in the nature of the case can be 
put there, and you can see at a glance that it covers the substance and 
the body of this case. 

(3) That as to the two points mainly pressed, to wit, the alleged 
wrong by the returning board and the change of the Yernon Parish 
returns, the evidence so considered in the Senate included not only all 
the records relating to these matters respectively, but it also was most 
full and exhaustive, embracing the evidence of every person who 
ostensibly had opportunity to know anything about the matter. 

Take the matter of the returning board, for instance: every member 
of the returning board was examined ; every clerk of the returning board 
was examined; every person who was supposed to have knowledge bv 
reason of his relations to and presence at the proceedings of the return¬ 
ing board, and whom the parties conducting the investigation thought 
most likely to have knowledge pertinent to the matters that they were 
seeking to establish, was brought forward by either the Field committee 
or the Morrison committee or the Howe committee or the Sherman 
report; and in one of those investigations Mr. Spofford himself happened 
to be of able counsel representing and pushing that line of inquirv 
which he desires still to conduct and push to-day. ^ ' 

I now turn to some suggestions bearing upoirthe legal aspects of the 
questions which this memorial raises regarding the validity of the uidg- 
ment vdiich seated Mr Kellogg, and the power of the Senate to ignore it. 

I notice separately the various grounds relied on for ignoring this iudg- 
ment, or for going into proofs to vacate it. ^ t 

Many, if not all of the grounds of attack upon this judgment resolve 
themselves, when reduced to their last analysis, into an accusation thot 
the judgment of the Senate was secured by means of evidence and doc- 


Sl’OFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


21 


iiinents viiich wore, themselves, the products of fraud, bribery, or for- 
o-ery. Tlie protests used before tlie returning board j the returns made 
by the returning board to the secretary of Ktate; the action of the 
returning board in reaching the returns so made; the forgery of the 
A\‘rnon Ihirish returns, resulting in changing certain election results; 
the securing by Kellogg of votes through corrupt means and the like, 
are all alleged frauds, directed to the purpose of striking down the mu¬ 
niments of title which the Senate received and treated as valid in reach¬ 
ing the judgment seating Kellogg. In other words—and I desire the 
(‘ommittee’s attention especially to this for the purposes of what follows— 
the contention of Judge Spofford is that the judgment of the Senate was 
obtained through the emidoyment of records of returning boards, ♦Src., 
Avhich records were themselves the i)roducts of fraud. 

Now, there are to this tender of evidence of the fraud in this evidence 
submitted to the Senate two distinct objections, which, without here 
elaborately discussing, I wish to submit and beg the especial attention of 
the committee to: 

(1) One is that in so far as this evidence is directed to the nmtter of 
contesting and trying in the United States Senate the individual seats 
of the members of the legislature of Louisiana in or<ler to destroy votes 
cast for Kellogg, or in order to destroy the quorum of the houses which 
voted for and elecded him, the evidence is wholly and absolutely incom¬ 
petent, whether offered now as a means of destroying the judgment which 
seated Kellogg, or otfercul originally when the merits of the case were uj). 
It is incomi)etent, for the ])lain reason that the Senate cannot try the 
question who was a mend)er of the legislature of Louisiana. Tliat is 
triable alone under the constitutions of the various States—in this case, 
under the constitution of Louisiaiui—by the two houses of the general 
assembly, liouisiana, like all the other States, gives that trial to the 
houses respectively. My proposition, then, is, that so far as ]Mr. Spofford 
offers testimony or asks you go fishing for testimony here to-day, he asks 
you to allow him to ]>roduce evidence which it is not coin])etent for tln‘ 
Senate to sit u])on or to use, for the pur])oses for which he seeks it, either 
in the original investigation which seated Kellogg, or in this one seeking 
to reopen that judgment. 

For this proposition 1 refer you to fhe utterances of Callioun, Flay, 
Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, IMangum, Foindexter, Freston, Web¬ 
ster, and Silas Wright and others, as found in the case of Fotter vs. Fob- 
bins (Clark & Hall, pages 877 to 1009). 1 also refer you for the same 
purpose to the declarations of Mr. Fayard, jNlr. Thurman, Mr. Conkling, 
and nearly every other Senator who took a leading part in the debate 
upon the report of the committee in the case of Caldwell, of Kansas. 

The other thing that 1 say in regard to this proffered testimony is that 
this evidence as directed to the establishment of fraud and the like in 
])rocuring the judgment in favor of Kellogg, through the employment of 
fraqdulent instruments of evidence*, is totally incompetent evidence* in 
this attempt to destroy the judgment of the Senate as one procured by 
fraudulent evidence. It is incompetent because the evidence so offered is 
not extrinsic evidence, but is intrinsic, and of a kind which might be and 
which, as a matter of fact, was oftered in evidence in the trial of the 
case originally, and hence cannot be now introduced to overthrow the 
judgment for fraud. The whole body of the proffereil testimony belongs 
to this category—evidence tending to show that the instruments of evi¬ 
dence which were used by 3Ir. Kellogg in getting this judgement hitherto 
were themselves the jnoducts of fraud. That is not extrinsic, but it is 
intrinsic evidence of fraud which could have been offered, and was, if 


22 


SrOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


CYcr competent^ wliicli we deny, coiiipetent evidence in tlie first tiial, 
and being such, it is not coinpetent to oyertlirow a judgaient by tlie iiy 
trodnctiou of, or resort to, such intrinsic and formerly coinxietent evi¬ 
dence. 

I refer tlie committee to the late and yet uiireported decision of tlie 
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of The United States vs. 
Throckmorton and others, decided at the jiresent term. I read from 
the o])inion as furnished from the clerk’s ofhce. The case is thus stated 
in the oxiinion of the court: 

In tliis case a bill in chancery is brought in tlie circuit court of the United States 
for the district of California, to nse the language ot the bill itself, ^‘by Walter \ an- 
dyke, Lbiited States attorney for that district, on behalf ot the United States ot 
America,” against Throckmorton, Howard, Goold, and Haggin. 

The object of the bill is to have a decree of the court seping aside and declaring to 
bo mill and void a confirmation of the claim of W. A. Richardson, under a Mexican 
gi ant, to certain lands, made by the board of commissioners of private land claims in^ 
California on the 27th day of Uecember, 1853 ; and the decree of the district court ot 
the United States made February 11, 1850, affirming the decree of the comniissiontn's, 
and again confirming Richardson’s claim. The general ground on which this relief is 
asked is that both these decre(‘s were obtained by traud. 

The specific act of fraud which is mainly relied on to support the bill is, that after 
Richardson had tiled his petition before the commissioners, with a statement of his 
claim and the documentary evidence of its validity, March 16, 1852, he became satisfied 
that he had no sufficient evidence of an actual grant or concession to sustain his chiim, 
and with a view to sn))])ly this defect he made a visit to Mexico and obtained from 
klicheltorena, former political chief of California, his signature, on or about the first 
day of July, 1852, to a grant which was falsely and framlently antedated, so as to ini- 
])Ose on the court the belief that it was made at a time Avhen Micheltorena had iiower 
to make such grants in California; and it is alleged that in su])port of this simulated 
audfalse document he also procured and filed with the board of commissioners per¬ 
jured depositions along with the fradulent grant. 

That gives you the general character of the case. The attempt was 
to set aside a judgment finally rendered in the courts of the United 
States some twenty years before, on the ground that the judgment Avas 
obtained by a false and forged document, antedated, granting the land 
to the original grantee. The fiuestion before the court, therefore, was 
one which you will see was directly like the point I am now making. I 
Avill noAv read from the opinion of the court, Avhich Avas deliA^ered by ]Mr. 
Justice Miller: 

There are no maxiins of the law more firmly established, or of more value in the admin¬ 
istration of justice, than the two which are designed to prevent ri'peated litigation be¬ 
tween the same parties in regard to the same subject of controversy, namely, interest 
reipnhUca’, ut sit finis litinni,^’ and “ nemo his vexnripro una et eadam eansa.^^ 

If the court has been mistaken in the law, there is a remedy by writ of error. If 
the jury has been mistaken in the facts, there is the same remedy l>y motion for a new 
trial. If there has been evidence discovered since the trial, a niotion for a new trial 
will give appropriafe relief. Rut all these are parts of the same ])roceeding, relief is 
given in the same suit, and the party is not vexed by another suit for the same matter. 
So in a suit in cliancery, on projier showing a rehearing is granted. If the injury com¬ 
plained of is an erroneous decision, an apiieal to a higher court gives opportunity to 
correct Hie error. And if new evidence is discovered after the decree has become final, 
a bill ot review on that ground may be filed within the rules prescribed bylaw on that 
subject. Here, again, Hiese proceedings are all part of the same suit, mid the rule 
framed for the rejiose of society is not violated. 

Rut there is an admittt'd excejition to this general rule in cases Avhere, by rea¬ 
son of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary 
trial or decision of the issue iu the case. AA here the unsuccessful party has been pre- 
venteil from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or dece])tiou iiracticed' on him by his 
oiiponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false iiromise of a compromise, or 
Avhere the defendaut never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the 
acts of the plaintifi', or Avhere an attorney fraudulently or without auHiority assumes 
to represent a party aud connives at his deteat, or whci'c the attorney reo’ularly em- 
]doyed corruptly sells out his client’s interest to the other side—these and similar 
cases which slunv that there has never been a real contest iu the trial or heariiu'- of 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


23 


tlio eas(*, arc reasons forwlucli a new suit may Le sustained to set aside and annul Hie 
lonner Judj;nu‘nt or decree, and oi>eii the ease for a new and a fair Inairin^. (See 
Wells on Kes Adjudieata, ^ 49‘>; Pierce vx. Olney, 20 Conn., 544 ; Weirick vs. De Zorv, 
2 Gilman Ill. K., :1SS; Kent vs. Kichards, 3 ^Maryland Cliy., 390; Smith vs. Lowry, 
Johnsoids Ghy., 321; !)<* Lonis vs. Meek, 2 Io\\a, 55.) 

In all these eases, and many others which have heen examined, relief has heen 
"ranted on the "round that, hy some fraud j»ractiee<l directly upon the paidy seekiii" 
relict aj^ainst the judgment or decree, that party has been prevented from prcseutiug 
all of his case to the court. 

On«the other hand, the doctrine is equally well settled that the court will not set 
aside a judgment because it was founded on a fraudulent instrument, or jierjnred evi¬ 
dence, or for any matter which was actually presented and considered in the judgment 
assailed. Mr. Wells, in his very useful work on Ites Adjudieata, says, sec. 499: “Fraud 
vitiates everything, and a judgment e<iually with a contract; that is, a judgmeut 
obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instru¬ 
ment; for in general the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the 
purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud.” * * “Likewise, there are few excep¬ 

tions to the rule that e<inity will not go behind the judgment to interpose in the cau.se 
itself, but only when there was some hinderance besides the negligence of the defend¬ 
ant, in pre.senting the defen.se in the legal action. There is an old ca.se in South 
Carolina to the effect that fraud in obtaining a bill of sale would justify equitable 
interference as to the judgment obtained thereon. But I judge it stands almost or 
(piite alone, and has no weight as a i)recedent.” The case lie refers to is Cruuford vs. 
Cranford, 4 De Saussure E([. K., 176. See, also, Bigelow on Fraial, 170-2. 

Tlie ])rinciple and the distinction here taken was laid down as long ago as the year 
1702 by the lor<l kee})erin the high coiut of chancery, in the case of Tovey vs. Young. 
(Preced<‘nts in Chanc(‘ry, 193.) 

This was a bill in chancery brought by an nnsucce.ssful party to a suit at law, for a 
new trial, which was at that time a very common mode of obtaining a new trial. 
One of the grounds of tlu' l)ill was that comi>lainant luid discover(*d since the trial was 
had that the ])rincii)al witness against him was a partner in intere.st with the other 
side. The lord keei>er said: “New matter may in some cases bo grouml for relief; 
but it must not be what was tried before; nor, when it consi.sts in swearing only, will 
1 ever grant a new trial, unless it ap])ears by dee<ls, or writing, or that a witness, on 
who.se testimony the v(‘rdict was given, was convicted of ])erjury, or the jury attainted.” 
The case seems to have b«‘en well considered, for the decree was a coulirmatiou of one 
ma«le by the master of the rolls. 

The case of Smith vs. Lowry, 1 Johnson Chy., 321, was also a bill for a new trial on 
the ground that th(‘ witness on w hose testimony the amount of damages was lixed 
was suborned by the plaintitf, and that com])lainant ha<l learned since the trial that 
a tictitions sale of salt had been made for the ])urpo.se of enabling this witness to tes¬ 
tify to the market ]>rice. Chancellor Kent sai<l that com]>lainant must have known, 
or he was bound to know', that tin* price of salt at the ])lace of delivery would be a 
matter of iiupiiry at the trial, and he dismis.sed the bill for want of e<iuity, citing the 
ca.se of Tovy vs. Young with approval; ainl he citi's a number of ca.s<*s to show that 
(*hauc(‘ry will not interfere though lu'w evidence has been di.scovered since the trial, 
w hich, if the ]>arty could have introduced it, would have changed the result. 

In Bateman vs. \Villoe, 1 Schoales As Lefroy, Lord Ihnlesdalei said: “I do not know' 
that e(|uity ever does interfere to grant a trial of a matt(*r which has alrc'ady been dis¬ 
cussed in a court of law', a matter ca])able of l)eing discu.ssed there, and over w'hich 
tlie court of law' had full jurisdiction.” The rule must apply with equal force to a bill 
to .set aside a decr(*e iu ecpiity after it has become tinal, where the object is to retry a 
matt(‘r which w'as in issue in tin* tirst case and w as matter of actual cout(*st. 

The same doctriin* is ass(*rt(*d iu Dixon vs. Graham, 16 Iowa R., 316; Cottle vs. Cole, 
20 Iowa I\., 484 ; Borland vs. Thornton, 12 California R., 440; Riddle rs. Barker, 13 
California R., 21^5; I\ailroa<l Co. vs. Neal, 1 Wood. R., 353. 

But })erhap.s tin* best disemssion of the whole subject i>s to be found in 2 Gray, 361, 
by Chief Ju.stice 8haw', in the case of Gre<*ne vs. Gr«*eue. That was a bill tiled by a 
woman against her husband for a divorce. The hu.sband Innl five years before ob¬ 
tained a deer(*(* of divorce against tln> Avife, and in hei‘ bill sin* now allegt*.s that the 
former d(*cr(‘»* was obtained by fraud and collnsion and false t«*stimony, and .she ])rays 
that this may In* in(inir(*d into ainl that decret* s('t aside. The court Avas of opinion 
that this allegation nn'ant that the hu.sband colhnled or eoinbined Avith other pt*rsons 
than complainant to obtain,fal.se tt^stiniony or otherwi.st* to aid him in franduently ob¬ 
taining the decr(*<*. The chi»*f justice .says that the court thinks the point .settled 
against the com])laiuant by authority, not' siiecitically in regard to divorce, but gen¬ 
erally as to the conclnsi vene.ss of judgments and d(*er(*es between the saint* ]>arties. 

lit*" then examin<*s tin* authorities, English and Amt'rican, and adds: “The maxim 
that framl vitiates evtay proet't'ding must betaken, likt* other gem*ral maxims, to apjdy 
to ca.ses where i»roof of fraud is admi.ssible. But where tin* sanu* matter has bt'en 


24 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


actually tried, or so iii issue that it might have heeu tried, it is uot again admissible; 
the party is estopped to set up such fraud, l)ecau8e the judgment is the highest evidence 
aud cannot he contradicted.’’ It is otherwise, he says, with a stranger to the judg¬ 
ment. This is said in a case where the hill was hronght for the purpose of impeach¬ 
ing the decree directly and not where it was offered in evidence collaterally. We think 
tliese decisions estahlish the doctrine on which we decide the present case, namely, 
that the acts for which a court of equity will on account of fraud set aside or annul 
a judgment or decree, between the same parties, rendered hy a court of competent juris¬ 
diction, have relation to frauds, extrinsic or collateral, to the matter tried hy the first 
court, and uot to a fraud in the matter on which the decree was rendered. 

That the mischief of retrying every case in which the judgment or decree rendered 
on false testimony, given hy perjured witnesses, or on contracts or documents whose 
genuineness or validity was in issue, and winch are afterwards ascertained to he forged 
or fraudulent, would he greater, hy reason of the endless nature of the strife, than any 
compensation arising from doing justice in individual cases. 

The case before us comes within this principle. The genuineness and validity of the 
concession from Micheltyrena produced hy complainant was the single question pend¬ 
ing before the hoard of commissioners and the district court for four years. It was the 
thing and the only thing that was controverted, and it w'as essential to the decree. 
To overrule the demurrer to this hill would he to retry twenty years after the decision 
of these tribunals the very matter which they tried, oii the grt)und of fraud in the 
document on which the decree was made. If w^e can do this now, some other court 
may he called on twenty years hence to retry the same matter on another allegation 
of fraudulent combination in this suit to defeat the ends of justice, and so the number 
of suits would he without limit and the litigation endless, about the single question of 
the validity of this document. 


Xow, tlien, Mr. Chairman and Senators, I have reached the end of this 
discnssion so far as I intended to make it, with tlie exception of that 
branch of this inquiry which goes to the question as to whether or not 
the fact that the evidence now proffered was tendered on the former 
trial and rejected, it is said improperly rejected, is to be considered. 
Is there any principle of law known to the courts of justice whereby the 
courts of last resort (for you are such), years after a judgment has been 
rendered, will entertain a motion by the defeated party to open up, set 
aside, or destroy that judgment, because the court had, as such court of 
last resort, in the exercise of its discretion, limited the range of testimony 
that it decided to take in determining the case f When I have stated 
that proposition to the lawyers on this committee, it seems to me I have 
stated aud made all the argument of which the case is possible. 

what kind of a case does this present ^ Let us suppose now 
that it is the Supreme Court of the United States that is addressed. 
Suppose that two years ago the Supreme Court of the United States in 
one of those cases in wliich it has original jurisdiction had lieard testi¬ 
mony u])on OA^ery subject-matter that tlie parties claimed a hearing upon, 
had heard them patiently through the days and tlirough the weeks, and 
thmi, at the end, or towards the end, of the trial one of the parties had 
said to the Supreme Court, tliiidv I have some important testi¬ 
mony which is cumulative merely,’’ because, mark you, there is not a 
point now tendered to be iiiA^estigated by Mr. Spofford as to Avhich 
there is not erddence, and on most of the points the erddence that 
Avas competent at all wms fully introduced, it being record evidence, 
and no other being competent as to those points. And suppose, I 
say, that after the Supreme Court liad tlius patiently heard the parties 
ami heard their evidence upon every subject tliat they sought to intro¬ 
duce evidence about, one party had said to the Supreme Court, “ I 
have got some more evidence as to one or two or three of these points 
that I want you to hear,” and then the Supreme Court had ruled it out 

Till, ® d * “i’ll ' is closed. 

,Taw f competent to make a motion for a 

new tnal, but tUat motion for a new trial must be made within a certain 


Sl’OFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


25 


time, and to bo must l)e astsented to by one of the jiulj^es eon- 

ciiiTin*^ in tlie decision. 

That motion lor a new trial is totally omitted; and years afterwards 
the man who was defeated comes to the court and says, ‘‘I want you, 
now that the court is changed in its personnel., or for any other reason, no 
odds what, 1 Avant you now aj>’ain to h(*ar the motion that 1 made for a 
new trial and Avhich was overruled,” and the Su])reme Court asks the 
question ^‘llow?” Chancellor Kent, in the passage 1 have cited, says, 
]Mr. Cushinf’’ says in the authority 1 liave read to you. Professor Farrar 
iu the authority 1 cited to you from him, all say that you as a Senate are 
to be governed by the usages and the rules of established law in deter¬ 
mining these questions. The Su])reme Court in the case 1 have put 
would beyond all controversy—indeed it Avould not be competent to make 
the motion—say to the parly ‘‘You cannot have a judgment stricken 
<lown because Ave refused years ago to receiA e some cumulatiA c CAudence 
upon this subject-matteiC’ AVould th(*ynot? So must the Senate,! 
submit Avith the utmost deference, say in this case. 

The tender of this ncAv evidence is but cumulatiA c; A^ery much of it is 
totally incompetent. In so far as it seeks to try the question who Avas 
elected to the legislature of Louisiana, it is inconqietent; in s(> far as it 
goes to the (piestion Avhether ]\Ir. Kellogg Avas guilty of corruiition, be it 
remembered all the time. Senators, that that is incom])etent as coming 
from Mr. Spofford. If ]\Ir. Kellogg bought his seat, that is either a groiiml 
for unseating him or for exiielling him. You discussed it almost end- 
lessl}^ in the case from Kansas, to Avdiicli I IniA e alluded, and you reached 
no (conclusion because the Senator resigned and took aAvay your jurisdic¬ 
tion, but the Senate Avas immensely troubled and much divided ui»on 
the question AAiiether you could exixd alone or Avhether you could unseat 
on account of that kind of corruption. 

So, then, much of the t(‘stimony here temhcred by ]\Ir. Spofford is tes¬ 
timony going to the <piestion not of contest but of the i>roi)riety of your 
exercising the poAver to render the seat A^acant, eitlnu* by exjiulsion or 
by declaring the ehcction A'oid. 

Such, Senators, is the asjiect in Avhich this tender of evidence is noAv 
])resented to you. It does seem to me, Avitliout fiii-tlier pursuing this 
subject, that it is sinqily an attempt to ask you to o]K‘n and destroy one 
of your solemn judgments, upon tlie ground that tlie jiarty says that 
he can now introduce some cumulatiA'e eAudence upon some of the least 
inqiortant iioints r(‘lied upon by him, and uiion one. or tAVo jioints as to 
AA hich it lies not in his moutli at all to make aA iuinent, to Avit, as to 
Avhether this man corruptly ])rocur(‘d his seat. 

Koav I h‘ave this case Avith this i)r(>cautionary statement, scarcely 
necessary to be made, that in oui‘ protest against your opening up this 
case, ami our demand that it shall be regarded as res <((1 judicata^ wy are 
not, as you can s(ce yoursehacs, avc cannot be, actuated by any desire to 
shut out the light or to i)reA^ent the truth of this Avhole matter from 
being knoAvn. 

1 say you cannot regard our inotiA^e as being that, because this has 
been t'lm subj(‘ct-matt(‘r of a scu utiny such as I venture to say is utterly 
Avithout a i)a'rallel in the history of your parliamentmw hiAV and life. It 
has been iiiA'cstigated and rein\'estigated by some Ha'C or six tribunals 
that liaA^e luam sent for the ])uri)ose. In the four ('ommittees AAiu^se re- 
]M)rts are ])art of the testimony in this (;ase, as you kiioAA', the testimony 
occu])i(!S 1(),(MM) printed pages* and Senator Kellogg’s (Muiduct in those 
four iuAXsstigations Avas the subj(‘ct-matter of the clos(‘st and the se¬ 
verest scrutiny, a scrutiny (M)nduct(*d and managed in some degree by 


kSPOFFOKD vs. KELLOGG. 


26 

]\Ir. Si)offord himself, and then, since those reports, another search with 
muck-rakes and Avith lighted candles has been conducted tor six months 

by the Potter committee. ^ i x- + 

So tar, therefore, as publicity is concerned, Mi\ Kellogg-s relations to 
this election, his character as governor of Louisiana, and his election to 
the Senate have been the subjects of inquiry so minute and thorough 
and complete, that it is impossible that it shall be said ot us, with any 
show of truth, that this invitation that you shall not open up this case 
can be induced by any fear on our part of the light. It is not my point 
to say whether it has liurt or not hurt JMr. Kellogg; all I am saying is— 
protesting in the way of fairness to my client that he shall not be forced 
into a false position—saying that w hatcA^er light is jiossible from human 
testimony has already been had in regard to his whole relations to this 
matter; and our invitation is, that you shall adhere to the rules of law 
in regard to the sanctity and the dignity and the worthiness and the 
force and the safety of the judgments of the Senate. Our appeal to 
these xirinciiiles of the laAV has not, as it cannot, xiroceed from any de¬ 
sire to shut out the light. 

Kow, then, trusting, knowing indeed, that yoiir thorough and caretul 
and conscientious and impartial iiiA^estigation Avill supiily and make ui> 
for the defects of this argument, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentle¬ 
men, for the singular xiatieuce Avith Avhich you have heard me. 

Mr. Spoffokd. One question or tAvo questions, Mr. Shellabarger. 
Pirst, AA ill you point me to any place in all the records introduced on 
the former trials of copies of Mr. Kellogg’s iirotests before the return¬ 
ing board f Will you refer me to the case? Take time for it, if you 
choose, till to-morrow. 

Senator Kellogg. I Avill point you. 

Mr. Spoffokd. I am asking your counsel. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Here. 

]VIr. Spofford. Hand it to me to-morroAV, that Avill siithce. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Very Avell. 


PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 


Mr. Spofford. There is another matter which I am sure you will be 
happy to have corrected, because I knoAV you do not intend intention¬ 
ally to make a misstatement: that I, as counsel, have had full oi)por- 
tuiiity and have participated in inA^estigating Mr. Kellogg’s conduct in 
regard to elections. It is an utter error and mistake of fact. I have 
ncA^er had any oiAportunity and ne\^er attempted, as counsel, anyAvhere 
to inA^estigate Mr. Kellogg’s conduct with regard to anything connected 
with the Louisiana elections. I aa as admitted as counsel for William 
A. Strong, elected secretary of state, and noAV acting as secretary of 
state under the Kicholls goA^ernment, to ai)X)ear for him before the 
returning board and in regard to his title to his office. Ko conduct of 
Mr. Kellogg, with regard to any matter Avhatever, could possibly come 
up in that investigation. I never sought to impeach his conduct in any 
way whatever, and I never made any accusations against him but in 
this formal, serious, proper, and dignified mode before this tribunal. 
A copy of my x>etition has not yet eA^en been x)ublished. I haA^e re¬ 
quested tliat it should not be published. And now I will not make my' 
argument this morning, but there is a matter of such grav’-e consequence 
that I must beg leaA^e of the committee to make a xAersonal explanation, 
Avhich I should be entitled to make if I Avere already admitted to the 


SPOFFOUD VS. KELLOGG. 


27 


Senate; but the peculiar circumstances of this case, I tliink, render it 
iieeessary. 

r>y a coincidence that could not have been fortuitous, as I came here 
yesterday inorning’ to attend the tirst summons that 1 had received to 
ai)})ear before this committee, this papier was handed to me, published 
yesterday in the National Kepublican of Wednesdaj^, April 17, it having 
been published the day this committee had summoned ^Nlr. Kellogg and 
myself to appear before it for the beginning of the trial of this cause— 
]uiblished in the tirst column of the tirst page, the most conspicuous 
place in the paper: 

Current capital topics.—How the votes were secured for Jndf/e Sjntfford. 


How Senator Spojford was elected. 

The New Orleans correspondent of the Chicago Times (Democrat)— 

As though that Avere a Democratic pai>er— 

telegraphs to that journal, under date of the 12th instant, that a certain “responsihle 
citizen” ()f that city ‘^can produce at anytime the checks, payable to the order of 
J. Ross StcAvard and signed by Airs, Si)otford, Avliich s<*cnred the thirty-four votes that 
eleete(l Judge Spotlord to the Unite<l States Semite. This iiarty will jnobably a]>i>ear 
as a Avitness before the Senate eommittee ami exhibit AIi-s. Spolford’s cliecks. At the 
same time Charles T. Howard will ajipear before the Senate committee and tcvstify 
tliat he advanced !$47,000 to secure the installation of the Kicholls government and 
tne election of Spoli'ord.” 

I did not know till that was handed me what the meaning of an inter¬ 
view published Avith Mr. Senator Kellogg since 1 arrived here Avithiu 
tAvo weeks past, in the Evening Star, meant. That intervieAA', Avhich he 
has neA^er to my knoAvledge contradicted as being correct, state^l, as 
eoming from his own lips, to the Evening Star re])orter, that ^Ir. Spof- 
ford ought to be politiciau enough to knoAA' that A\'here there are tAA o 
l)arties there can be mud-slinging on both sides. 1 reject the illustra¬ 
tion. ]My motion here is for the committee to get ])OAver to send for per¬ 
sons and jiapers to try my gra\'e allegations tliat liave never been scat¬ 
tered through the ncAAsiiaiiers and have ueA'er been co])ied AA'ith my 
lierniission, but Avere put here in serious fashion Avith all earnestness, 
Avith all r<‘gret, AAdietlier the gentleman belicAes me or not; and here I 
am met Avith an estoppel by the counsel of that A ery party that his con¬ 
duct cannot be impiired into Avhile the neAA siiapers of the country are 
scattering these falsehoods all over the land Avith his conniA'ance! 

lie should bring ^Ir. Koss SteAAJird here; I should bring my AA'itnesses 
here. This is the oidy tribunal that can try this question. Since he has 
iiiA'ohaMl not only myself but one aa Iio is dt*arer to me than anything else 
in the Avorld in this disgraceful, false, and malignant charge, I shall 
demand that this committee ask of the Senate all the iioAvers tliat they 
can grant to have this matter elucidated judicially—if my friiMid .ludge. 
Shellabarger thinks that is a jmiper term—-judicially, under the strictest 
rules of eA'idence that can be aiijilied before this tribunal and liefore the 
Senate, that I may be vindicated or I may be disgraced. 

As for the argument, I shall need only about half an hour, iu ansAver 
to my friend ^Ir. Shellabarger, extempore. The only motion before the 
committee noAV is, shall authority be obtained to send for ])ersons and 
liajiers I I shall insist upon that motion being tried; and, if the doctrine 
of m* (idjitdteata applies at all (unless this committee, after hearing nu‘, 
is r(*sol\ ed tlmt it a])plies to the Avhole case and shuts up all iiiA'estiga- 
tion), AV(‘ arci entitled to have that ordiT, and apply the evidenci* obtained 
to such parts as are not jnecluded by the plea of res adjudieato^ if, indeed, 


28 


SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 


aiiv portion of my petition is subject to that bar. I will go forward at 
the pleasure of the committee at any time, bnt I will not occui)y more 
than half an hour or forty minutes at the farthest. 

Senator Kellogg. May I say a word or two, Mr. Chairman i 

The Chairman. Certainly. , ^ x 

Senator Kellogg. I oidy desire to say, Mr. Chairman and Senators, 
that I am very much astonished at what I have heard from Mr. Siiotford. 
Surely he does not hold me responsible for what the newspapers may 
publish, or what the correspondent of the Chicago Times may telegraiih 
from Kew Orleans. Kewspaper correspondents are telegraphing mat¬ 
ters of that kind concerning me constantly. As to the intervieAv in the 
Star, I will refer my fiiend to the Star reporter. I had forgotten all 
about it, bnt I will take his statement. I do not recall any statement 
that I made to him, though it is quite likely I may have inade some 
statement of that kind jocularly. Certaiidy I ineant nothing by it, 
and I ought not to be held responsible, I think, for either what the re¬ 
porter of the Star says, or what the correspondent of the Chicago Times 
says. 

As to the allegations made in the paper read, I have never stated 
that I believed anything of the kind. There has lieen a great deal said 
in the newspapers regarding Charles T. Howard’s connection as manager 
of a lottery comi^any, as iVIr. Spofford knows. In the Kew Orleans Times, 
a short time since, there was a purported expose of the matter running 
through a column or nearly, and it attracted considerable attention and 
was published over- the country. I have said nothing about it, and I 
disclaim here and now any such intention. 

I should not have mentioned the matter that T am now about to speak 
of were it not that I think it is due to Senator Hill at least that I should 
do so. For two years I have sat in the Senate; for four sessions I have 
voted in the Senate, side by side with the Senator from Georgia, resting 
under an imputation. The Senator Avent from this committee into the 
Senate and asked for a recommittal, it Avill be remembered, of my case 
upon allegations, as he stated, made to him by Mr. Spotford. This is a 
matter of record, and I bring it here so that there can be no dispute. 
The charge was that I went through a side door into the room of the 
returning board in the midst ‘of their deliberations with certain affida¬ 
vits—I am stating the substance, I think, of the statement made by the 
Senator—illegal and improper affidaAdts, affidavits calculated or intended 
to influence the returning board, and that did influence them in making 
returns regarding members of the legislature. 

I wrote a letter to the chairman of this committee, and he caused it to 
be read in the Senate, as the charge took me by surprise, stating that 
this was not true; that CA^ery member of the returning board and all 
the clerks and attaches had been examined before the various commit¬ 
tees, and my relations AA ith the board had been made a matter of 
searching investigation. The Senator from Georgia said in the Senate, 
if my memory serves me right, “ I am authorized by Judge Spotford to 
state that he aa ill xirove this and much more, if he is allowed.’^ This 
was upon a motion to recommit. I stand here to-day to say to the 
Senator from Georgia that there never Avas any evidence bearing ux)on 
that point, and none Avill ever be produced, whatever course this inves¬ 
tigation may take; and I say, moreover, that Avhether intentionally or 
otherwise, the Senator did me grave injustice, and he ought to deinand 
that Mr. Sx)oftord tell him on what he x^redicated that statement at that 
time. 

Senator Hill. Allow me to say that I think the only xirox>er way to 



SPOFFOHD VS. KELLOGG. 29 

sottle that wliole (nu‘sti()nj because it is a matter I know nothin*^- aboiit^ 
is to send tor ]n‘rsoiis and papers and take testimony. 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; because after tlie case was reported, and 
on a motion to recommit, and in order to delay action by the Senate, 
he might as well have said I took a double-barreled shot-gnn and went 
in and bulldozed the returning-board. There was no truth in it whatever. 

Senator Hill. I will only state that all the information I had was as 
I stated; and [ stated it for the ])nrpose of showing that there was tes¬ 
timony, facts that had not been ])rodnced. I did not know whether the 
fact was so or not, nor do I now; we can only settle it by sending for 
witnesses. 

Senator Kelt.ogg. I have thought some time I would say to the Sen¬ 
ator ])rivately, with the best nature in the world, what I have said now 
publicly, disclaiming any intention Avhatever to injure Judge S])offord. 

1 simply say that allegations of that kind, Avithout any fouialation, made 
ex partCj and not even sworn to, are un just. 

^Ir. Spofford. One moment. The interruption that occurred about 
that recommittal Avas on account of a disjiatch of jMr. Smith. The rec¬ 
ord is here and Avill speak for itself. Whatever information 1 got Avas 
on hearsay at that time. There AAms an offer of proof. l>ut these accu¬ 
sations against me come from ncAA^spapers after this interview Avith Mr. 
Jvellogg. All I liaA^e to say is that in my life I have ueA’er used or au¬ 
thorized the use of one dollar to buy one Amte; I liaA^e never knoAvn of it 
being done for me, and if it has been done by anybody, it Avas done 
AAithout my consent or ])riAity. 

Senator Hoar. TIr. (Jhairman, I should like to make an obseiA ation 
to the committee. 1 Avish simply to remark, in connection aa ith Avhat has 
been said, that it does not seem to me in relation to gentlemen of the 
high standing and character of ]\rr. Spofford or 31 r. Kellogg, or any¬ 
body else, Avho is a member of the Senate, or aaTio claims on any ])laus- 
ible ground to be a member of the Senate, that anonymous ncAA spaper ^ 
charges demand exjdanation at his hands. 1 do not think they are im- 
]mrtant enough to affect such rei)utations. 

Mr. Spofford. 1 agree entire AAuth the Senator from 3Iassachusetts 
as to ordinary cases, but this article, folloAAung the inteiwicAA’ AA'ith Miv 
Kellogg, in which he made that statement about mud-slinging, abso¬ 
lutely called for the iirivilege of a personal ex])lanation. 

Tiie (‘ommittee adjourned until to-morroAv at half-])ast 10 o’clock. 


AVasiiixgto^', April IS, 1870. 

The committee met i)ursuant to adjournment. 

Present: All the members of the committee exee])t Senator Kernam 
Also, Senator Kellogg, with his (*ounsel, Hon. S. S. Shellabarger, and 
Henry 31. Spofford, the memorialist. 

ARGUMENT OF MR. SPOFFORD. 

31 r. Spofford. 31 r. Chairman and Senators of the committee: I regret 
for many reasons that other i)rofessional duties lunm compelled my 
fri(*nd, 3’lr. R. T. 3[errick, of this city (Avhom I had employed to attend 
to the legal matters connected Avith my case for me), to bo absent from 
the city during this prelindnary argument. 1 regret it more for the 
reason* that mv friend. Judge Shellabarger, reimesenting the sitting 



30 


SrOFFOKD YS. KELLOGG. 


member from Louisiana, lias prepared a very elaborate, and I say with 
pleasure, a very able argument, or perhaps I might call it treatise, upon 
the i)lea of res adjudicata. That argument or treatise will be answered 
in due course by Mr. Merrick wlien he shall return, and shall have oppor¬ 
tunity to see it, as I understand it is to be printed j but it is quite im¬ 
material at the present stage of this case for the committee to pass at 
all upon any other question than this: Does the plea of res adjudicata 
throw my petition entirely out of court and iireclude any of the inquiries 
of fact that are therein sought to be made ? 

I feel that I am not presumptuous in undertaking to show this morn¬ 
ing, in the course of a few minutes, that no such result can possibly fol¬ 
low from any view that this committee may take of the plea of res ad¬ 
judicata; and the best proof that it does not go to the whole petition 
and the whole case and estop for one moment the propriety of my motion, 
which is the pending motion before the committee, that an order be pro¬ 
cured to take testimony in the usual fashion on matters of fact, is the 
answer made to me when I proposed to the other side to admit that the 
allegations of my petition are true. I said, ^^that admitted, I will waive 
my request for the order to take testimony and go to trial upon the pure 
legal question that results from the admission,” and the proi>osition was 
declined. 

Of course, if he had a plea that went to the whole case, as a demurrer 
to a bill in chancery goes to the whole bill, he would at once have adopted 
that course and saved all necessity for an order to send for witnesses; 
but, knowing, as he does know, that it would risk his client’s case and 
his client’s seat to make that admission, he declines it; and yet, just 
toward the close of his argument he undertakes to assert that the plea 
of res adjudicata does apply to the whole case, bribery and all. It is 
impossible. 

AVhat is the doctrine of law, supposing this to be now a court of law, 
which it is not, what is the doctrine of a court of law with regard to 
that plea ? I read from YTiughan vs. O’Brien, 30 Howard’s Practice 
Eeports Y.), i)age 519: 


The onns of proof is on the party wlio relies on the adjudication as a bar, and he 
must make it appear that the precise point has l)eeu considered and passed upon in 
the former suit. 

Where in the whole course of the former discussion, in the whole 
course of the former hearing, was any charge made at all approaching 
to that made in this petition, that only by reason of bought votes, bought 
by the personal interposition of the sitting member himself, did he get 
any pretended election at all to the Senate? Where was that ever 
passed upon anywhere ? Where was it ever alleged before I filed this 
petition here the other day, or rather before the petition was offered in 
the Senate by Mr. Jonas, Senator from Louisiana, and referred by the 
Senate to this committee ? The petition alleges votes enough bought by 
his personal interposition to give him the seat, but for which he would not 
have the seat to-day. Is that barred by the plea of res adjudicata be¬ 
cause 1 contested his seat upon the ground that my legislature was the 
legal legislature’ and his pretended legislature was'not the legal legisla¬ 
ture . The onus of jiroof is iiiion him, according to the aiithoritv I 
have .lust read, to show that every precise point in dispute made bv this 
petition has been weigL^ considered, passed upon, and adjudged iV the 
Senate of the United States heretofore. And he answers my motiol for 
tioi/a^s\hat testimony by this plea of res adjudicata to such a peti- 

I might stop right here and ask the court now for this order; and 


SPOFFOUD V8. KELLOGG. 


31 


then whatever merit there may be, if tliere is any, as to any fragment 
of my petition, in the plea of ms* adjudicata as to that ])oint having been 
adjudicated before, will come up in the due course of hearing after the 
evidence is in, and we shall have the benefit of it. If any portion of 
the prayer is barred, if even I am barred from claiming this seat under 
my election from the legislature of the only government that has ex¬ 
isted there since January 8, 1877, the i7icholls government, my petition 
is framed in the double capacity of an elected Senator with his title on 
file in this committee; and that title has never been adjudged, for the 
second resolution of the former committee, to wit, “that ITenry ]VI. 
Spofford is not entitled to a seat in this body,” though reported to the 
Senate, was never passed upon; the Senate never adopted that resolu¬ 
tion ; they only adopted the first resolution, that Mr. Kellogg was en¬ 
titled to the seat; they omitted passing at all upon that other motion ; 
and also as a citizen, even if, by an implied exclusion of myself by the 
adoption of the first resolution, it should be held (which I will show be¬ 
fore the trial of this case is over it cannot be held) that I am debarred 
from claiming that seat, yet still this i)etition is made by me, not only 
in my character as a member-elect holding credentials to a seat in the 
Senate, but it is made in my separate character as a citizen of Louisi¬ 
ana ; and one citizen of Louisiana has as much ])ower as all the citizens 
of Louisiana, or as the legislature of Louisiana itself, to come in before 
the Senate and say, “ here is a man representing my State sitting in 
your body who has no right to sit there; because, without having bought 
the number of votes he did buy, the unbought votes would not have 
seated him; therefore he does not sit here supported by a legal (piorum 
of uninfluenced, free votes which he must have in order to sit.” It is a 
question that has never been raised before in any proceeding whatever; 
but I have raised it here. 

Kot only does the jdea of res adjudicata require that the precise point 
in issue in tlie second case shall have been made and passed u])on in the 
first case, but, as yon all know, there is no res adjudicata unless it is a 
suit between the same persons, in the same capacity, in the same (piali- 
ties, so that the judgment, even if it had been in a court of law, against 
my claiming as Senator-elect in that capacity and with that status, would 
not debar me claiming as a citizen of Louisiana that that gentleman was 
wrongfully here. 

I say, then, that even if a portion of the case be debarred, even if 
my claim to be seated be debarred, there is in the petition a case of fact, 
a case upon which the honor of the body to which the sitting member 
at i)resent belongs recpiires it to issue an order for taking testimony that 
it may impure into the facts under that continuing supervision over its 
membership which the body enjoys by an unrestricted grant from the 
Constitution of the United States. The honor of the sitting member 
himself is involvtMl in aiding me in calling on the Senate for this order 
to take testimony that, if innocent, he may be vindicat(‘d. 

That is enougii to say; but lest it might be 8ui)i)OS(‘d that 1 assent to 
any ])ortion of the legal inferences drawn by Judge Shellabarger in his 
very ingenious and subtle aigument of yesterday, 1 shall be j)ardoned, 
in anticii)ation of what my counsel will do for me hereafter, in much 
abler fasliion with his siq)erior learning and ability, iiixm this brancli of 
the law, if, with the leave of the committee, 1 take a bird’s-eye vi(‘w of 
tlie place and application of the plea of res adjudicata in contests for 
Senatorial seats. 

In the first place the gentleman, arguing hke a plwlologist from the 
use of the word “judge,” reads: “ Each house shall be the judge of the 


32 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


electionsj returns, and qualifications of its own members,” and says tliat 
this power is a judicial i^ower, and not only a judicial but a strictly 
judicial power, and he makes the Senate in exercising this power a; court 
of law, and in so making it a court of law he drags and imports into it 
all or a portion of the artificial, subtle, and ingenious rules and dogmas 
of courts of law; and therefore he drags into that article giving power 
to judge of the election of its members the technical estoppel by matter 
of record known to the courts of laAV as a plea of res adjudicata. There 
never was a greater mistake in the world. 

If the gentlemen of the committee will look to the Constitution, Avhicli 
is the sole source and the true measure of their power and of tlie power 
of the Senate in this regard, they will see most clearly that they are not 
a court and that they are not bound in any manner by any rule that the 
courts of law liave adopted in the system of the administration of tlie 
law between private parties in regard to the doctrine of res adjndlcata. 
The Senate is, in one case only, even a quasi court, and that case is laid 
down most distinctly upon the face of the Constitution itself; and that 
is when it sits on the trial of imiieachment brought by the House of 
Kepresentatives. And let us see wiiat sort of a court it is then and what 
the greatest lawyers that ever illustrated the annals of American juris¬ 
prudence say as to its sitting even as a high court of impeachmeidv 
The Constitution, article 1, section 3, paragra])hs 0 and 7: 

The Senate- 

‘‘Judge” is all the word that my friend Judge Shellabarger has to 
drag the res adjudicata doctrine into the other article of the Constitution 
as one of its component principles and as a restricting induence. Here 
are more words: 


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sittiio'- for 
that x)urpose, they shall be on oath or altirmation. ^ 


Its members are to be sworn as a court. Do you upon a contested 
election swear each Senator to try that case truly and according to the 
law and the evidence? Mark the distinction. When sitting as a court 
of impeachment a Senators oath as Senator to do his duty as Senator 
is not enough, in the opinion of the framers of the Constitution ; Init 
because he changes his capacity, and becomes, as it were, a judicial offi¬ 
cer pro hde vice Avhen he sits as a member of the court of imj)eachment, 
he has to take a new, distinct, and separate oath from that of his office 
as Senator. But that does not apply when he judges of the election of 
members. That is an ordinary act of his as a member of a deliberative 
assembly; and the Senate acts as a deliberative assembly, and not as a 
court, when acting upon the membership of those elected to it. 


The Senate Him 11 have the sole power to try all impeachmeiits. When sittino- for 
that pm-pose, they shall be on oath or affir nation. When the President of the Ibiited 
States IS tried, the Chief Justice shall xireside. 


By ttie way, I observed wliilc glaiiciiiK' o\ er tliat for the first time in 
my notice of it that there is no provision as to who shall preside when 
the Vice-President may be impeached. I suppose there is no iirecedent 
tor lb and according to the ordinary rule the Ib’esident pro tempore- 
would <x>ine m; but the President pro tempore has a direct intere.4. in 
ousting the Wce-1 resident as much as the Vice-President has in ousting 


And no x>erson shall be 
hers present. 


convicted without the concurrence of 


two-thirds of the 


mem- 


8P0FF()in) V8. KELLOGG. 


9 

OO 


There is ‘•eonvietiHl,** 
‘‘^jiKl^ineiit.*’ 


aiiotlier legal term. 


Then comes the word 


JtKhfntcnf ill cases of iiupeaclimcnt sliall not extend further than to removal from 
ortice, and disqnalilieation to hold and enjoy anyottiee of honor, trust, or profit und«*r 
tin* 1 nited 8tate.s; hut tin* party convicted shall, nevertlndess, he liahlc and subject 
to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law. 

There the eouiisel would have staggered meveiy much about his phm 
()t res ((djudicatd. It there was a siuiihij.* ifrovisioii to that with regard 
to the power of the Senate to pass iiixm the election of its memhers, if 
tiny had to take a diderent oath—an oath for that particular emergency, 
then 1 should have considered that the Senate was a court. If they Inul 
used all thes(‘ legal terms about a judgment, and how far the judgment, 
should extend, and all that sort of thing, I should have lu^en very appre- 
h(‘nsive that ])erhat)s he might bring the fdea of res (idjudieata in under 
the use of those terms. Ihit let us see what no less eminent a lawyer, 
< 'oustitutioiml and otherwise, than ]\rr. Justice Story says on this section. 
I read from 1 Story on the Constitution, section 705: 

Ill the next idacc it is obvious that the strictness of the forms of proceeding in cases 
of otfens(‘s at common law is ill adaided to impeachments. Tlu* very habits griiwiii" 
out of jmlicial employments; the rigid manner in which the discretion of judgi'S m 
limited and fenced in on all sides, in order to protect ])crsons accused of crimes by 
rules and luccedents; and the adherence to technical princi])Ies— 


If there is any princii)le in it, m adjudicata is nothing l)ut ti technical 
julnciple— 

and the adherence to technical ])rinci])les. 'which, perhaiis, ilistinguishcs this luanch 
of tin* law mor(* than any other, an* all ill-ada]>tcd to trial of political otfenses, in the. 
broad course of ini])cachments. And it has been observed, with great jiropriety, that 
a tribunal of a liberal and comprehensive character, confined as little as jiossilile tn 
strict forms, enableil to continue its session as long as the natiin* of the law may rc- 
(inire, ipialified to view the charge in all its bearings and dep<'ndcnci<*s and to aiipro- 
]>riate on sound ])rincii)les of public jiolicy the defense of the accused, seems indis¬ 
pensable to tlui value of the trial. The history of impeachments, lioth in England 
and America, justifies the remark. There is little technical in the mode of jiroceeding; 
the charge's are sufficiently clear, and yet in a general form; there are few exceptions 
which arise in the aiiplication of tlu* evidence which grow out of mere technical rules 
and quibbh*s. And it has repeatedly been seen that the functions have been b<*tter 
uiulerstood and more liberally ami justly exi>ounded by statesmen than by m(*re law¬ 
yers. An illustrious instance of this sort is upon record in the case of the trial of War¬ 
ren Hastings, where the question whether an impeachment was abated by a dissolu¬ 
tion of Farliament was decided in tbe negative by the House of Lords, as wi‘ll as the 
Hous(*, of Commons, against what seemed to be weight of professional opinion. 


So much for the absolute freedom of the Senate, even sitting as a 
liigh court of impeaclimeut under a separate oatli or atlirmatiou to try 
that case according to the law and the evidence, from tecliiiical rules 
and technical priiici])les of law. A fortiori, when the Senate ;is a delib¬ 
erative body is i)assiug upon its granted and unrestricted power to 
decide ui)on the composition of its own membershi]), when its members 
do not take a separate oath, when they are not treated as a .judicial 
tribunal, and are in no sense a court, are they free to rise above thes(‘ 
technical rules and technical principles of law. The whole history of 
the exercise of that jfower from the establishment of the Semite until 
this da.v juoves that the.y have gone on the theory that they are fre<‘ 
from restraint by technical rules or technical iiriiiciples wliiidi are 
adoptiMl in the courts. They take what of them they please, and a])i)ly 
tliem, by way of analogy, and discanl the rest, and that they must do. 

The i)rinciple store decisis is a twin-sister of the doctrine of res adjufli- 
cata. Those two topics of the law are treated of in the same treatises 
by great elementary writers upon the law. The one is as sacred as the 

.‘3 8 K 


34 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


other. Certainly in the Senate of the United States tlie doetiine of 
stare deems in regard to its own decisions should be even more sacred 
than the principle of m* adjudieata can be, because stare decisis is a doc¬ 
trine that applies generally to principles of law, to general principles 
that regulate cases, whereas res adjudieata only applies to a private con¬ 
troversy with regard to inivate property and private interests. How is 
it with regard to the doctrine of stare decisis f Has it ever been adopted 
into the Senate of the United. StatesUpon the construction of the 
clause of the Constitution of the United States by that highest branch 
of the legislative department of the United States, especially when it sits 
ui)on the trial, as iny friend. Judge Shellabarger Avoidd say, as a court, 
but which I deny, upon the admission or rejection of a member, what is 
its history with regard to the doctrine of stare decisis '^ You had an 
illustration of it the other day. 

The doctrine of the law is this, that a line of precedents must be ad¬ 
hered to, most particularly when those precedents relate to the constiuc- 
tion of a clause in the Constitution of the country. The clause of the 
Constitution with regard to the tilling of a vacancy in the Senate by 
appointment of the governor has been the subject of a great deal of dis¬ 
cussion. The authorities say that the judgment of a court upon a con¬ 
stitutional question becomes as it were a ])art of the Constitution itself, 
and therefore should not be disturbed. What did the Senate do the 
other day ? What is the history of the matter called up by the recent 
case of Mr. Bell ? According to the discussion—I am not going through 
it all; it is much more familiar to you than to me—it appeared that until 
1825 the Senate went upon a certain principle ; then all at once in 1825 
the Senate construed that clause of the Constitution as meaning some¬ 
thing different from what the Senate had construed it before, and un¬ 
settled it by the Lanman case; and then between 1830 and 1810 came 
the Sevier case, when the Lanman case got a little shaken; and then 
the other day, after the lapse of fffty years, in the Bell case, the Lanman 
case was directly overthrown, and the Senate went back to the doctrine of 
the Tracy case. That is the way I understand it. I may not have stated 
it exactly, but where is the Senate bound by any rule of stare decisis accord¬ 
ing to its own practice; and, if it is not bound by the rule of stare decisis 
in the construction ot the Constitution under which it decides upon the 
admission of members, which is contided to its sole discretion and power, 
how can you import the doctrine of res adjudieata about private rights 
into that clause with regard to the admission of their own members ? 
It is not there. If you put it there to-day, it will not stay next year. 
Y"ou cannot tie down the unrestricted power of the Senate granted by 
that article of the Constitution by an exercise of it to-day or by a doc¬ 
trine proclaimed in the exercise of it to-day. It is a continuing power; it 
is an inexhaustible power; legislation cannot take it away. Though 
Congress might pass a law saying that the plea of res adjudieata shall be 
applied to the case of admitting members in the Senate; though that 
law should go through all the stages of legislation, it Avould be a void law. 
The unrestricted grant of power in the Constitution to the Senate itself 
cannot be shorn away, one lock of it even, by the combined legislative 
power ot the United States; it cannot be shorn away by joint rules 
of the two bodies; it cannot be shorn away by any rule of the Senate. 
Ihe Senate has passed no rule upon the subject. If it had, the Senate 
could rescind it the next day, and it would amount to nothing. It would 
be a shadow without substance. So, then, instead of the principle of 
adjudieata being a rule of law binding upon the Senate, it is no such 
thing; it IS nothing but an analogy; it is nothing but what you may 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


35 


<*h(>ose to adopt as a tair and jn’oper tliiii^' to do with rcpird to 

the particnlar ease before you. You eauuot lay it down as a doetriue; 
you eauuot import it into that article of the Coustitiitiou that gives you 
power to judge of the elections of your iiieiubers. You eauuot say so; 
no law could make it so; it is not so. 

l am delighted to advocate any doctrine that will make uniform the 
decisions of the Senate. So far as the Senate can adopt any rule and 
make any ])recedeuts that will secure justice, secure tranquiliity, secure 
rejmse, secure a i)roper representation of the thirty-eight States of this 
1 nion by coecpial ambassadors in Congress, I am delighte<l to import 
any light of reason and of natural law from any quarter; but 1 should 
dislike to see any technical artificial rule, hanging only upon a certain 
policy adopted by the courts, imported into, as binding upon, the Senate 
ot the United States in the exercise of its high, sovereign, exclusive 
power. 

And now what is the doctrine of res adjudicata ? It substitutes a 
shadow for the substance; it substitutes n simularntm for the reality. 
lies ad judicata prif vcri fate hahetur is the maxim. A thing adjudged is taken 
for truth, notwithstanding it may be an embodied lie. \Vhat else does 
the commentator say of res adjudieafa ^ Facit e.v cured rectum et c.v nirftut 
album. It makes a straight line out of a crooked one, and makes black 
white. I was not surprised at the smile that illumined the face of the 
sitting member as he listened to the conclusion of his able and ehupient 
counsel yesterday who talked about esoteric and exoteric evidence in 
tlie case, which I confess 1 did not understand, and I sliall have to study. 
My education in meta])hysics is very deficient. I was not surprised at 
the smile that irradiated his face when the conclusion of that esoteric 
and exoteric doctrine was announced that, because he had been a<lmitted, 
no matter what ini(piities he might have committed to get in, they were 
all absolved, they could not be inquired into, his admission was res ad- 
judicata^ ami the mode in which he got there could never be investi¬ 
gated. I have no doubt he felt as one of the best characters in the great 
work of Cervantes felt when he ex])ressed the benediction u])on sleej): 
lUessed is he that invented the plea of res adjudicata ; it covers one all 
o\'er like a cloak. 

Xow', what is the reason of this law? There is a reason. It is 
\'ery j)roper in courts of law. The })rinciple of res adjudicata is prop¬ 
erly ado])ted in the courts of law. I believe this committee is en¬ 
tirely conqjosed of lawyers. Do not as statesmen, do not as members 
of the highest legislative body of the world, allow yourselves to be iinV 
led by your luofessional training into the dangerous attempt to impi>rt 
the quidtlits and the quillets of Jmlge Sludlabarger into the decision of a 
case of this kind. What is the reason? The reason he gave in Latin^ 
interest reipublica' ut sit finis Jitium. It is ]>olicy for tlie state that there 
should be an end to lawsuits. Why? ^Y^t ac'cording to natural law. 
Th(‘re is no reason why you should not try the same case over twenty 
times so you are all tlie time striving to arrive at the truth. Ibit the 
state caniiot stand it. The state cannot supimrt courts to keep up 
jierpetual litigation over the same thing. Therefore it is for the interest 
of the state to stop litigation; and though harm may be done here ajull 
there, it is well to comiiel parties to believe that on their first trial tli'<*y 
shall exhaust all their powers and try the case fully, so that it will not 
be called up again. But that is not founded in reason at all. Yon may 
take this case, and it is one upon which so much stress is laid, that of a 
fatlier having two sons, Dick ami Tom. They have a (piarrel, as boys 
do. The father calls them up to s<v what they have to say, and he con- 


36 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


dudes that Tom is at fault, and he gives him whipping. A year 
afterwards it is accidentally discovered that Dick told a lie and got 
his brother into the scrai)e by his misconduct; that Tom was in no 
fault at all. Can Dick then plead res adjudicata when the father comes 
to judge his case again and to whip him ? It is not right because you have 
had one trial that that shall forever debar every other. But it is right 
that in a state which has to provide tribunals and pay the expense of 
lawsuits that the same parties should not always be litigating over the 
same thing on the same pretenses and in the same way. Therefore that 
doctrine has been adopted in the courts of law. 

But mark you, Mr. Chairman and Senators, I think there are about 
3,000 volumes in the United States of State and Federal reports—per¬ 
haps the number is more—and there are but three volumes in reference 
to contested elections in both Houses of Congress. There is no danger 
that yon are going to be overloaded with these repeated contests. The 
same principles do not apply. It is not to the interest of the country 
that this doctrine should be imi^orted in all its rigidity into the Senate 
or into the House of Kepreseutatives. It is necessary in the courts of 
law, as otherwise they could not get through with the business, tliere is 
such a multiplicity of lawsuits. 

Besides, though the doctrine of res ad judicata hardly ever works 
liardships in courts of law, it would work infinite hardsliip here on cases 
of contested elections. Why does it usually not work hardships in 
courts of justice, though it does occasionally ^ Because courts of jus¬ 
tice are provided all around in every direction with remedies for cmiug 
errors that do not exist here in the Senate. There you have your motion 
for a new trial; there you have your writ of error eoram noUs; there 
you have your right of ai)peal; there you have your audita querela; 
there you have your bill of review; there you have your petition for 
reheariug, and I do not know how many more statutory remedies to cor¬ 
rect errors. Here there is nothing whatever, as I understand from 
Judge Shellabarger, but the motion to reconsider, and I understood the 
very learned and accomplished Senator from Massachusetts to intimate 
the day before that that was not even a proper motion in a case of this 
kind. 


Senator Hoar. After the taking of the oath by the party admitted. 
Mr. Spofford. How does it have to be made ?" I cannot make any 
motion for a rehearing. Any one who thouglit my claim for admission 
was good could make no motion for reheariug because he voted to admit 
me. The motion must be by one who has made np his mind against me 
and that motion must be made immediately, before the man is sworn in’ 
and the gentleman was sworn in a few minutes after the vote« What 
remerly have I for any inadvertence, for any prejudice, for any bias. And 
I pppose all human beings are subject to these things. All human 
tribunals are fallible. If you import this doctrine of res adjudicata 
Innding me down by one vote, when I have none of the infinite number 
remedies provided to correct error in courts of law, do voii not com¬ 
mit a manifest injustice ? There must be a remedy 

Whetlier or not it be true that this plea bars a part of inv petition—eei- 
tainly that part of it upon which I specially now desire the order to take 
testimony—I mean that with regard to the procuring votes by corriiiition 
and tabery by the sitting member himself—is not and cannot, ev4n in 
the strictest court of law, be held to be precluded by the former vote 
seating the niember, and tlierefore my motion must be granted; and it 
would be proper, it seems to me, to reserve for the tinal hearing and for 
more full and complete argument when I shall have the aid of counsel 


.SrOFFORD VS. KFLLOGG. 


37 


ofwliicli I ;iin (lcpiiv(*(l by accident on this motion, niMni these ;^Tcat 
(inestions of law—of Constitutional law—which are involved in one small 
l»ortion of this jmtition. - 

The only (luestion upon which T think there can be a doubt 
as to any ]>art of the petition being barred, is the (juestion whether 
my legislature was the lawful one or ]Mr. Kellogg's legislature was 
the lawful one. 1 have said in the i)etition that 1 was elected by 
the lawful legislature, and he was not. That was i)assed ni)on, 
IKuhaps, but 1 shall contend most strenuously—and 1 beg the com¬ 
mittee not to i>ass in judgment upon that until I am heard by brief 
or in oral argument, (u* by counsel—I shall contend that that 
(|uestion is not barred; but if that is barred it does not bar any of the 
rest of my petition. And I Avish here to protest that the counsel on the 
other side unAvittingly and unintentionally, as he tells me this morning, 
used an expression Avhich might be i)rejudicial to my case before this 
committee and before the Senate, AAdiich I wish now distinctly to disa¬ 
vow. 1 refer to his remarks Avith regard to that portion of my i)etition 
that relates to the Avay in AAdiich my case Avas mingled Avith the ilutler 
case. He spoke of that as being an arraignment of the Senate. 1 do 
not arraign the Senate. 1 impute no blame Avhatever to the Senate. 
That mingling Avas accidental; 1 believ^e, under the cinMimstances, una- 
voidalile. 1 attach no blame to that committee; only an error of law in 
r(*fusing me leaAX to take evidence; and that is no disrespeiT to the 
committee or to the Senate, as it is no disresiieid to any court in the 
uniAxrse to ajiply to it for a correction of error for the improper or illegal 
exclusion of evidence. If I am to be taunted AA ith insulting the Senate, 
or otfending the Senate, or reflecting ipion the Senate, because L say 
that in my humble judgment the (*ommittee and the Senate excluded, 
to my pi’ejudice, eA’idence Avhich ought to liaA^e been admitted, then I 
haAX no rights. I should be heard to say that in any court of the uni- 
Aa*rse, before the (Queen’s Hench itself, before the House of Lords, or the 
House of Commons. If I cannot say it hen* without having it iierverted 
by counsel ojiposed to me, iu the interest of a jiarty oi>posed to me, to 
be a means of jirejudicing the Senate or the committee against me, 1 am 
very sorry for it. I intended no such tiling; I shall intend no such 
thing; I shall do no such thing. 

I>ut I liaA'C a right to comtilaiu that my case aams so intermingled with 
that of another S(*nator deiiendiug uiionotlier iirinciples and u])on other 
testimony, that it Avas not heard in any judicial fashion. If the counsel 
still adheres to his doctrine that the Senate, when it admitted Mr. Kel¬ 
logg and Mr. Ilutler, Avas a court and sat in a judicial ca])acity and tried 
my case fully and fairly, I shall yet be permitted to say in answer that 
no such proceeding Avas CAX'r had in a court of justice. It. aa^is parlia¬ 
mentary undoubtiMlly; it AAms not judicial, for Avhen a btfh' argument 
AA’as made in defense* of my claim to the Senate of the United States, 
only the motion to seat :\Ir. Kellogg aa^s before the-Senate, and no mo¬ 
tion AvhateA’er about ^Ir. Hutler’s case Avas before tin* Senate. Every mem¬ 
ber hereAvho sjit tliere will remember that the distinguished and most elo- 
(jneut Senator from Kcav York, instead of ansAvering an argument in iny 
laA’or (Avhich I huAU* ahvays contended AA as unanSAA'(*rable, but ui)on AAdiich 
opinions may differ), deVoted the entire time and a good deal of the 
Eecord toa discussion of tin* Hamburg massacre and of Mr. llntler’s case. 
Soit Avent on, and in the d(*bate upon my case, or rather, as .fudge Shella- 
barger AA'ould sav, in the jiidicial trial of my case before this high court, 
more than half tin* arguiiients found in the Record Avere about another 
case, niixeil up and tangled Avith mine in such a Avay that aa lieu 1 AA alked 


38 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


home that December morning between two and three o’clock my head 
was in such a whirl from that debate, which I heard from an adjoining 
room, that I conld hardly tell whether I was Mr. Butler or Mr. Butler 
was I, or Mr. Kellogg was Butler or Mr. Butler was Mr. Kellogg, or Mr. 
Corbin was I or I was Mr. Corbin. Senators who were there will re¬ 
member it well. Was that a judicial proceeding ? Was that a high 
court ? Have I had a fair, full, separate trial upon all the evidence that 
I offered to bring before that court but was refused? 

I have exceeded by five minutes the forty minutes which I made my 
limit. Though I have many other i)oints to touch I will delay the com¬ 
mittee no longer. I feel deeply, more deei)ly than I can express, how 
much not only my own standing and character, but that of the Senate 
itself, depend upon the decision in this case. 

Senator Cameron. Judge Spofford, have you had your attention 
called particidarly to the reports of the committee on the Butler-Corbin 
case ? 

Mr. Spofford. I have, and I intended to refer to that, but will not 
now. I think the minority of the committee adopted by analogy there 
the correct princix)le, and I agree to it, that where the identical same 
case has been before the body and passed upon, it would be mere puer¬ 
ility for the Senate to take up the same paj)ers and decide the case 
over again. That is not what I propose to do. 1 present an entirely 
new case here with the excei)tion of one little paragrai^h of two lines, 
where I say, what I said before, that mine was the lawful legivslature 
and Mr. Kellogg’s not. 


STATEMENT OF ME. KELLOGG. 

Mr. Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, I ask but a few minutes. I am sur- 
priscMl, as I was yesterday, by some remarks made by the gentleman who 
has just addressed you. Yesterday I exx)ressed my surprise at his hav¬ 
ing sought to connect me with matter x:mblished in the newsx)a|)ers, for 
which I was not responsible. This morning I entered the room while 
he was making his charges in various forms that I had personally 
bought members of the legislature. I believe he did not dwell ux^on the 
other allegations of his x^^tition. I do not want to offend my friend 
Judge Spofford, but I must say that I think he is a monomaniac on this 
subject. More than two years have elapsed since I took mv seat. He 
rung the changes upon these charg;es then. He went to the legislature 
of Louisiana, and finally, as I am informed, he x^’evailed ux)on a x^oliti- 
cal opponent of mine. Senator Boatner, of the Louisiana State senate, to 
introduce into that body a series of resolutions embracing the substance 
ot the allegations contained in the petition presented before the com¬ 
mittee. Consideration of these resolutions was asked, but no action was 
session. At the next session he prevailed on 
Mr. White, another Democratic senator, to introduce the same resolu¬ 
tions, asking that a committee be appointed by the president of the 
senate to sit during vacation, and be authorized to send for persons and 
liapers to take testimony in the State or out of the State, and to report 
at the next session of the legislature. The resolutions were full, and 
covered the precise points covered by his present petition. 

Whereas it is ciirrently reported that William Pitt Kelloo o- i)rocured through hriherv 
and coiinption certain false and forged returns of the election of November 137*> bv 
means whereof he had himself made governor; also, that while actino- as ^ovi rlioi^ 
caused the funds of the State to he diverted to imiu'oper useZ a^uust IS A* ’ 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


39 


All imlietabU* otl'eu.se, by tlie way, ami the courts have always been 
open to my Irieiid— 

tor the beiietit of his triends an<l himself, ami to uphold his totterinpj power; also, 
that he actively assisted in procnriiinf false athdavits and iii the use of bribery and 
corruption, first, to induce such action by the late returning board as to constitute a 
lej^islature in favor ot sending him to the Uuit«<l States Senate, and otherwise to pre- 
vejit the results of the election of November, 187t); and, secondly, to influence ])ersons 
returned by sai<l board as members of the general assembly to vote for him as ITnited 
States Senator;— 


All offense also indictable— 

Therefore, be it 

Rt‘mh\ed hij the nenate, That a special coinmitte«^ be ap]>oiuted, com]>osed of three 
senators, to be named by the President of the senate, to sit at such times and places 
as they may deem fit, durinjjj the ])eriod for which the ])resent hons(‘ of representa¬ 
tives was chosen, for the purpose of investigating- the truth concerning the aforesaid 
rc])orts and charge's, • 

He if further resoJred, ife., That tin* said committee shall have power to send for ])(‘r- 
sons and ])apers, to administer oaths, and to examine witnesses, either orally within 
the State, or by commission within or without the State. 

J>6 it further resolred, (j’-c.. That the said committee may rei)ort any result of their 
investigations during any called session, should there be one, of the ju'csent general 
assembly, or send the same in writing under sealed envelope, directed to the secre¬ 
tary of the senate, to be laid before the senate of the next gemu'al ass<‘mbly after its 
organization. 


Some of my friends objected to the consideration of these resolutions, 
and there was a disitosition for a time not to take them up. I was of 
course informed of these matters, ami telegraiihed to some of myfritmds 
to let the resolutions go through. When the resolutions were again 
called up they were adopted, and a committee was duly appointed. 

Judge Siiofford ap])ears before you with a simple ex parte statement, 
not sworn to—and I defy him to make oath to his ])etition—not sup¬ 
ported by a single atlidavit or exhibit. 

As I have said, the resolutions were adopted, the committee was ap- 
ap])ointed; ]\Ir. Zacharie, a State senator, was one; Mr. iioatner and 
]\ir. Dumont were the other two. ]\[r. Zacharie was counsel before the 
Sherman committee, and, 1 believe, counsel before the ^lorrison com¬ 
mittee, also counsel for the Democratic campaign committee—in fact, 
constantly for two years against me. lie a])])eared before Judge Hoards 
committee, a]>])eared before the Potter committee, appeared Indent* the 
various political committees that went down there. If there had been 
anything against me, 1 submit he Avould have been apt to have found it. 
1 le certainly would have tried to tind it. What was the result ? That 
committee found nothing. They made no report to the next general 
assembly. Judge Si)otford and his friends were persistent and earnest 
in endeavoring to find members of the legislature who would go before 
that committee to testify against me. 

Senator Hill. Did that legislative committee ever rejant i 

SenatiU’ Kellogg. Xo, sir; it had no evidence. 

xSenator CA3IEKON. Was it composed of members of both ])arti(‘s ! 

Senator Kellogg. Certainly; two Democrats and one P(‘publican; 
intelligent m(‘n, men whose interest it was, es]>e(dally Zaeharie's, to as- 
('(‘rtain any facts against me. This gentleman is ])ersonally friendly to 
me, but he is a very strong ])artisan. Do not, gentlemen, g(d an i(|ea 
that I am banished iromthe State of Louisiana, or that I have no friends 
th(‘re. 

If I have been guilty of any of these charges that Judge Spotford 
makes against me, why have 1 not been indi(*t(*d t The courts have been 
open to him; he has had ev(‘ry facility to g(*t redr(‘ss in that manner, and 
to establish these facts to my detriment. 


40 


SrOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Kow, regarding another matter. Alluding to the subject t^Iiat I re¬ 
ferred to yesterday (for it is an illustration of the manner in which 
Judge Spotford has tieated me), I ask the Senator from Georgia, in all 
fairness, when he Avent into the Senate Avhile my case was under consid¬ 
eration and moved to recommit the case upon the statement of Mr. 
Spolford, what Avas the basis o^ his action ? yesterday, after the re¬ 
marks 1 made regarding this matter, Mr. Spofford said he knew nothing 
about it excei)t by general report, and by a telegram from one Smith. 
Look at the date of that telegram, and I think you Avill find it is dated 
one day after the day Mr. Spolford made that statement to Senator Hill. 
So ]Mr. Spofibrd asked Senator Hill to tell the Senate of the United 
States that he can proA^e against me that I AAwt through a side door into 
the prAate sittings of the returning board to induce them by illegal 
affidavits to do an improper thing, upon the basis of a telegram sent 
after the statement Avas first made by him to Senator Hill. It has since 
transpired that this telegram aa ^s sent by a man Avhose character aa as 
questionable—a man of whom the Senator from Tennessee has probably" 
heard—one H. L. Smith, formerl^^ from Memi)his, and wlio has since 
admitted that he sent that telegram for a consideration to help make a 
case against me. This man was the detectAe of a committee appointed 
by the Xicholls legislature in the spring of 1877 to investigate GoA^ernor 
Kellogg and the executive department. He Avas at the time, and had 
been all summer, trying to find something against me, and he tele¬ 
graphed uj) here that he had found something that imjAroperly connected 
me AAith the returning board. This telegram was handed to the Senator 
from Georgia, aa ho had it read to the Senate in sux)port of the statement 
made bj^ Mr. Sx)otford that I AA’^ent through a side door with illegal afii- 
daAuts into the room of the returning board AA'hile they AA^ere in session, 
and induced them to make illegal returns of members of the legislature. 
1 ha AC no hesitation in saying to-day before liim that this statement AA^as 
made absolutely aa ithout foundation at the time. 


ylr. Spoffokd. Your going through a side door is nothing. 
Mr. Kellogg. Kothing! 

Mr. Spofford. It is not alleged in iua^ petition. 



that he has received information that Governor Kellogg Avent through 
a side door into the room AA'here the returning l)oard Avere in secret 
session, and laid atfidaAuts betore them to induce them to make returns 
of members of the legislature improi)erly.’^ The Senator cliarges that, 
and moves to recommit, Mr. Sx)oftbrd sitting by him ^ and AAdien I 
sent in a letter saying it Avas not so, he induces the Senator to get up 
and say it is so, and he aa ill prove that and a good deal more. TTiat is 
the lecord. Then he goes and hounds me through his agents for Iaa^o 
years to find some evidence against me, and he never has been able to 
X)ioduce a xiarticle. IVliiid you, there Avas a committee in session the 
Avhole summer of 1877, the courts were open, and they could not find 
anything against me. Kext year they tried it again in the legislature, 
and there has iieA^er been anything found. ’ 

'^s"*** Hill. 'VVliat is the date of tlie appointment of that co)n- 
nnttee 1 


Senator KELLOGa. The. 9th of March, 1878. I wa.s admitted in 1877. 
It was months after. :Mow, let ns understand this matter once and for 
all. lou ma.y go to the published procee<lings of this committee that I 
Iiave referred to and tlie proceedings of tlie Senate and you will see that 


SPOFFOKD KELLOGG. 


41 


Mr. Spoflord lias iilaiited liiinself squarely upon the issue, that I liatl 
attidavits made and Avent before the returniDj^ board and induced them 
to alter the returns. That was ur^ed to prejudice me and my case. I 
a^^ain say to the Senator from Georgia that lie ought to demand, in my 
opinion, that Mr. Spodbrd state Avhy he told him Avhat he did and why 
he made those charges against me. lie had not a scintilla of evidence, 
he hail not a single Avitness existing to prove them. They are not sup- 
liorted by a single athdaAut or exhibit. 

Senator Hill. (rOA^ernor Kellogg, F appreciate the force ofA\iiat you 
say; but is not the Ad*y object of taking testimony to ascertain these 
facts ? 

Senator Kellogg. I Avill answer that. There Avas no request by IMr. 
Spofford to take testimony as to any other (luestion exce])t the Five 
points that are covered by the evidence already admitted, as Mr. Shella- 
liarger shoAved in his argument yesterday. I think you aaTU see all these 
five points are fully coAded by the eA idence. The other question re¬ 
maining AA^as the simple remark aside and not incorporated in his live 
Avritten propositions, that I AA^ent through a side door. That Avas brought 
up in debate in the Senate. AVhen a case is pending can the party 
against AAiiom the conclusion is, and whose case is being tried, be iier- 
mitted to tell a Senator, “There is something serious against the claim¬ 
ant,’’ to be used to his prejudice, and make a groundless charge against 
him f 

Senator Hill. Here is the jioint: jNFr. Spofford insisted uiion all this 
testimony Avlien this matter Avas before the Senate heretofore; the five 
specifications which he said Avere not covered by the testimony taken in 
the A^oluminous reports AAiiich haA^e been alluded to. 

Senator Kellogg. But 1 submit they Avere. 

Senator Hill. AVe Avill not decide the question uoav. That is Avhat 
the memorialist alleged, and he asked for the opjantunity of taking tes¬ 
timony to establish those fiA e ])ro])ositions. remling the discussion on 
the question to recommit the case to the committee on those fiA^e ])roposi- 
tions, the telegram to AAiiich you alluded AA'as sent, and I made the state¬ 
ment AAiiich you liaA’e correctly giA en about the side door, &:o. I gave 
that as a reason aa iiy the motion then iiending aa iiich had been ]>reA iously 
made to recommit should be ado])ted, for the puiqiose of iiiA^estigating 
those facts ; but the Senate overruled it, A^oted it doAvn. ]^oav Air. Spof¬ 
ford comes in and by petition asks the Senate to luwe these matters in- 
A'estigated iioaa' ; informs the Senate that since that time he has discoATred 
facts bearing on yoiir conduct iu the matter AAiiich he alleges to be ma¬ 
terial, a point aa^ do not noAA’determine. Air. Spofford comes inhere 
and asserts positiA ely to the committee that he can proA^e these facts— 
1 do not say about the side door uoav; 1 do not kuoAv anything about 
that. 

AFr. Spoffoed. F allege nothing about that. 

Senator Hill. F suppose that is incident to the main facts alleged iu 
the fiA^e specifications, and also the additional inoof aa iiich he alleges in 
his memorial. He says he is uoav prepared to proA^e these things. Ai)u 
get up, and 1 think very justly, aa ith a great deal of A^ehemence, say 
those cliarges are not true, and you say that I Avas led into making a 
statement in the Senate myself, on the authority of Judge Siiofford, that 
he could prove certain facts, and that 1 ought to demand that he prove 
them. 

Senator Kellogg. Siiiqily demand that he giA^e his authority. 

Senator Hill. I do not care anything about his authority unless it is 
giA'eii in legal form. F AA’ant to kiioAA' AAiiether it is so or not. He allirms 


42 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


one tiling’; you deny it; you both speak with a good deal of feeling. 
How can we ever get at the fact—how can we ever tell whether Judge 
Spofford’s charge is true or your denial true unless we take testimony ? 

Senator B^llogg. So far as that is concerned, the case was closed; 
it was disjiosed of. All these points, as I insist, were covered by the 
evidence. Now he comes up and asks upon cumulative evidence or for 
other reasons, as he has alleged, that the case be reopened—for what pur- 
l^ose! To take evidence upon the point (assuming mine to have been a 
legal legislature) that I was guilty of briber}^—another question entirely. 
Now, I interpose against this general allegation of his, without oath, 
substantiated by no evidence—I put against that my statement and the 
])resumption of innocence that runs with me, and besides what occurred 
and what is in the journals of the legislature of Louisiana where they 
liave taken steps to investigate those charges, and they have not found 
anything against me, and it is notorious that they have not. After the 
lapse of two years, with interest to find what they could, witli interest 
to bring it before the Senate, with interest to make it public and defame 
me, with interest to find sometliing against me, they ha ve not been able 
to do it in all that time. All we have is Avhat he has said to-day 
and his naked petition with nothing but his signature attached, not 
even verified by an oath that he believes it to be true, without any 
exhibit, without any corroborating evidence. Now, after the case has 
been closed for years and I have sat and voted for four sessions in the 
Senate, he comes ui^ and (aside from this question of res adjudlcata) 
says that these allegations are true, that I bought my seat, when 
he has been in Louisiana for two years trying to get an investigation, 
and to find a vdtness to prove it, until he has worried and annoyed his 
own people with his persistency, and up to this moment he has not been 
able to get a responsible man to indorse it. This whole proceeding, if 
spread broadcast over Louisiana, would raise a laugh of derision. Why 
does he ask that the case disposed of two years ago be reopened and 
reversed and I be unseated and he be seated in my place ? Why don’t 
he ask you to take evidence on the charge of bribing members to vote 
for me ! His assertion that I did so goes ujion the very ground that I 
was elected by the legislature. I deny his right even to ask for any in¬ 
vestigation ; but surely if he can, in the case under his petition, ask for 
any, it can only proj^erly be upon the charge of fraud and wrong in 
securing the election of Senator. 

Therefore it is that I conclude, as I began, in all seriousness, without 
desiring to offend tlie gentleman, that he is something of a monomaniac 
on this question. It is a matter talked of on the streets, and is not de¬ 
nied, that money was used to disintegrate tlie Packard legislature and 
secure votes tor Mr. Spoftord. He is not on trial, but when I am called 
upon, if ever, to sustain this statement, I will endeavor to prove it. I 
have sat for two years and not s|id a word before regarding this matter; 
but if it is necessary I will go on the ffoor of the Senate and make an 
e.iC2)ose of what 1 believe to be the fficts. I do not mean to lie assailed 
in this manner by ex parte statements and by petitions in tlie privacy 
of a committee-room Avitliout defending myself. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


43 


PvEPLY OF :\riL SPOFFOPD. 

^Ir. Spoffoki). One word only. I will not f»et into such a <lel>ate. 
J have only to say that 1 have nothing to do with any coininittee in 
liOnisiana. 1 have never met any committee of the legislature. 1 am 
not aware whether they have ever had a meeting. I have used no other 
effort than to find the truth without any hounding of anybody. AVhat 
information I have acquired, the great bulk of it, which is important, 
has come to me very recently, since tliat committee was utterly dis¬ 
charged by the exjuration of the time of the legislature. A new legis¬ 
lature has been .elected. The chairman of the committee resigned im¬ 
mediately after the committee was appointed. There has been no oi)por- 
tunity for investigation, and, as far as I know, no investigation by that 
committee. 1 have never made any ai)])lication to that committee. To 
whoever talked about it to me 1 said that 1 thought this was the proper 
forum to bring the inquiry to, and here 1 have brought it. 

As to the i)eople of Louisiana disapproving anything of this kind, 
does he sitting there intend to say that Senator Jonas, sworn in as liis 
colleague on the Senate door, would ])resent an unsworn petition of tlnit 
kind, iiidess respectable i)eople in Louisiana who had just elected liim to 
the Senate by a very large and dattering vote had asked it; that he is 
triding as well as myself'? 

Senator Kellogg. 1 have not said anything about him, nor do I mean 
anything of the kind. 

]Mr. Spoffokd. The gentleman said I had been hounding liim all the 
time, and no decent ])eoi)le in Louisiana approved my cour.se. P>ut I 
will reserve that for hereafter. 

I forgot to say that the counsel yesterday spoke about a bill being 
brought to set aside a judgment, 20 years old, in the Suiueme Court, and 
he used the expression over and over again that this case of mine was 
l>assed upon years and years ago. I remind the gentleman, for 1 have 
looked at the record in this room this morning, that it was just eighteen 
months ago yesterday since my credentials as Senator elect were for the 
dr.st time pmsented to the Senate of the United States by Mv. Thur¬ 
man, on the 18th of October, 1877. If that is “years ago,” and the 
gentleman has got a vested right in the seat by that la])se of time, ho 
ought to plead the statutes of limitations and not res adjudicata. 

Senator Keli.ogg. 1 think the gentleman at least should state who 
gave him the information. 

JMr. Spofford. J will i)rodu(*e the witnesses here. 

The CiiAiiniAN. AVe must have an end of controversy of this kind. 

vSenator Hill. 1 suppose the argument on the motion pending is 

closed. _ , . , , 1 

Mr. Spofford. Excei>t with the privilege that Atr. iMerrick, ^yhen the 
argument of fliidge Shellabarger is j^rinted, a great ])art ot which do(‘s 
jiot ai)ply to this motion, may tile a reply. 1 insist on a vote on my mo¬ 
tion for leave to take testimony. 

The committee thereupon proceeded to d(‘liberate. After some time 
spent in deliberation, the committee adjourned to meet at the call of the 
cliairman. 


44 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE. 

After coDsilleratiou, the committee agreed upon and reported to ti e 
Senate the following resolution on May 1, 1879: 

Besolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections, to which 
was referred the memorial of Henry M. Spofford, praying permission to 
produce evidence relating to the right of Hon. William Pitt Kellogg to 
the seat in the Senate held by him from the State of Louisiana, and in 
support of the claim of said i)etitioner thereto, be, and said committee is 
hereby, instructed to inquire into the matters alleged in said petition ; 
and for that purpose said committee is authorized and empowered to 
send for persons and papers, administer oaths, and do all such other 
acts as are necessary and proper for a full and fair investigation in 
the premises. Said committee may, in its discretion, appoint a subcom¬ 
mittee of its own members to make such investigation in whole or in 
part; which subcommittee shall have authority to employ a clerk, ste¬ 
nographer, and sergeant-at arms, and shall have all the powers ot the 
general committee to administer oaths and send for persons and papers, 
and may make such investigation either in Washington or in the State 
of Louisiana, and said committee or its subcommittee may sit in vaca¬ 
tion. 

RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE. 

The resolution was considered by the Senate, amended, and passed in 
the foliovving form : 


In the Senate of the United States, 

May Ithj 1879. 

Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections, to which 
was referred the memorial of Henry M. Spofford, praying permission to 
produce evidence relating to the right of Hon. William Pitt Kellogg to 
the seat in the Senate held by him from the State of Louisiana, and in 
support of the claim of said petitioner thereto, be, and said committee is 
hereby, instructed to inquire into the matters alleged in said petition ; 
and for that purpose said committee is authorized and empowered to 
send for persons and papers, administer oaths, and do all such other 
acts as are necessary and proper for a full and fair investigation in 
the premises. Said committee may, in its discretion, appoint a subcom¬ 
mittee of its own members to make such investigation in whole or in 
part; which subcommittee shall have authority to employ a clerk, ste¬ 
nographer, and sergeant at-arms, and shall have all the powers of the 
general committee to administer oaths and send for persons and papers, 
and may make such investigation either in Washington or in the State 
of Louisiana, and said committee or its subcommittee may sit in vaca¬ 
tion ; and said committee are further instructed to inquire and report 
whether bribery or other corrupt or unlawful means were resorted to to 
secure the alleged election of the memorialist. 

Attest: 

JKO. 0. BURCH, 

Secretary. 

RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE, ADOPTED MAY 20, 1879, AND TRANS¬ 
MITTED TO THE MEMORIALIST AND THE SITTING MEMBER. 

Resolved.^ That the chairman of this committee be, and he is, author¬ 
ized to order and procure the attendance of such witnesses as Henry M. 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


45 


Spotford shall now desire to be examined on any of the questions involved 
in the matter of the seat in the Senate from the State of Louisiana, said 
witnesses not to exceed such number as can be conveniently examined 
during the present session of Congress. " , 

RESPONSE OF MR. SPOFFORD’S COUNSEL. 

Tn compliance with the resolution of the committee, I herewith sub¬ 
mit, on behalf of the Hon. H. M. Si)oft’ord, certain points upon which he 
desires that testimony may be taken, understanding that the points are 
rather an indication of the course of proceeding than an acknowledg¬ 
ment of any limitation upon the investigation. 

I beg leave further to say to the committee that the first point to which 
I shall call their attention in the course of the inquiry is the last in the 
series presented, viz, that which refers to the bribery by Wm. P. Kel¬ 
logg and his agents and auxiliaries, with his connivance and consent, of 
more than five members of the assemblage calling itself a joint conven¬ 
tion of the two houses of the legislature of Louisiana, by which he 
claims to have been elected to the Senate of the United States, &c. It 
is desirable that the testimony upon this 4th point should be exhausted 
before the committee proceed with the others. 

As far as at present advised, Mr. Spoft'ord does not propose to call 
before the committee more than fifteen persons as witnesses, in the ag¬ 
gregate, on all the points submitted. 

Kespectfullv submitted. 

K. T. MEKIIICK, 

Of Counsel for Henry M. tSpofford. 

1. The facts, as set forth in the memorial of Henry M. Spoft’ord, ad¬ 
dressed to the honorable the Senate of the United States, and presented 
to that body at the present session of Congress. 

2. That said W. P. Kellogg, for the purpose of securing his election to 
the Senate of the United States, did aid and co-operate with others in 
securing by fraudulent and revolutionary means an organization calling 
itself the legislature of Louisiana, by which said body he, the said Kel¬ 
logg, claims to have been elected to the Senate of the United States, but 
which said body was, under the laws of Louisiana and in fact, not the 
lawful legislature of said State, and did no other act whatever that re¬ 
mains of authority, save and except said act of the pretended election of 
said Kellogg. 

3. That at the pretended election of W. P. Kellogg to the United 
States Senate, viz, on the 10th of eTanuary, 1877, there was not in the 
assemblage by which such pretended election was made ‘‘a majority of 
all the members elected to both houses present and voting.” 

4. That more than five of those who were members of said assemblage 
by which said pretended election was made, and who at said pretended 
election voted for said W. P. Kellogg, were by the said Kellogg, and 
with his connivance and consent, bribed and paid to vote as they did, 
and that said Kellogg otherwise corrupted, unlawfully influenced, and 
intimidated said assemblage to vote for him for the Senate ot the United 
States, and that he did not receive in the jo’iit assembly seventy-nine 
genuine free and lawful votes, which number was essential to elect him. 


46 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


RESPONSE OF SENATOR KELLOGG. 

United States Senate Chamber, 

, Washington^ May 22nd, 1870. 

To Hoi). Eli Saulsbury, 

Chairman of Committee on Privileges and Elections : 

Senator : I, at a late hour last eveniug, received from the clerk of 
the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate a copy ot a 
resolution of that committee requesting Henry M. S[)otford and myself 
“ to inform the committee as soon as possible on what points they desire 
to take testimony, respectively, and the number of witnesses they each, 
respective!}", wish, to examine upon each point.’’ 

The committee, of course, perfectly uuderstand that my position is, 
and will continue to be, that 1 deny the competency of any and all tes¬ 
timony as affecting my title to a seat in the Senate, and shall continue 
to protest that no testimony taken, whether on the request of Mr. Spot 
ford or myself, can be used to affect such title, already ffually adjudged 
by the Senate. 

Keserviug and not waiving any objection to the introduction of any 
evidence, b}^ whomsoever taken, I reply that the evidence which I shall, 
under said protest, ask the committee to take, should Mr. Spofford per¬ 
sist in taking testimony, will be to meet and rebut any and all evidence 
which he may take assailing ray title to a seat in the Senate, or attribut¬ 
ing to me any wrong. The committee will readily realize that, in the 
nature of the case, the evidence I shall desire taken must be, so far as 
my title is concerned, largely in the nature of rebutting evidence; and 
that it is impossible for me, until after I see the evidence of Mr. Spofford, 
to state either the points on which I will desire evidence, or the number 
of witnesses I shall wish to have the committee examine on such points. 
This will depend entirely upon what points are covered by Mr. Spofford’s 
evidence. I will promptly comply, as tar as ])racticable, with the reso¬ 
lution of the committee whenever I am enabled to do so by seeing the 
evidence of Mr. Spofford. 

As to that part of your investigation authorized under the amendment 
proi)Osed to the resolution under which you act which was offered by 
Senator Hoar, I reply, that if the committee go into an inquiry, or allow 
one to be gone into, as to the original and already-decided question of 
the validity of the Senatorial election in Louisiana, against which I pro¬ 
test, 1 shall ask evidence to be taken upon the point that my political op¬ 
ponents resorted to the use of bribes and other unlawful means to disor¬ 
ganize the general assembly by which I was elected to the Senate, and 
to secure the pretended election of Mr. Spofford. 

The number of witnesses I shall desire to call in support of this point 
It IS, of course, impossible for me to state at the present time, but the 
number, I think, will not exceed thirty. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. P. KELLOGG. 


reply of the chairman. 


Washington, May 31,1879. 

Hon. Wm. P. Kellogg : 

Sir : Subpoenas have been delivered to Mr. Bright in blank with 
directions to summon such witnesses as you may designate, not exceed¬ 
ing the number summoned on behalf of Mr. Spofford. Should either 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


47 


party boreafter desire to examine otlier witnesses, tbe committee will 
iben determine when and where such examination shall be had. 1 may 
add, yoiir failure to notify the committee of the probable number of 
witnesses you might desire to examine, as requested by resolution in¬ 
closed to you, induced the committee to open the investigation at this 
time and place, and no just cause ot‘ complaint exists on your i)art with 
the action of the committee in that regard, or the manner in which they 
havq proceeded. Had you not stated in effect that you could not tell 
until the testimony of Mr. Spofford had been taken what witnesses you 
might desire, the investigation would most probably have been made 
by a subcommittee in 2^ew Orleans in [November next. However, with 
a desire to give to neither party any advantage, the committee have 
ordered the same number of witnesses subpcenaed for each contestant 
for examination during the present session or before the adjournment of 
the committee. 

Your witnesses will be summoned to appear on June the 9th, and 
examined sooner, if present. 

With respect, 


E. SAULSBURY. 



s 


% 


\ 




I 

f. 









TESTIMOXY BEFORE AXD PROCEEDINGS OF 

THE 

COMMITTEE ON PKIYILEGES AND ELECTIONS, 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

IN THE 

MATTER OF THE MEMORIAL OF HENRY M. SPOFFORD 


REL.\TIVE TO 

THE SEAT IN THE SENATE HELD BY WM. PITT KELLOGG. 


4 S K 







WashinGtTON, Thursday, June 3, 1879. 

Present, the members of the committee; also, E. T. Merrick, esq., 
counsel for the memorialist; Henry M. Spofford, and the sitting mem¬ 
ber (Senator William Pitt Kellogg), with his counsel, Hon. S. Shella- 
barger. 

The Chairman. The committee is ready. 

Mr. Merrick. I will call .Joseph J. Johnson. 

The Witness (Johnson). I ask the gentlemen to please excuse me. I 
am sick ever since day before yesterday. I have a very bad headache 
and a pain in the breast. 

Mr. Merrick. If you should become very much fatigued in the pro¬ 
gress of the examination it may be suspended ; but perhaps you can go 
on for the present. 

The Chairman. The witness will be sworn. 

EXAMINATION OF JOSEPH J. JOHNSON. 

Joseph J. Johnson (colored), a witness called by the memorialist, 
sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. Where did you reside in 18761—Answer. I resided in De 
Soto Parish, State of Louisiana. 

Q. Where do you now reside ?—A. At present in New Orleans. 

Q. Were you a member of the legislature of Louisiana in 1876 ?—A. 
I was a member of the legislature in 1877. 

Q. What time did the legislature meet f—A. On the 4th day of Jan¬ 
uary, if I am not mistaken. 

Q. How long did that legislature continue in session ?—A. Before the 
extra session took j)lace, sixty, days, and then remained, I believe, a 
month or two; I do not exactly remember particularly afterwards. 

Q. Did that body you speak of as the legislature undertake to elect a 
Enited States Senator ?—A. It did elect one. 

Q. At what time did that election take place ?—A. The election took 
place, I believe, at the inaugurating of Mr. Packard. 

Q. Were you a member of, and present at, the caucas of the Eepub- 
lican members of that legislature called for the purpose of considering 
the question whom they should put in nomination for the United States 
Senate ?—A. I was a member of the combination at the time they were 
speaking about electing a United States Senator. 

Q. Do you recollect Milton Jones being a member and being present 
when the subject of the United States Senatorship was discussed ?—A. 
Yes, sir; Milton Jones was there a few minutes; he went out of the 
room after a little while. 

Q. Out of the room where the caucus was assembled ?— A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Did you make any motion in that caucus having reference to Mr. 
Kellogg at all?—A. Motion of mine making reference to him for United 
States Senator? 

Q. Did you move to allow Mr. Kellogg to come in and address the 
caucus ?— A. I believe I did make such a motion as that. 

Q. Did he come in ?—A. I believe so. 

Q. After he came in did he make any reply to anything that Mr. :\Iil- 
ton Jones had previously said?—A. Well, at that time Mr. Jones said 


52 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


something in there concerning the United States Senator in the combi¬ 
nation, and I believe Mr. Kellogg came in afterwards, about a minute or 
so after. He was in there 1 think. I disremember now what it was ex¬ 
actly. Whilst they were holding the caucus I think there was a com¬ 
mittee of three appointed to wait on the gentleman. 

Q. To wait on Mr. Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir 5 I think so. 

Q. And ask him to come in ?—A. And ask him to come in, I believe 
to address the combination. 

Q. And he did come in and address it !—A. Yes, sir; he addressed it. 

Q. What did he say !—A. He said a great many things 5 I do not 
recollect now what it was. 

Q. Did he say he had stood by the government, and that if they in¬ 
tended to drop him they could go to hell and he would turn matters 
over to the democracy f—A. Turn the government over to the democ¬ 
racy ? 

Q. Or anything to that effect. 

Senator Cameron. Mr. Chairman, I think I shall object to that ques¬ 
tion. Let the witness state what he did say without counsel leading 
him. 

Mr. Merrick. My object, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com¬ 
mittee, is not in any respect to lead the witness, according to the com¬ 
mon understanding of leading a witness at the common law. It is sim¬ 
ply an endeavor to refresh the witness’s recollection and to address his 
attention to the particular subject about which I desire to inquire, and 
the inquiry indeed is rather of a preliminary character than of a sub¬ 
stantial nature. 

Senator Hill. It would be competent, I suggest, for the examiner to 
call the witness’s attention to any particular subject in the speech of Mr. 
Kellogg and ask him what he said on that subject. 

Mr. Merrick. I believe that is the correct rule as laid down. 


Senator Hill. Of course you can use such language as will refresh 
his memory as to the particular subject you wish to examine him on. 

Senator Cameron. I agree with Senator Hill. 

Senator Hill. I have no doubt Mr. Merrick can shape his question 
accordingly. 

Mr. Merrick. I will put it in this form. (To the witness). In the 
course of Mr. Kellogg’s remarks did he say^ anything about his having 
stood by the government, and that if the caucus intended to drop him 
then, they could go to hell and he would turn matters over to the Dem¬ 
ocratic party ? Did he say anything of that kind ?—A. I never heard 
him say anything about turning matters over to the Democratic party. 

Q. You never did —A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he say anything about turning matters over to the Democ¬ 
racy ?—A. Is not Democracy the same thing? 

Q. They are different words. I thought probablv I might have been 
mistaken about it before.—A. No, sir; I understand “ Democracy ” and 
“ Democrats ” as all one. I suppose I have to answer you on the same 
question about the Democracy as I did about the Democrats. 

^se any language of which you complained at the time to 
any individual ? [A pause.] Didheuse any language which you thought 
he ought not to have used in that assemblage, and of which you com¬ 
plained as language that it would have been better to have omitted ?— 
A. Complaining of him about using such language? 

Q. I do not mean any complaint that you addressed to him. I do not 
mean that you complained to him; but did you complain to anybody 
else f—A. I am trying to bring my mind to think who I made any coni- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


53 


plaint to. Please bear patiently with me a few minutes. [A ])ause]. I re¬ 
member several persons I was talking to about his being our choice for 
the United States Senate, but 1 do not remember making an}* complaint 
to anybody about him. 

Q. I do not say about him.—A. About Mr. Kellogg^ excuse me. 

I do not mean to say that you complained about Mr. Kellogg, but 
about tlie language that he used in addressing you gentlemen.—A. 
lhat is what I am trying to speak about now, about him addressing the 
caucus. 

Q- Can you not recall any complaint that you made about it?—A. 
Ko, sir; because I do not know any that 1 made. That is the reason 
why i cannot call any. 

• Do you know Louis J. Souer [pronouncing the name Sour] ?—A. 
Ko, sir; do not know any one named Louis J. Souer |Sour]. 

Q. Souer [pronouncing as it spelled Soor].—A. I know Mr. Souer 
[Soor]. 

Q. Louis J. Souer?—A. Yes ; I know him. 

Q. AVhere does he reside ?—A. I believe, from what he told me, he 
resides somewhere in England. That is his home, somewhere there. 

Q. Where?—xV. In Europe; but at the present time he is in New Or¬ 
leans. I know his home is in Europe ; so he told me at one time. 

Q. When did he tell you that ?—A. He told me so in 1870, and he 
told me so again after the government fell. I asked him why he was 
not going back home ; he told me he lived in P^nrope. 

Q. You mean when the Packard government fell ?—A. Yes, sir; our 
government. 

Q. What was Mr. Souer doing in reference to public afiairs in 1370 
ami 1877 ?—A. I was not a member in 1870. 

Q. In 1877, when you were a member.—A. I cannot tell you anything 
about what he was doing in 1870 ; he was a representative there. 

Q. He was a representative ?-r-A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. In the legislature of Louisiana ?—A. Yea, sir. 

Q. In what year was he a representativ*e ?—A. PN^er since I have been 
knowing him; he was a representative in 1875,1870, and 1877. 

Q. And yet you say he resided in Europe ?—A. He told me so ; if he 
told me that just to fool me, 1 do not know; maybe he said that in fun. 

Q. He was in the legislature with you in 1877, was he?—A. Yes, sir; 
he was in the legislature in 1877. 

Q. Do you now recollect that you made some complaint to Mr. Souer 
about language that Mr. Kellogg used when he came into that assem¬ 
blage in consequence of your motion that he should come in ?—A. 5Iade 
some complaint about him coming in here? 

Q. Not about his coining in, but about the language that he used 
after he got in.—A. After he got elected ? 

Q. No, not after he got elected, but after he came into the assem¬ 
blage into which he was invited to come.—A. You mean the combina¬ 
tion ? 

Q. Yes, the combination ; we will call it that /f you will.—xV. If I 
made any remark to Mr. Souer, I do not know anything about it, be¬ 
cause I did not know anything to make liim any remarks about. 

Q. You do not recollect anything about it?—A. No, sir; I do not 
recollect anything like that. 

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg at any time in con\*ersation with you, during the 
session of that legislature, (iirect you to go to see Mr. Souer ?—xV. Di¬ 
rect me to go to see Mr. Souer ? 


54 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


Q. Yes.—A. No, sir; he never directed me to go and see Mr. Soiier 

to my recollection. . ^ t 

Q. He never directed you to go to see Mr. Souer ?—A. Not that 1 can 

remember. r n ® a 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Kellogg S—A. les, 
sir; I have had conversation with him several times. 

Q. Wait a moment. Did you ever have any conversation with him 
in reference to his election to the Senate at the time that legislature was 
sitting—A. No, sir; I never did go in his chamber to say anything 
to him about an election of Senator. I don’t remember asking him 
anything about his election affairs at all. 

Q. Did you ever go to see Mr. Souer and tell Mr. Souer that Governor 
Kellogg had sent you to see himf—A. You asked me the question did 
Mr. Kellogg send me to Mr. Souer- 

Q. 1 asked vou [if Mr. Kellogg ever told you to go to see Mr. Souer.— 
A. I think he'told me so one time if my memory serves me right, to go 
and see Mr. Souer. 

Q. Probably your memory might be refreshed by a ])aper which I will 
ask you to look at. Js that your signature ? [Exhibiting a paper.]—A. 
[Examining.] Yes, sir; that is my signature. 

Q. You recognize it as yours?—A. Yes, sir; I recognize it as mine. 

Q. That paper might possibly refresh your recollection.—A. Allow 
me to read the paper. 

Q. Certainly [handing paper to witness].—A. The way my head is 
now I can hardly govern it, because it feels as if it was going to burst 
open. [Examining paper.] 

Q. You may read it to the committee if you choose. [The paper was 
handed to Mr. Merrick.] Are you satisfied with it?—A. I have such 
awful pain in my head that I can hardly speak. 1 have a fearful pain 
in the breast, that I had all last night. That is why 1 asked the gentle¬ 
men to excuse me till I got something to stop it. 

Q. You made a remark just now about something being there that I 
did not catch. What was the remark ?—A. I did not say anything 
about the paper. You asked me to read it, and I said I did not care 
much about reading it, my head begins to hurt me so. 

Q. You have reacl it ?—A. I have read it over just now. I was trying 
to find the part there that you asjied me about Mr. Souer just now. 

Q. Did you find it?—A. I saw it there. 

Q. Does that refresh your recollection ?—A. That part says about Mr. 
Kellogg’s sending me to Mr. Souer ? 

Q. Yes ?—A. I remember that Mr. Kellogg sent me over to Mr. Souer. 

Q. You told Mr. Cavanac also that Mr. Kellogg sent you to Mr. 
Souer ?—A. When was it I told Mr. Cavanac ? 

Q. Coming on from Louisiana.—A. I do not recollect telling Mr. Cav¬ 
anac any such word as that coming up from Louisiana here, because w^e 
hardly had any talk about anything. I did not have any talk with any¬ 
body about what business 1 was on ; only when they would ask us where 
we were going, we told them we were subpoenaed to Washington. I do 
not remember telling Mr. Cavanac that. 

Q. Is your memory refreshed by reading the paper now so that you 
can say that Mr. Kellogg did send you to Mr. Souer ? I will read the 
paper to you : 

State of Louisiana”- 

The Witness. Before you read this paper I should like to know who 
gave it to you, if you please. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 55 

Mr. Merrick. xVfter I have examined you, Mr. Johnson, you may ask 
me any (luestion you please. 

Mr. ShellABARGER. Mr. ]Merrick, do you offer the paper in evi¬ 
dence ! 

^Ir. Merrick. I am goin" to offer it to Mr. Johnson to refresh his 
recollection, at the suggestion of a member of the committee. 

]\Ir. SiiELLABARGER. It is iiot offered now in evidence? 

Mr. Merrick. No j it is not offered in evidence. It is read to refresh 
his recollection. 

My question now is, did Mr. Kellogg send the witness to ^Ir. Souer. 
The witness seems to be somewhat embarrassed in his recollection, and 
is no doubt suffering some physical i)ain, and it gives him pain to read 
this paper himself. In connection with that question, and for the pur¬ 
pose of refreshing his recollection, that he may answer it, I read to him 
this paper, which forms a sort of corollary to my question, and is, there¬ 
fore, part of it: 

Statk ok Louisiana, 

ravish of Orleans: 

Joseph J. Johnson doth depose and say : 

1 leside in the city of New Orleans. "Before and daring 187() I resided in 1)(; .Soto 
Parish, in this State. I represented that parish in the Kellogg legislature during the 
year 187(5. I was a ineinher of the Republican caucus, when (iiscussing theiiuestiou of 
electing a United States Senator. I reineinber Milton Jones suggesting Colonel Casey’s 
nomination. I made a motion, which was carried, to have Kellogg come in and address 
the caucus. He did come in and said, in reply t) what Mr. Jones had said, that he 
(Kellogg) had stood by the government and risked his life for it, that if they intended 
to drop liim then, that they could go to hell, and he would turn matters over to the 
Democracy. I complained of this language to Mr. Louis J. Souer, and he said that 
Kellogg had to be elected to save the government. Mr. Jones had left the caucus and 
he was sent .for two or three times but did not come back that day. Next day I was 
with him, and he told me he was going to Governor Kellogg to get some money. I did 
not go with him, but some time after Jones came to my room and told me he had got 
the money. He showed me an order on Auditor .lohnsou, signed by Kellogg. 

I myself went to see Governor Kellogg and told him that I was hard up for money, 
and couldn’t get anything, and did not have my warrants yet, and asked him to (h) 
somethinu for me. He told me he wanted me to stand by him, and to go to Colonel 
Souer and he would give me satisfaction. I then went to Colonel Souer and told him 
that Govu nor Kellogg had sent me to him to get satisfaction, that the election for 
.Senator was coming on, and I wanted to know what would be <lone. I asked him if I 
voted for Kellogg for Senator if he could give me a position in the custom-house, as I 
knew he would l)rt able to do it. .Souer said that it did nor. matter much what was. 
<lone after^^ arils, but that every one who voted for Kellogg then would get two hun¬ 
dred dollars (.$200). I asked if I would get it, and he saiil to be sure I would. I then 
]»romised my vote; which promise I kept. After the vote, about four or five days, L 
was called in Mr. .Soiier’s private room and he paid me the two hundred dollars agreed' 
upon. George Washington, member from Concordia, was at the door looking in, wait¬ 
ing to be called after me. lie saw the money ])aid to me. When I got my money, 
Washington got his. 1 stopped at the o])en door and looked back and saw him getting 
money. J'he next came in after Washington was Anderson Tolliver, of Concordia. I 
was still waiting outside the door and looking in. I saw .Souer paj’ him money also. 
I then went away from the door, but remained in the ante-room, and saw Baptiste 
Drew, of Itapides. go into the private room. When he came out 1 asked him if he got 
his money, and he said ye.s, and showed it to me. 

J. J. JOllN.SON. 

.Sworn and subscribed before me tliis Ith of April, 187'J. 

[SKAL.] 'I'H- BUI.S.SON, Jd ./. P, 

(}. AVliat i.s that name in tlie corner, ]\Ir. Johnson ? Is he not a justice 
of the peace ?—A. I do not know iiim. 

(lly .Mr. Merrick.) It is signed “J. J. Johmson.” Now can you an- 
.swur my (piestion, which is, did Mr. Kellogg send you to Mr. Souer ? 
your memory being refreshed by this jiaper wliich bears, as you state, 


56 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


your siguature.—A. I remember one time there that I was out of money, 
and Mr. Souer—I had to give him a receipt for some money that I got 
from him, and that was, I believe, $25 I got from him—1 think it was, 
and afterwards, not long ago, Mr. Lane asked me for the same money, 
which, as my warrants were of no account, I was not able to pay the 
money I owed. 

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg send you to Mr. Souer ? Is that statement con¬ 
tained in this paper true?—A. I remember that time, that when I 
wanted some money, that was along when I first got there, and there 
was no ballot taken for Mr. Kellogg at all; that was the time I went 
to Mr. Souer and got $25 or $30. He told me I had to pay him back. 
Of course we did not have money at the time, and I was compelled to 
pay my board, and I had to give him a receipt for that money. Mr. Lane 
made the receipt out for me, and 1 signed the receipt. It was for money 
I borrowed of him. 

Q. How came you to go to Mr. Souer ?—A. Lor money ? 

Q. Yes.—A. He was pretty much the only one that had money there. 
That was the reason I went to him. 

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg tell you to go to him ? Is that statement on this 
paper which bears your name and to which you have sworn true ! 

I myself went to see Governor Kellogg, and told him that I was hard up for money 
and couldn’t get anything, and did not have my warrants yet, and asked him to do 
.something for me. He told me he wanted me to stand by him, and to go to Colonel 
Souer and he would give me satisfaction. 

Is that true or is it false ?—A. That was the time I got that $25 from 
Colonel Souer. I borrowed it from him, but he was not giving it to me 
for the election. 

Q. I am not asking that question at this time. I asked you whether 
this statement was true or false? 


I myself went to see Governor Kellogg, and told him that I was hard up for money 
and couldn’t get anything, and did not have my warrants yet, and asked him to do 
something for me. He told me he wanted me to stand by him, and to go to Colonel 
Souer and he would give me satisfaction. 


Is that true ?—A. I do not remember about Mr. Kellogg telling me 
anything of that sort. 

Q. What did he tell you?—A. I went to Mr. Kellogg at the time he 
was governor. He was not elected Senator then. I asked him could I 
borrow a little money. He told me that Colonel Souer would lend me a 
little money if I would call and see him. I went to Colonel Souer and 
borrowed $25. 

Q. Then you do recollect now that Kellogg sent you to Souer ?—A. 
That was for no election. 

Q. I am not speaking about the election. I do not mean more than I 
say. But do you now recollect that Governor Kellogg sent you to Mr. 
Souer?—A. I recollect at the time I asked him for the money. 

Q. Asked who for the money; Governor Kellogg?—A. Asked Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg to lend me a little money, and he told me Mr. Souer would 
lend me some, but not on any consideration of balloting for Senator. 

Q. Did he tell you he would lend you the money, and use the words 
not as to or anything about the United States Senator ?—A. Kot when 
I asked him to lend me that little money. 

Q. What diU he say when you asked him to lend yon that little money ? 
—A. He told me he did not have it. 


Q. What else did he say ?—A. Then I said I would like to have a lit- 

^ ^ to pay here. 

Well,” he says, “if yon go to Mr. Soner, he will lend you a little money • 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


57 


1 know you ain’t got any money.” I went to Mr. Souer and asked him if 
he would lend me some money. He asked me how much I wanted. 1 
told him twenty-tive or thirty dollars. Of course he gave me twenty- 
live or thirty dollars, as 1 first said. Then I had to give him a paper back 
for that, and that money was to come out of my warrants when I got 
them. Of course the warrants were of no account to me or anybody 
else after the government fell. 

Q. What became of the warrants ?—A. I have them home now. 

Q. You never got the money on them ?—A. 1 have got one ; and the 
others 1 have thrown away because they were of no account. 

Q. You never paid the money or got it on the warrant?—A. Yo, I 
never gave him the money back, because I never had it to give back. 

Q. You never gave it back out of the warrants, and you never gave 
it back out of anything else ?—A. Yo, sir. 

Q. You never paid it back?—A. No, sir; of course I promised to 
])ay him just as soon as I got to doing some work. 

Q. Now let us see further. You have stated here that—and you tes¬ 
tify this is right—that you told Governor Kellogg that you were “ hard 
up for money, and could’nt get anything, and did not have any war¬ 
rants yet,” and you “ asked him to do something for ” you. He told 
you “he wanted me to stand by him.” Hid he use that expression in 
the conversation? Is that true?—A. 1 do not remember having used 
any such expression. 

Q. Is your memory of what occurred between you and Governor 
Kellogg at that time more distinct now than it was on the 4th of A])ril, 
when you swore before a justice of the i>eace that he told you in that 
conversation that he wanted you to stand by him?—A. When I swore 
before a justice of the peace ? 

Q. Yes ; at the time you swore before a justice of the peace, and 
before him swore, according to this paper, that in thatconversation, when 
you went to Governor Kellogg to get money, Mr. Kellogg said he wanted 
you to stand by him.— A. I do not remember making any paper betore 
any justice of the peace to swear any such thing before him. I cannot 
remember making any jmper at all before any justice of the peace, and 
neither to swearing to anything before him. 1 cannot remember of any 
such thing. 

Q. Ho you remember of signing this paper?—A. That is my signa- 
tuie. 

Q. Ho you remember putting your name to it?—xV. Yes; I remember 
.putting my name to it. 

Q. You remember that ?—A. Yes; I remember that. 

Q. Who was i)resent when you did it ?—A. 1 think Ward and somc- 
'body else was i)resent when I put my name to it. 

Q. Was not this Frenchman ])resent; look at the name of the notary 
or justice and see if you can read the name, and say whether that man 
was not present. If you can read it, read it out to the committee.—A. 
(examining) Yes; that gentleman was present when I put my name 
to it. 

(}. He was present?— A. A'es, sir; he was ])resent. 

Q. Did he not have the i)a|)er in his hands ?— A. That is the same 
])aoer that he had. 

Q. That is the same paper that he had ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the one you say he had ?—A. The gentleman, I should say, 

Q. You mean the gentleman who.se name is signed to it?—xV. Yes, 
.sir, that is what I mean ; tlie mune of the gentleman that is signed to it. 


58 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Is lie the man that had it in his hand ?—A. He is the gentleman 
who asked me to sign that, and I went there and signed it. 

Q. lie asked you to sign it. Is Buisson his name ?—A. Ido not know 

him personally. ^ , -r^. i 

Q. We will call him Buisson. He had the paper in his hand. Did 
he read it over to you?—A. ISIo, sir; he never read it over to me at all. 

Q. Who did read it over to you?—A. No one read it over to me. 

Q. Did you read it yourself?—A. I never took notice at the time 
about reading it. I went into Mr. Oavanac’s offif^e and signed it there. 

Was Mr. Cavanac present?—A. I think so; I do not know whether 
he was or not now, but I think he was present. 

Q. Do you tell the committee under oath that that paper was not read 
over to you ?—A. No, sir ; that gentleman never read it i^o me at all. 

Q. I do not ask about that gentleman. Did not Mr. McGloin read 
that paper over to you ?—A. General McGloin ? 

Yes?—A. This paper was read over to me by Mr. IMcGloin. That 
is the gentleman. 

(^. Then it was read to you?—A. It was read to me. 

(^>. And it read wlien read to you then just as it did when I read it you, 
did it not?—A. I guess it must have been read to me just as you read 
it, sir. 

Q. Then, the paper being read over to you and you of course having 
full intelligence to comprehend what it contained, signed it, did you not, 
after it was read?—A. Of course I signed the paper just as I tell you. 
1 do not deny my signature. 

Q. Y"ou signed it after it was read to you, knowing what was in it, 
did you not ?—A. I signed it. 

Q. How long a time after it was read to you was it that it was signed?— 
A. I do not remember whether it was twelve or one or three o’clock. 

Q. At what hour of the day was it read to you ?—A. I do not know 
the hour of the day; I disremember; I was not particular about keeping 
the time of the day. 

Q. At what hour of the day did you sign it?—A. That is what I am 
telling you now. I cannot say what hour of the day it was. 1 disre¬ 
member whether it was three or four or what o’clock it was. 

Q. Tiien it was between one and four?—A. Either one of the hours. 
I cannot tell you. 

Q. Brtween one and four. How long a time elapsed between the read¬ 
ing of the paper to you and your atlixing your signature to the paper ?— 
A. You asked me that question and I told you a while ago. I cannot 
tell you between what time it was. I told you before I could not tell 
you what time it was. I cannot tell between what hours it was at all. 

Q. Did you not sign the paper immediately upon its being read to 
you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. At the same time?—A. No, sir; I did not. I knoAV I did not do 
it, because when that i)aper was written out I went out on the street and 
went down town. 

Q. How tar did you go ?—A. I went down a good vvay, and then came 
back around; but to tell you the time it wms, and to say I signed it im¬ 
mediately after it was read to me, I cannot. 

Q. I only ask you; I do not say anything about it myself. A^ou went 
out; how long were you out?—A. I was out a good while. 

Q. How long ?—A. I cannot tell you how long. 

G. What did you go out for ?—A. I went out to attend to some business 
of mine that I had on hand to do. 


RPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 59 

Q. How long did it take you to do it?—A. I went to a friend of mine 
in town, and then came back on the street. 

(i^. And then went back to Mr. lUiissou’s office ?—A. Xo, sir, I never 
went to Mr. Buisson’s office since God Almighty made me. I don’t 
know where his office is. I don’t know anything about his office at all. 

Q. Then you went back to the place where this pa))er had been read 
to you ?—A. I went back to Mr. (Javanac’s office. 

Q. It was in Mr. Cavanac’s office that the paper was read to you, was 
it not ?—A. When J got there, the gentleman was not there immediately 
after I came. 

Q. Did he read that paper to you ?—A. General McGloin read the 
paper to me. 

Q. At Cavanac’s office?—A. General McGloin read the paper after he 
had written that out. 

Q. He read the paper to you at Cavauac’s office, and you then went 
out to attend to some business, and subsequently the same day you went 
back and signed it ?—A. I answered that question. I told you 1 couhl 
not tell you what hour it was, or between what hours, because 1 am 
afraid I should make a mistake in it. 

Q. Why did you go back to that office?—A. I went back because Mr. 
Cavanac asked me to go back. 

Q. You came back to sign that paper?—A. He told me to come back 
and sign the paper. 

Q, Did not Mr. Cavanac ask you before that paper was signed whether 
there was anything in that paper that was not true, and did you not say 
there was not anything; that it was all right?—A. Mr. Cavanac asked 
me was anything in that paper not true, and 1 told him everything was 
all right. 

Q. Yes; that it was true?—A. Perhaps he did; Ido not remember 
whether he did or not. 

Q. Try and refresh your recollection about that. Is it true as now 
read over to you ?—A. I remember that I went back there, and Mr. 
Cavanic went out of his office and returned back again in a few minutes 
afterwards ; but to say that Mr. Cavanac asked me were all these things 
true in here, I cannot remember it. 

Q. You do not remember?—A. No, sir; I cannot remember his ask¬ 
ing me such a question as that. 

Q. Is the paper as I have read it over to you true ? 

]\Ir. Shellabarger. I object to that question, Mr. Chairman. You 
cannot make a man swear to a volume or a document. 

The Witness. There are things in there I do not know anything 
about. I cannot understand it myself. You have got me in a kind of 
botheration, and my head is hurting me a good deal; and of course I 
cannot remember that at all. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) What things are there in there that are both¬ 
ering yo\i ?—A. Something there about $200, and there is something 
else about what Mr. Kellogg said to me. I cannot remember such words 
as those at all. There is something about the telling me—if I am not 
mistaken, you read a clause in there that he told me Mr. Souer would 
pay me, did you not? 

Senator Kellogg. Is that true ? 

The Witness. Xo, sir. 

Senator Kellogg. I thought not. 

JMr. Merrick. He swore to it. 

Senator Kellogg. He will give you the reason why he swore to it. 

Senator Hill. I object, Mr. Chairman, to these interruptions. 


60 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Merrick. I shall never myself encroach^ but if I am encroached 
upon I shall reply. 

The Chairman. Counsel on the respective sides had better conduct 
the examination accordinoc to the regular order of proceeding. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Mr. Chairman, I submit in all fairness that is 
not the way to examine a witness who is illiterate or ignorant, to pre¬ 
sent a book to him or a document, and ask him whether it is true in 
wholesale. If my brother will take up the parts of it and ask about it 
piece by piece, and give the witness a chance, I shall not object. 

Senator Hill. What I objected to was the cross-questions by the 
other side at this time. 

Senator Kellogg. I beg pardon. I thought it was just to me that 
when the witness was asked a question he should be allowed to respond 
to the question, and not be cut off. 

Senator Hill. The other side has the witness now, and you can ask 
him afterwards. 

JVIr. Merrick. I never stop a witness when he is making an answer. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 misunderstood you, then. 

Mr. Merrick. I put the question whether or not this paper is true? 

The Chairman. To that question objection is raised. The committee 
will hear counsel, if they desire, upon that question. 

Senator Cameron. It seems to me it is not necessary to put the ques¬ 
tion. The witness has stated there are some things in it that he does 
not know anything about. 

Senator Hill. I think the witness has answered the question. 

Senator Cameron. I think so, too. 

Mr. Merrick. Then I will go back to the suggestion of gentlemen. 
(To the witness.) What is there in this paper that you. find fault with ?— 
A. I find fault with something there about $200, and something else 
about Mr. Souer there, that Mr. Kellogg sent me to him to get this 
money for his election; that is something that I do not know anything 
about; and that he would take care of me. The only thing he said to 
me was that he did not have the money to lend me, but Mr. Souer 
would lend me the money—to go and see him. If a person says any¬ 
thing, it ought to be written down like it ought to be. I do not think 
it is right for a person to make such testimony against me. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Did you make any complaint on that ground 
about the paper at the time it was read over to you in New Orleans and 
before you signed it ?—A. Yes; I made the complaint, but I did not 
make it to Mr. Cavanac nor this other gentleman. I was talking to 
Ward. I told Mr. Ward, “ there are things in that paper I do not like,” 
and that I would not wish them to be placed in there. Well,” he says, 
^‘the fact is, Johnson, that is nothing, what you put down there; they 
are not going to use it against you at all; they are merely going to ask 
you for your testimony.” I said “about this money and Mr. Louis 
Souer, and Mr. Kellogg sending me to Mr. Louis Souer, it was $25 I 
borrowed from Mr. Souer, and I was to return it back, provided my 
warrants were good”—I would have given it to him—and if they were 
not, he would hav^e to wait on me. This, you understand me, was my con¬ 
versation with Ward. If they were not good, he would have to wait on 
me until I could get work to do and pay him back. He says, “ I am 
sorry.” 

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg ever ask you to stand by him ?—A. I think I 
told you a while ago; I do not remember the gentleman asking me 
such questions as that. I think I told you so about half an hour or so 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


61 


Q- No, you are mistaken. I asked you, and you said before be bad 
not said it in that conversation. I ask now if he said it at any other 
time?—A. He did not say it at any other time to my recollection at all. 
Excuse me; the way I tind out those words were in there is, that I have 
a copy of the very same thing, and I read it over, and I found out those 
words, and I went immediately when I had time to read it; I have 
been hard at work ; I took it on myself one Sunday when I heard 1 had 
to come to Washington, the Sunday before last, to look over it carefully, 
and I found those words in it, and 1 went to Mr. Ward and asked him 
a fjuestion. 

Q. Who is Mr. Ward ?—A. A gentleman from Grant Pariish. 

Q. White or colored ?—A. He is a colored gentleman. 

Q. You indicated some criticism with reference to this statement 
about $200. The paper states as follows: “ Souer said that it did net 
matter much what was done afterwards.” That was after Kellogg’s 
election. “ But that every one who voted for Kellogg then would get 
$200.” Is that true?—A. No, sir; there was nothing about that. 

Q. Hid not that attract your attention when it was read over?—A. 
That is what 1 am telling you. That is not true. That is what I got 
after Mr. Ward about. 

Q. What had Ward to do with it?—A. He seems to have a good 
deal to do with it, the way he is going around town there. 

Q. This was all inside one room where Cavanac and the justice of the 
peace were, and the justice of the peace, you say, had the paper?—A. I 
said the justice of the peace had the paper. 

Q. And that General McGloiu read it ?—A. I am very certain, as I 
told you, that General McGloin read it. 

Q. And you said it was in this man’s hands ?—A. I said the gentle¬ 
man whose name is there; lie was there when I signed it. 

Q. You said the paper was in his hands ?—A. Mr. Chairman, if my 
remembrance serves me right, I told you it was not in my hand. 1 may 
be mistaken, but I do not think I told you that since I have been inside 
of this chamber at all. I do not believe I told you that. I told you 
General McGloin had it, and he is the one that read it to me, and after 
that I went out. 

Q. You say that it was in the hands of ]Mr. Buisen ?—A. No, sir; the 
gentleman was not there at the time, but he came in after everything 
was over. 

Q. Hid you never see it in Mr. Buisen’s hands?—A. That paper? 

Q. Yes.—A. 1 saw it lying on the desk, and he signed his name to it. 

Q. Why did you not make complaint to McGloin about the $200 as 
he read the paper?—A. Because I had never looked over that copy to 
make any complaint. 

Q. He read it to you, and you heard him read it out $200,” did you 
not ? Why did you not complain to the man who read you the paper at 
the time?—A. Well, I did not know whether I had to make any com¬ 
plaint to him or not about the papers, and of course 1 did not pay much 
attention. He read it; I was sitting down, and he continued reading, 
and 1 sat there until h‘e got through ; and then after that Ward said 
“ boys, lei’s go,” and we all went out on the street. We left JMr. Ward, 
and we went on down where I was going. 

Q. You state that, “After, the vote, about four or five days, 1 was 
called in ]\lr. Souer’s private room, and he paid me the $200.”—A. I 
stated that ? 

Q. That is what the paper says. “After the vote, about four or five 
days, I was called in Mr. Souei’s private room, and he paid me the $200 


62 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


agreed upon.” That is in this paper which yon signed and which yon 
say was read over to yon and to which you swore ?—A. Yes, sir ; but 
I do not remember, however, hearing that read that way at all. I see 
it' in the copy of that very same paper that I have got, and those are 
the very words I made complaint to Mr. Ward about. 

Q. Do you know a man named George Washington, a member from 
Concordia?—A. I suppose I ought to know him. He was a member of 
the legislature with me. 

Q. Did you ever see him at the door of Souer’s apartment ?—A. les, 
sir; I have seen him at the door of Mr. Soner’s apartment. 

Q. Was he waiting for the purpose of being called in ?—A. Ko, sir; 
he was not at that time when I saw him. I saw him in Mr. Soner’s room 
and saw him at the door, but he was not called in at all when I saw him 
there. 

Q. In this paper I observe yon state, “ When I got my money W ash- 
ington got his.” Do yon know of Washington getting any money ?—A. 
]S"o, sir; I do not know of his getting any money. 

Mr. Merrick. I oifer the paper, Mr. Chairman, in evidence. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I object to it. The testimony is incompetent, as 
being ex parte as original evidence. It is incompetent for the jnirposes 
of impeachment, because the gentleman has made the witness his own. 

Mr. Merrick. I read the paper, Mr. Chairman, to the witness for the 
purpose of refreshing his recollection. I offer it now as an affidavit 
made by the witness upon this subject to enlighten the committee gen¬ 
erally in reference to it and for whatever it may be worth. 

The Chairman. The commitree not being full at this moment, the 
question will be reserved for the present, to be decided hereafter, mean¬ 
while the examination can proceed. 

Mr. Merrick. I am through the direct examination. 

Cross-examined by Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Tell the committee who William Ward is.—A. Mr. Ward is a gen¬ 
tleman from Grant parish. I do not know whether you know him or 
not, but at the time of the Colfax fight he was the gentleman who car¬ 
ried it on. 

Q. What was he doing in the canvass of 1876?—A. He was canvass¬ 
ing for the Democratic party. 

Q. Was he employed by the Democratic State central committee to 
go through the State?—A. He told me so. He said he was; at least I 
have seen him in Shreveport myself, and he told me so himself. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, how far the rules of 
evidence are enforced with stringency, or whether they are enforced 
loosely here. I have no objection to a great deal of latitude myself; 
but being unfamiliar with the practice here, I rise rather for the pur¬ 
pose of making inquiry than of interposing any very serious objection. 
Of course, according to the rules of the common law, this kind of testi¬ 
mony is incompetent as to what Mr. Ward told the witness. 

The Chairman. Since I have been a member of this committee, in 
all the investigations which I have seen before the committee, there has 
not been a strict adherence to the rules which govern the admissibility 
of testimony in courts of justice. Perhajis it is unavoidable that legis¬ 
lative investigations should assume a latitude greater than that which 
obtains in courts of justice. I have always thought individually that 
the examination before legislative committees, especially those which 
involved the right of a party to a seat, an adherence as close as possi¬ 
ble to the rules which govern the admissibility of evidence in courts of 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


G3 


justice should be observed. Tliey soinetiiiies, however, assume a very wide 
latitude. 1 have been upon subcoiuiuittees of this committee ami have 
seen ill this committee examinations that permitted every description 
ot hearsay evidence to be introduced. Perhaiis sometimes it is impos¬ 
sible to prevent the admission of that class of evidence; but wliere 
there are counsel condnctinf>; a case familiar with the rules wliich jjov- 
eni the admission of evidence, my opinion is that the rules which settle 
tlie admissibility of evidence should be adhered to as closely as ])ossi- 
ble, and yet 1 am aware that it is impossible to observe them strictly. 
That is niv individual view. 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. 1 wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the testi¬ 
mony is objected to- 

Mr. i\lEiiRiCK. I do not object. 

Mr. SHELLA]iARGER. The objection is withdrawn, then. 

Mr. IMerrick. No; I did not object. 1 stated to the chairman pre¬ 
cisely my iiosition, that I did not rise for the purpose of making a formal 
objection, but for the purpose of being myself a little enlightem‘d, that 
I might not annoy the committee unnecessarily hereafter by the intei*- 
position of useless and unavailing objections, and also for the purpose (?f 
having it understood that whatever latitude the other side may claim 1 
shall, of course, myself claim; and my own knowledge, limited as it is, 
confirms the large experienceof the chairman as accurate in saying that 
the rules are much more relaxed in committees of investigation, particu¬ 
larly where the seat of a Senator or ^Member is concerned, than they are 
in courts of justice. In regard to this transaction, I am perfectly will¬ 
ing that the question should be put, stating, however, what every gen¬ 
tleman of the committee will recognize as the truth, that according to the 
))rincii)les of the common law regulating the introduction of testimony, 
such evidence is not competent in courts of justice. If it is comi)etent 
here, I shall claim the benefit of it. 1 shall myself offer other evidence 
to show that this witness knowingly signed the afbdavit, and has made 
declarations in conformity with that affiilavit, and shall endeavor to sur¬ 
round him with proof conclusive of the truth of that affidavit and the 
lapse of memory manifest in the testimony here to-day before this com¬ 
mittee whenever occasion may recpiire. 

The Chairman. 1 think this committee have acted on this principle; 
I know that was the case in the Oregon investigation, because in that 
investigation the inquiries before the committee assumed the widest 
latitude, and I interposed an objection myself to that mode of examina¬ 
tion, but it nevertheless obtained and was carried on, I think, under 
the general idea that latitude would be indulged in because the com¬ 
mittee were acting not as a jury to try the case, but rather as a court to 
hear it, and was competent to exclude from the conclusions at which it 
arrived anything that was irrelevant and that ought not to weigh in 
making up their judgment. Hence in all the investigations with which 
1 have been connected in this committee there has been a very wide 
latitude allowed. ]My suggestion was not as a law which the committee 
would observe, but rather a suggestion to govern, as far as it could 
properly do, the examination on the part of counsel, because the wider 
we open the door, of course the more extraneous matter will be ad¬ 
mitted. r>ut the committee have no rule on that subject, and following 
the i)recedents which have obtained here we should hear almost any¬ 
thing. 

:Mr. SiiELLABARGER. I want now, if the chairman please, to make a 
statement in the same spirit and direction as that made by brother 
Merrick. I propose to make it once for all in behalf of my client, in 



64 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


behalf of what I deem to be the proper way of conducting this examina¬ 
tion—this examination as distinguished from investigations by conimit- 
'tees of Congress generally. And the first thing I wish to state relates 
to the very point that was brought out by the question of Mr. Merrick. 
I regarded it as an objection to the question of the Senator as to 
who this man Ward is. First, then, remarking as to that, my 
proposition is that, upon the strictest principles of the common 
law, that inquiry is competent and ought to be heard. It is so 
because, for the purposes of the present investigation, this affidavit 
is to be deemed and treated as in evidence, although it is not yet 
in evidence. The question is, however, reserved to be decided by 
the committee hereafter, and we must assume that it may be in evi¬ 
dence for the purpose of the present point. Then, treating it thus, it 
is perfectly competent, according to the best principles of the law of 
evidence, for you to show the origin of the pnper for the purpose of 
giving character to the paper; and if it should turn out that one of the 
instrumentalities of the men that are assailing my client and charging 
him with corruption and wickedness was to manufacture the paper, 
taking advantage of an illiterate man, it is strictly competent and ex¬ 
actly within the duty of the committee to hear it, as we deem, submit¬ 
ting this of course at all times with the utmost deference to the better 
judgment of the committee. That is the first point. 

The second is that this investigation, if any ever was had in or out 
of Congress or before a court, is one that ought to be conducted with 
some regard to those wholesome rules of evidence that the common law 
has established. This is not an inquisition by the House of Represent¬ 
atives or by the Senate looking to the public welfare, guiding its legis¬ 
lation, or anything of that kind; it is a most fatal stab at a fellow-mem¬ 
ber of the Senate, and I invoke and beg that at all times that kind of 
evidence shall be required which is recognized as fit to try men’s char¬ 
acters and their lives. 

This committee, when trying a title, is trying a personal cause; and 
my proposition is that in such cases the law is, as laid down in innum¬ 
erable decisions in the House of Representatives, that the rules of 
evidence apply to the trial of personal contests of title. They are not 
investigations within the ordinary acceptance of that word; and you 
never allow hearsay evidence; you never allow any forms of testimony 
such as my friend here proposes; an affidavit like this, I think it was 
never heard of; it was not, I know, in my long service in the Commit¬ 
tee of Elections in one branch of Congress; I find it in none of the 
decided cases. And I now submit, once for all, that it is just to the 
Senate, it is just to every member of that body, who may some time be 
put in an analogous position in some regards—I trust never in all 
respects so cruel as this—it is due to that sense of fair play, that instinct 
which is a part of the Anglo-Saxon nature, and out of which that grand 
growth the common law has come, to insist on what it has estab¬ 
lished : that when men’s sacred rights are on trial the rules of evidence 
shall be adhered to, whether that be in Congress or out of it. 

That is my position and my view in regard to this matter, stated, as 
I have said, with the utmost disposition to yield cheerfully to any ruling 
of the committee. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not know that there is any reply called for from 
me to the discourse of my learned friend on the other side, and which 
seems to have been an appeal to the committee to adhere to the strict 
rules of the common law in reference to the admissibility of testimony. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 65 

made by him in support of a question which, according to those rules, 
he knows perfectly well is not admissible. 

I said to the committee that 1 was willing to have the testimony 
bread and latitndinarian or strict, as the committee should think proper. 
1 desire to introduce such testimony as will enlighten the committee in 
reference to the grave inquiry in which they are engaged; but I doubt 
very much if this committee, or any other committee, if they are to fol¬ 
low the rule suggested by my friend Shellabarger a few minutes ago, 
would permit a witness to testify what John Doe or Richard Doe had 
said outside and not under oath. It is very likely that, whatever may 
be the rule this committee lays down in reference to evidence, you will 
find it much more latitudinarian than the gentleman on the other side 
evidently wishes it to be, for I expect to be able to show, not that this 
is a mere question of title—for title here is insignilicant in this inquiry— 
but 1 expect to be able to show the fact that the Senator whose seat is 
in contest, by a conspiracy with a so-called legislature of Louisiana, in 
execution of that conspiracy, bribed the members to elect him to the 
Senate of the United States, and I am laying the basis of that conspi¬ 
racy, and then shall introduce the declarations of the co-cousi)irators 
to show the facts as to the material matters in which they were engaged 
in the execution of the conspiracy conceived and formed. Rut 1 do not 
want any testimony whatever that does not tend to enlighten the com¬ 
mittee in reference to the subject-matter of the inquiry; and it is a 
matter of very great indifference to me whether the committee adhere 
to the strict rules of the common law in reference to the introduction 
of proof, or relax those rules and make the inquiry broad and latitud¬ 
inarian, as the chairman has indicated, leaving the court in the exercise 
of that sound discretion which a jury cannot possess in making up its 
judgment to use for the purpose of an ultimate conclusion such testi¬ 
mony as is legitimate and proper and to exclude such as ought not to 
have been admitted. 

Senator Kellogg. Shall I go on, Mr. Chairman, with the cross-e:*- 
amination ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir; in the absence of several members, wh) 
have been called to the Senate chamber, I feel disposed to let the ques 
tion be put. 

Q. (Ry Senator Kellogg.) What is Mr. Ward doing at the present 
time ?—A. He is not doing anything. He was not whilst 1 was there. 

Q. What has he been doing during the past two, three, or four 
months ?—A. He told me he was going round gathering up witnesses. 

Mr. Merrick. Then you admit the declarations of Mr. Ward. 

The Chairman. I suppose on each side there ought to be some evi¬ 
dence of that kind allowed to be introduced. In this committee, with 
w’hich 1 have been connected for a number of years, no case has ever 
been before them where they have adopted the strict rules of the com¬ 
mon law. 

Mr. Merrick. I only wanted the rule. 

The CHAIR3IAN. Until the committee make a ruling different from the 
practice which has obtained, I feel disposed to let the question go on, 
suggesting, however- 

{Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, I do not press that question at all. 
It was the resjmnso that 1 presume the gentleman objected to. 

Mr. Merrick. Not at all. 1 have objected to nothing. 1 do not want 
my position misunderstood. An irregular question was propounded, as 
I conceived it to be according to the laws of evidence, and I only wanted 
to understand my rights. 1 am willing the gentleman should ask the 

5 s K 



66 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


question. If counsel on one side permits an illegal question to be asked 
on the other, he has got no right to take advantage of that and say he 
will ask an illegal question, too, unless he gets a ruling that the first 
question was legal and proper. Kow, then, 1 want the ruling that he 
may ask what Mr. Ward said. 

Mr. Shellabarger. We cannot have a ruling now, because the 
chairman has said the committee is not in a condition to make a ruling. 

Mr. Merrick. The chairman was going on to indicate his opinion, 
and I am willing to accept it. 

The Chairman. I was going to say that, in the absence of any ruling 
of this committee following the practice which has heretofore obtained 
in the committee, I should not feel disposed to exclude the question 
which is propounded. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, I will not press the question. (To 
the witness.) Kow, Mr. Johnson, I want you to tell the committee not 
what Mr. Ward has said, but what Mr. Ward has been doing, what you 
have seen him do in the last three or four months.—A. I have seen him 
myself going around and getting up evidence on this case now, and of 
course he told me that he had got- 

Senator Kellogg. Never mind what he told you. 

Mr. Merrick. Let it go in. 

Q. (By Senator |Kellogg.) Just say what he did.—A. All I know 
about what he did is he just went around and got men to get up evi¬ 
dence. 

Q. What kind of evidence—affidavits?—A. He said he wanted them 
for evidence. 

Q. Never mind what he said. Who took you to Mr. Cavanac^s office?— 
A. Mr. Ward took me there. 

Q. Who is Mr. Cavanac?—A. Mr. Cavanac, I believe, is the super¬ 
visor of registration of the State of Louisiana. 

Q. Whom has he been acting forj in whose interest?—A. In Mr. Spof- 
ford’s interest. 

Q. Did he come up with you on the cars?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he pretend or claim to be a deputy sergeant-at-arms of the 
United States Senate ?—A. He never told me so himself, but I was told 
that he was. 

Q. Never mind that. Did he accompany you here?—A. Yes; he came 
all the way with us here. He had our subpoenas in his pocket; but to 
say that he told me so himself, I could not say. 

Q. I did not ask that. Where is his office?—A. His office is in the 
State-house, down stairs, at the left hand going in on Royal street. 

Q. Mr. Ward took you to him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you tell us the date?—A. No, sir; I could not tell you the 
date. 

Q. Can you tell us about the time he took you there ?—A. It was in 
the winter when he took me there. I cannot tell you what date it was. 

Q. Was this affidavit that you have been shown, this paper, in Mr, 
Cavauac’soffice when you went there?—A. Yes, sir; I cannot say where 
else it was; it was there. 

Q. It was not in the justice’s office, but in Mr. Cavauac’s office?—A. 
In Mr. Cavanac’s office, on his desk. 

Q. Already drawu up?—A. Already drawn up; when the ffentlenian 
came in it was on his desk. 

Q. Tell the committee why you signed that affidavit.—A. I will tell 
them why I signed it. I was persuaded by Mr. Ward to do it. 

Q. Why ?-A. The reason why he said he got me to do it was that he 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


67 


wanted revenge out of Mr. Kellogg, and he was going to help to put 
him out ol the United States Senate, and he told me that signing that 
paper would not do me any harm at all. Mr. Ward told me that; he 
came clean to my house, and made me stop my work a whole day. I do 
not know what day it was, or what day of the month it was. 

Q. Who was present in Mr. Cavanac’s office when you first saw that 
paper?—A. Mr. McGloin was in there. 

Q. Was that the justice?—A. No, sir; that is not Mr. McGloiu’s 
name there to the paper at all. 

Q. Who was i)reseut?—A. Judge Phillips was present, from Grant 
Parish. 

Q. In whose handwriting is this ?—A. General McGloin’s handwrit¬ 
ing. 

Q. Did you authorize him to write that out for you ?—A. I never asked 
him to write it out for me. 

Q. When Mr. Ward took you to the office of Mr. Cavanac, the agent 
of Mr. Spoftbrd, you found this there?—A. It was there; Mr. Ward asked 
the gentleman to write that. 

Q. Did you tell these men, any of them, to write out that story for you, 
the statements that are in the paper against me, beforehand?—A. No. 
I never told anybody to write out any statements. 

Q. But you found it written out when you were taken there by Mr. 
Ward ?—A. Mr. Ward was the one. 

Q. And it was in Mr. Cavanac’s office?—A. Excuse me a minute. 

Q. Go slow, Johnson; just remember; take it easy. Did Mr. Cavanac 
claim to be the agent of Mr. Spofford to you ?—A. Ue said he was work¬ 
ing in Mr. Spofford’s interest; but to say he claimed to be the agent, I 
cannot tell you that. 

Q. He said he was working in Mr. Spoftbrd’s interest?—A. Yes, sir; 
working in his interest. 

Q. Now what inducement did they hold out to you to sign that pa¬ 
per?—A. They did not otter me anything at all or any inducement to¬ 
wards signing the paper. All it was, Ward told me if I signed it I 
would get work to do after a while in the custom-house, and he said it 
was not anything in the world to hurt me, and I could sign and it would 
never be used here in Washington. I said, “ Well, Ward, I don’t like to 
go into such business as that; I don’t know what 1 am doing.” He said. 

It is nothing, only to put Kellogg out of the Senate, because there is 
a majority up there, and they are going to put him out anyhow.” That 
is what Ward told me. 

Q. How would that attect the custom-house ?—A. I do not know. He 
told me if Judge Si)ottbrd got the seat, Spofford would gve me work to 
do in the custom-house. That was the reason I went there to sign it. 

Q. Did Mr. Cavanac tell you that?—A. I do not remember him telling 
me, but I am not certain. I will not say right do'^'n that he told me so 
without being certain of it. I like to be certain about anything before 
I speak of it. 

Q. That is right. You say you found when Ward took you there this 
paper ready written out, in INIr. Cavanac’s office ?—A. Yes, sir; I said 
Mr. McGloin wrote that i)aper. 

Q. It was written out when you went there?—A. When I went there 
to sign it, it w'as already written out on his desk. 

Q. Did you tell them to put these things in it ?—A. I do not recollect 
telling them any such thing as that. 

Q. Did you give them any instructions about what to put in it affect- 


68 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


ing my electiou A. I do not remember giving any instructions about 
tbe paper. 

Q. You say at the commencement of this affidavit, “I reside in the 
city of New Orleans. Before and during 1876, I resided in De Soto 
Parish, in this State. I represented that parish in the Kellogg legisla¬ 
ture during the year 1876.’’ What year do you mean by that ? A. I 
was not a member in 1876. I was a member in 18^5, and in 1877. 

Q. You were not a member in 1876?—A. No'; I was not. 

Q. That is not true then ?—A. I was elected in 1876, and came down 
so that I might be on hand in 1877, and of course I could not be a mem¬ 
ber of the house of representatives in 1876, when the compromise un¬ 
seated me in 1875. 

Q. When you speak of ray going in to address the caucus you say 
“ that he” (Kellogg) “said hehadstood by the government and risked his 
life for it; that if they intended to drop him then, that they could go to 
hell, and he would turn matters over to the Democracy.” Did I say 
anything of that kind ?—A. No, sir; you never said any such thing. 

Q. Did I ever say anything of that kind in the caucus ?—A. Not to 
my remembrance. I never heard you. 

Q. Did you ever instruct anybody to insert that in your affidavit ?— 
A. 1 do not remember telling anybody to insert it. 

Q. Did you know you had sworn to an affidavit containing that state¬ 
ment against me?—A. When that affidavit was there the gentleman 
asked me if I would sign it. I took and signed it according to Mr. 
Ward’s request. 

Q. Did you know that statement was in it against me when you signed 
it?—A. I "do not remember any such statement being in that affidavit 
at all against you. 

Q. Again: 

I complained of this language to Mr. Louis J. Souer, and he said that Kellogg had 
to be elected to save the government. 

Did Mr. Souer ever tell you anything of that kind ?—A. No, sir ; he 
never told me that at all. Mr. Souer told me one night that it was best 
for the members to get together because the electiou comes off to-mor¬ 
row. That is what he told me. 

Q. “Mr. Jones had left the caucus, and he was sent for two or three 
times, but did not come back that day. Next day I was with him, and 
he told me he was going to Governor Kellogg to get some money.” 
Did he ever tell you anything of that kind ?—A. He did not tell me he 
was going to you to get any money ; not at all, sir. I do not remember 
any such thing as that. That paper was made in a manner that Ido 
not know anything about. There are things there that I cannot recol¬ 
lect ever hearing saying. 

Q. “ I did not go with him, but some time after Jones came to my room 
and told me he had got‘the money. He showed me an order of Auditor 
Johnson signed by Kellogg.” Is that true?—A. An order signed by 
Auditor Johnson ? 

Q. Was it signed by me?—A. No, sir; Mr. Jones never showed me 
any order signed by Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. And you never told anybody to put that in this paper for you, did 
you ?—A. I do not remember any such thing as that at all. If I did, it 
slipped my remembrance. 

Q. I will read right along : 

I myself weut to see Governor Kellogg and told him that I was hard up for money 
and couldn’t get anything, and did not have my warrants yet, and asked him to do 
something for me. He told me he wanted me to stand by him. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 69 

Now, before 1 come to that, I will read right over again. There are 
two sentences here I want to ask you in reference to. 

I myself weut to see Governor Kellogg, and told him that I was hard up for money 
and couldn’t get anything, and did not have my warrants yet. 

A. Senator, I remember one day I went to yon and asked you to lend 
me either $25 or $30, as I repeated the remark a while ago, and you told 
me—I do not know whether you recollect that or not—but you told me 
to go and ask Mr. Souer to lend me the money, for you had none; and I 
went to him and he loaned me either $25 or $30; but it was not on the 
election vote at all, it was just borrowed to pay my board and rent. 
That was all. 

Q. Was not Mr. Souer chairman of the committee on contingent aftairs 
of the legislature ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he did sometimes give money and received vouchers, and ou 
those vouchers warrants were issued ? 

A. The very same day he lent several some money. 

Q. As chairman of the contingent committee? 

A. Yes, sir; and said it would have to be paid on the vouchers or 
warrants. Of course I could not pay it, for the warrants did not 
amount to anything. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 call attention to the fact that he did not say that 
Souer acted in that matter as chairman of the contingent committee. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Now I ask, did Souer at any time, for me, 
give you anything, directly or indirectly, to influence your action in re¬ 
gard to voting for me as Senator ? 

A. No, sir. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Eight there it is proper, notwithstanding the 
objection of my brother Merrick, to prove whether this man was in fact 
chairman of a certain committee and what the duties of that committee 
were. 

Senator Kellogg. We shall show that by other evidence. 

Mr. Shelllabarger. Show it by Johnson, if he knows it. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Do you know that Souer was chairman of 
the committee on contingent expenses of the house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he in the habit of giving vouchers out to members? 

Mr. Merrick. 1 object to that, because it is incompetent. 

Mr. Shellabarger. What is the ground of the objection ? 

Mr. Merrick. Because you cannot prove a man’s habit in reference 
to a particular transaction. 

Mr. Sellabarger. Uis official duties; what it was he had to do. 

Mr. Merrick. You can prove his official duties as connected with his 
office ; but you cannot prove that outside of his official duty by reason 
of an oflicial attitude it was his habit to negotiate the private securities 
of individual members. 

Mr. Shellabarger. That is not the question. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 did not ask that question. I asked if he was in 
the habit of giving to members vouchers on which they got their war¬ 
rants for mileage and per diem. 

Mr. JMerrick. I object to that. I object to his habits. 

Senator Vance. Ask the witness what his duty was. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) What was his duty ?—A. His duty was, 
being chairman of the committee on contingent expenses, to sign our 
warrants after the clerk gave them to ns. 

Q. Your vouchers?—A. Yes, sir; to approve vouchers, that I might 
draw money. 


70 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. And upon that voucher did you go to the auditor and get a war¬ 
rant ?—A. I took the voucher and carried it to the auditor and got the 
warrant. 

Q. Was the warrant receivable for licenses ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it was for the mileage and per diem of members of the legis¬ 
lature?—A. That was what it was for. 

Q. Was that what it was in your case?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And nothing else?—A. Nothing else but that; my mileage and 
per diem, which amounted to $1,040. 

Q. “He told me,” referring to me, “he wanted me to stand by him, 
and to go to Colonel Souer and he would give me satisfaction.” Did I 
ever tell yon to do anything of that kind ?—A. I answered you the ques¬ 
tion a little while ago. I told you no; you did not tell any such thing 
as that. I told you I asked you to lend me twenty-live or thirty dollars, 
and you told me that you did not have it; to go and ask Colonel Souer, 
and maybe I could get it from him. I went, and he lent it to me, for 
me to pay him on my warrants when they were drawn, but the thirty 
days expired; we would always draw one-half then, and of course that 
was the time for me to pay him after I drew the vouchers. It was either 
thirty dollars or twenty-live dollars that 1 borrowed from him. I tried 
to borrow it from you, but you told me you did not have it. 

Q. Do you remember when that was; before or after the Senatorial 
election?—A. That was before you were elected. 

Q. Was it some time before?—A. Yes, sir; it was some time before 
you were elected. 

Q. Was there anything said about the Senatorship in connection with 
that?—A. Not a word of it at that time. 

^ Q. Did I ever say anything to you about the Senatorship in connec¬ 
tion with any money?—A. No, sir; you never did that. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. You said a while ago he was still governor. Was he governor at 
the time you went to get that money?—A. He was governor until they 
inaugurated Mr. Packard. Then, of course, he was out. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. At the time you came about money I was gov'ernor?—A. At that 
time I went to Governor Kellogg^s office and asked him myself. He was 
not elected at all at that time Senator. We had not inaugurated Mr. 
Packard. 

Q. You go on to say : 

I then went to Col. Soner and told him that Gov. Kellogg had sent me to him tO' 
get satisfaction; that the election for Senator was coming on and I wanted to know 
what would be done. 

Was there anything of that kind ?—A. What was going to be done ? 
How ? In what manner ? 

Q. That is a thing you wanted to know, what was going to be done ?— 
A. I cannot understand that myself, and I cannot answer such a ques¬ 
tion as that. 

Q. “ I asked him if I voted for Kellogg for Senator if he could give 
me a position in the custom-house, as I knew he would be able to do it.’^ 
Was there anything ot that kind ?—A. I do not remember that at 
-all. I know previously I asked him about $25 or $30, whatever it was. 

Q. Now I read on : 

Souer said that it did not matter much what was done afterwards, but that every 
one who voted for Kellogg then would get two hundred dollars. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


71 


Was there auything of that kind said ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was there anything of that kind said to you by Mr. Souer?—A. 
No, sir ; I have answered that several times. 

Q. I know that. I have to ask it because it is repeated here. I am 
going through the affidavit. 

I asked if I would get it, and he said to be sure I would. 

Was there anything of that kind!—A. Of course he could not have 
told me so when Ido not know anything of that kind. 

Q. It is not true, then ?—A. No, sir ; it is not. 

Q. “ After the vote, about four or five days, I was called in Mr. Souer^s 
private room, and he paid me the two hundred dollars agreed upon. 
George Washington, member from Concordia, was at the door, looking 
in.’’ Is that true ?—A. No, sir; I never saw anything about George 
Washington, of Concordia, at the door looking in. 

Q. Is it true you went to ^Ir. Soiier’s office and that he paid you $200 ? 
—A. No, sir ; it is not. 

Q. “George Washington, member from Concordia, was at the door, 
looking in, waiting to be called after me. He saw the money paid to me.” 
I understand you to say that there was no money paid to you !—A. I 
have answered that question. 

Q. Who is George Washington !—A. All I know about him is his 
name is George Washington, representative from Concordia. That is 
all. 

Q. He was a member of the legislature from Concordia !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. “ When I got my money, Washington got his.” Is that true I Did 
Washington get any money?—A. No, sir; I did not see him get any 
money. 

Q. “ I stopped at the open door, and looked back and saw him getting 
money.” Is that true ?—A. No, sir; I never looked back at George 
Washington getting money. 

Q. “The next who came in after Washington was Anderson Tolliver, 
of Concordia. I was then still waiting outside the door ; and looking in, 
I saw Souer pay him money also.” Is that true?—A. I do not know of 
anybody named Anderson Tolliver. I know Tolliver. 

Q. Who is Tolliv^er?—A. Tolliver is a representative, I believe, from 
Concordia, too. 

Q. Colleague of George Washington ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it true that you saw Souer pay Tolliver anything?—A. No, sir. 

Q. “ I then came away from the door, but remained in the ante room, 
and saw Babptiste Drew, of Rapides, go into the private room. When 
he came out, I asked him if he got his money, and he said yes, and 
showed it to me.” Is that true ? Did he show you any money ?—A. He 
showed me some money that he had, but he never showed me money 
he had for this. I said that I saw it. He showed me one time a little 
money that he borrowed there, but not for your Senatorial election j he 
showed me no such thing as that. 

Q. You say here that you saw Babptiste Drew, of Rapides, “go into 
Mr. Souer’s private room, and when he came out I asked him if he 
got his money, and he said yes, and showed it to me.” Is that true?— 
A. No, sir; I deny that. 

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, did you ever authorize any one to make all 
those statements against me in this paper!—A. That is all Mr. Ward’s 
doing. 

Q. J)id you ever authorize any one to do it A. No, sir; I did not. 


72 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Mr. Ward took you to Mr. Cavanac’s office?—A. Of course; yes, 
sir ; took me there. 

Q. Took you to Mr. Cavauac’s office and you fouud that paper written 
out ?—A. Yes, sir; the paper was lying on the desk. He asked me if I 
would sign it. I asked what was going to be the consequence. He said 
“ We are going to put Kellogg out of the Senate, and it will not do you 
any harm, for they will not bring it to Washington to read it against 
you.” That is Ward’s own word ; and I went up and signed it. The 
paper was read by Mr. McGrloin, the gentleman who wrote that i)aper, 
himself. 

Q. Was Mr. Cavanac present, and did he tell you that you would get 
a position under Mr. Spofford if I was put out ? 

Mr. Merrick. That is the same question— 

Senator Cameron. That paper has been offered in evidence; the 
question whether it will be admitted or not is pending before the com¬ 
mittee, and I think it is proper to show the circumstances under which 
that paper was drawn and executed and the inducements which were 
held out to this witness, if any were. 

The Chairman. I suppose the answws which are given to these ques¬ 
tions will have something to do in determining the admissibility of that 
paper in evidence. I do not see that the questions in reference to the 
manner in which the paper was got up would be proper evidence to be 
admitted in the case if we were then to exclude the paper itself. So 
very much weight will be given to the testimony that is taken in refer¬ 
ence to the character and origin of that paper in determining the ques¬ 
tion as to its admissibility. At least I can say for myself that would 
have some weight with me. 

Senator Cameron. The pajier was read by Mr. Merrick to the wit¬ 
ness, as was stated, for the purpose of refreshing his memory. The 
paper has gone into the minutes made by the reporter, and will appear 
in the evidence of the committee, whether it is admitted as evidence or 
not. 

Mr. Shellabarger. And, in connection with that, if the paper is ex¬ 
cluded by the action of the committee, then along with that, of course, 
will go the evidence by which we are now seeking to give character to it. 

Mr. Merrick. I have not, as I said before, any objection to the broad¬ 
est latitude in this inquiry, and only call attention to it that I may not 
be resisted when I seek to pursue the same course. I think the honor¬ 
able Senator is a little bit in error, if he will allow me to say so, in sup¬ 
posing that the rule of law’ in reference to the admissibility of testimony 
varies because our inquiry is now addressed to the circumstances at¬ 
tending the execution of that paper and the inducements held out. You 
may prove all those circumstances unquestionably, but you cannot prove 
them by hearsay evidence. 

Senator Cameron. This conversation took place at the time and 
place when it is claimed this paper was executed. 

Mr. Merrick. I am perfectly willing to let it all in. 

Senator Cameron. But I, as one member of the committee, am not 
willing to let incompetent evidence in whether counsel are willing or 
not. 

Mr. Merrick. I only said that I withdrew my objection. I did not 
mean to say that my willingness in any way could affect the committee. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 will allow’ the matter to rest there. 

The Chairman. In the start of this inquiry, as to the extent to which 
testimony might go, I stated what I believe has already been noted, that 
we have no rule either limiting the testimony to 'such as would be ad- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


73 


mitted under the rules of the common law or extending it to any partic¬ 
ular point. 1 made the suggestion to do that which, in my judgment, 
would be better, to adhere as closely as could conveniently be done to 
the common-law rules governing the admission of evidence. I made this 
suggestion because this case was being conducted by counsel eminent 
in their profession, and who know full well the consequences to their 
own side of the investigation that may result from the mode by which 
they proceed in the exmnination, not for the purpose of indicating any 
rule that should govern the committee, but rather as a suggestion to 
the counsel. 1 felt disposed, knowing they were both gentlemen of ex¬ 
perience in the practice of their profession, to let them determine this 
matter, because whatever latitude is given to one as a matter of course 
will necessarily be given to the other. 

Senator Kellogg. I will not press it at present, Mr. Chairman. 
Much may depend in the future on the ruling in regard to this paper, 
as there is an intimation from Mr. Merrick, if I understood him aright, 
that he has other affidavits. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 did not say anything about other affidavits. 

Senator Kellogg. I understood you to say some time since that there 
were such papers in other cases also. 

Mr. Merrick. I did not say anything in regard to other affidavits. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 thought there was an intimation to that effect. 
(To the witness.) 1 will not trouble you much further, Mr. Johnson, as 
you are sick. I will now ask you a question or two more. Did you 
ever hear me in any caucus of members, or any assembly of the legis¬ 
lature anywhere, threaten them in any manner, or seek to intimidate 
them, or prevail upon them to vote for me for United States Senator? 

A. i>Io, sir; I never did. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Did you ever at any time receive any 
money or other consideration from me, or from any person acting for 
me, to secure your vote for me for the United States Senate?—A. I 
think I ausweredjthat question before. 1 answered it “No,” and 1 re¬ 
main to the same word that I first said. I saj' no, sir; I have not. 

Re-examined by Mr. Merrick: 

Q. You w'ere asked what Ward was doing at this time. What is he 
doing at this time?—A. He is walking about New Orleans, 1 guess, 
about this time. He was preparing to come up here. I learned that he 
would be up here to-day, and afterwards I learned that he was badly 
stabbed by a gentleman there—cut. 

Q. What was he stabbed about ?—A. I cannot give any understand¬ 
ing what it was about. 

Q. Do you not understand why he was stabbed ?—A. He got in a 
fuss at the custom house with Ross Stewart. 

Q. What became of Ross Stewart after the stabbing?—A. He is in 
jail, the papers state. 

Q. I mean immediately after the stabbing what became of him? 
Was he arrested immediately that night ?—A. I was not there. I was 
on my way here. 

Q. What do you know about it?—A. Only what is in the papers. 

Q. That is not competent. You were on your way here at the time 
he was stabbed. He was stabbed by Ross Stewart?—A. I saw it in 
the papers. 

Q. Has Ross Stewart any connection with the custom-house ?—A. i 
believe he is a night watchman there. To my own personal knowing 
I never saw him there doing anything. 


74 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Was not Stewart also a member of this same legislature that you 
were ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you vote for Mr. Kellogg ?—A. I voted for him. 

Q. Did Stewart vote for him ?—A. I believe the whole body of the 
legislature voted for him. . , • 

Q. You said just now that you were persuaded by Ward to sign this 
paper?—A. Yes, sir; that was my word. 

Q. Where did you leave Ward after having the paper read over to 
you, and when you went out to go and attend to some of your busi¬ 
ness ?—A. I left Ward on the corner of Dauphiue and Toulouse streets. 

Q. Did you go back to Cavanac’s office by yourself?—A. Ko, sir; 
Mr. Ward came with me. 

Q. When you went back to sign the paper you went with Ward?— 
A. Yes; tv e went together, because I met him afterwards, on Koyal 
street, when we returned back, and I told him I should like to see him. 

Q. When was this paper written, do you know?—A. I do not know 
what date it was. 

Q. Was it written in your presence?—A. Mr. McGloin wrote that paper. 

Q. Was it written in your presence?—A. Yes, sir; Mr. McGloin was 
writing it. 

Q. Mr. McGloin wrote it in j our presence. Is that true ?—A. Mr. 
McGloin was writing the paper when I saw it. There were two or three 
of them there. 

Q. Did Mr. McGloin write that paper in your presence from beginning 
to end ?—A. If my memory serves me aright, he wrote some of it in my 
presence. 

Q. Were you not present at the time it was all wTitten ?—A. I cannot 
recollect now. I think he already had some of it written. 

Q. How much had he written ?—A. I cannot tell you. I did not have 
no right to look at the paper whilst he was writing it. I did not look 
over it to see how much he had written. 

Q. How do you know that he had written any of it if you did not look 
over it to see what it was ?—A. I judge by its not taking liim so long the 
little he did do; and after that we got up and went out. After he read 
the paper w^e got up and went out—Ward and I, and Judge Phillips, I 
believe. I do not remember whether Phillips went out with us, but I 
know for certain Ward and I went out, and we went straight up the 
street, and then I turned and went down Dauphine until I got to the 
corner of Toulouse and Dauphine. 

Q. Now is it not a fact, and does not your recollection recall the fact, 
that Mr. McGloin was not in the office at all when you got there, and 
that Cavanac sent up-stairs for him to come down ?—A. I know when I 
got in Mr. Cavanac’s office I was introduced to the gentlemen by Mr. 
Ward. 

Q. You then say that he was in the office when you went in ?—A. 
Yes. If my memory serves me aright he was already in; because I 
remember Mr. Ward introduced me to him. 

Q. Was he sitting down or standing up?—A. •He ’was standing up, I 
think,. 

Q. In the middle of the room ?—A. No, sir ; near the desk. I do not 
want to say for certain, but I think he was either standing up or sit¬ 
ting down; I cannot remember exactly which. 

Q. Y^ou do not recollect whether he was standing up or sitting down ? 
—A. I do not. 

Q. Did you not tell him what to write in that paper?—A. No, sir; I 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 75 

(lid not tell him anything what to write in that paper, not to my recol 
lection at all. 

Q. Yon mean to say that you did not tell him anything at all that he 
was to write in that paper?—A. Xot to my recollection at all. I tell 
Mr. McGloin anything about it! 

Q. You did not tell Mr. McGloin anything about it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who did speak to him about it whilst you were there?—A. Mr. 
Ward was talking to him whilst I was there. 

Q. Did you hear him ?—A. Yes. He said “ Mr. McGloin I give yon an 
introduction to Mr. Johnson.” From that we went on talking. Ward 
asked me would I sign it. I told him- 

Q. You are going too fast. I am asking you now before the paper 
was finished, and whilst it was in the course of preparation ?—A. I told 
you just now 1 did not tell him anything to put in. 

Q. You did not tell him a single thing to be put in it ?—xY I do not 
remember telling him anything at all. 

Q. Are you positive you did not tell him anything ?—A. I am pretty 
certain of that. 

Q. Did anybody tell him in your presence what to put in it ?—A. I 
know Judge Phillips told him something, but what it was 1 cannot re¬ 
member. 

Q. Did you acquiesce in what Judge Phillips told him?—A. I never 
paid any attention to Judge Phillips, what it was. I did not agree with 
Judge Phillips, because 1 did not have very much to say to him about 
anything at all, in no way or shape. 

Q. 1 did not ask you whether you agreed w ith Judge Phillips or not. 
Did you or not take the words which Phillips suggested ? I ask you 
whether you agreed with what Judge Phillips said McGloin should write 
in the paper ?—A. I did not tell him to write at all, but what Judge Phil¬ 
lips told him I do not remember the words. As 1 told you j ust now, I do 
not remember what the words were. Judge Phillips would say, just say 
this, something or other about it, but what it was 1 do not know. It was 
just like I tell you right now. 

Q. You paid no attention to it?—A. No, sir; I was talking to Ward. 

Q. Although you were to sign it, and did sign it, and swore to it, you 
paid no attention to it?—A. I signed it because Ward told me, “You need 
not mind; that is nothing, because it never will be brought up against 
you in Washington.” 

Q. You swore to it?—A. I signed the paper of course. They asked 
me to do it merely to accommodate them. 

Q. You swore to it, too ?—A. The man was there. 

Q. You did swear to it, did you not?—A. Of course; I guess so. 

Q. You swore to it, then, as an accommodation ?—A. As an accom¬ 
modation. 

Q. You said in your cross-examination that Mr. Ward asked a gentle¬ 
man to write the paper.—A. When did you ask me that question ? 

Q. I did not ask you. You replied to an inquiry from the other side 
that Mr. Ward asked a gentleman to write the paper.—A. Yes, sir. If 
I am not mistaken, Mr. Ward told me that he had a man who would 
write for him, and it was not going to hurt me; I need not mind it. 

Q. I am not talking about what you need not mind ; I am merely 
speaking of this: You said that Mr. Ward asked a gentleman to write 
the paper?—A. I remember that I answered that question. 

Q. Did you hear Mr. Ward ask anybody to write that paper ?—A. I 
know according to what he told me. 



76 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


^ Q. Did you hear him ask anybody to write that paper ?—A. He told 
me that he had somebody to do it, and of course- 

Q. Did you hear him ask anybody to write that paper ?—A. I did 
not hear him ask Mr. McGloin, but I go according to his word. 

Q. Are you positive that a portion of that paper was written when 
you got to Oavanac’s office —A. Yes, sir ; I am. 

Q. You judge of that because it took him so short a time to finish it, 
as 1 understand you ?—A. That is what I said. 

Q. That is your only reason ?—A. That is what I judge by. 

Q. Is there anything else that you judge by ?—A. Of what? 

Q. Is there anything else than the fact that it took him so short a 
time to finish the paper that induces you to believe that part of it was 
written when you had got there ?—A. That is why I believe it. 

Q. Have you no other reason for believing it than that?—A. No, 
sir; because I believe it was already pretty well all written, one part 
of it, and it did not take them long to get through with it. That is the 
reason I believe it. 

Q. You did not see it written when you got there?—A. I saw writing 
on it, but, as I told you, I did not have aright to look over and see what 
it was. I thought it was very improper for me to watch a gentleman 
writing. 

Q. Are you satisfied this is the paper you saw the writing on ?— 
A. Which 5 the one you have got now ? 

Q. Yes.—A. It must be the same paper, because my signature is at 
the bottom. 

Q. It is the same one you signed. But are you satisfied the paper 
you signed was the i)aper upon which you saw the writing when you 
went into Cavanac^s office?—A. I cannot say there was any other. 

Q. Can you say it was that same paper ?—A. I cannot say of any other 
at all. I must believe that it was the same paper because there is my 
signature at the bottom, and of course without the gentleman could 
write- 

Q. You saw a paper lying on the desk partly written on, as I under¬ 
stand ?—A. Yes, sir j I did ; a paper just like that. 

Q. How do you know that that was the paper which was finished and 
which you signed?—A. Well, I told you that I believed it by the sig¬ 
nature being on it. I could not tell you any other thing. 

Q. Here are three or four papers before me, for instance, and you 
may take up one of a half dozen papers. Now you say you saw a paper 
partly written lying on the desk ?—A. l^es, sir. 

Q. How do you know that that paper that you saw partly written is 
the same paper that was afterwards finished and which you signed ?— 
A. I told you I believed it by my signature being on that paper. I be¬ 
lieve that is the same paper. That is the first ever I told you that I 
signed believing it was the same paper. Perhaps he might have gone 
and written out one of the same kind after I was gone away *, I cannot 
say as to that, because every man ought to know his own signature. I 
know my own handwrite, and I guess everybody else does the same. 

Q. You understand what you sign to as well as your own signature?_ 

A. Well, I understand anything if I sit down and have it done myself: 
then I understand what I am signing j but if I do not have it done my¬ 
self, I do not understand it. 

Q. And you state to the committee—I ask you so as to have it clear— 
that you did not cLictate one single word in that paper?—A. I told vou 
no, I did not. 

On motion, the committee adjourned until to-morrow at 10 o’clock a. m. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


77 


Washington, Friday, June 6, 1870—10 a. m. 

Present, the members of the committee; also R. T. ]\Ierrick, esq., 
counsel for the memorialist, H. M. Spolford; and the sitting member, 
with his counsel, Hon. S. Shellabarger. 

ADMISSIBILITY OF AFFIDAVITS. 

The Chairman submitted to the committee the question as to the ad¬ 
missibility of the affidavit of Joseph J. Johnson, presented yesterday by 
the counsel for the memorialist. " 

Mr. Merrick. Before the committee passes on that question, I think 
it probably would be desirable that counsel be heard. 

Mr. Shellabarger. If there is any danger of its being let in I should 
like to be heard. 

Mr. Merrick. If there is any danger of its being excluded, I should 
like to be heard. 

Senator Kernan. Have you a witness here ? 

Mr. Merrick. I should greatly prefer to have the affidavit out of the 
way, because it may save me the trouble of entering into speculative 
testimony, which, if the affidavit were in, would not be necessary. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I wish the question would be taken up when 
the committee is fuller, if there is any prospect of its being fuller than 
it is now. I suppose there is no importance in the exact moment when 
that question is disposed of. 

Mr. Merrick. I agree with my brother; I should like to have the 
committee full when that question is up, and should like to have it full 
at all times. 

The Chairman. What is the pleasure of the committee ? 

Senator Hill. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to deprive any gentleman 
of a right; but every member of this committee is a lawyer, and if we are 
to hear arguments upon all these questions that are to arise U[)on the ad¬ 
missibility of testimony, we shall never get through with this case. That 
this affidavit is admissible for some purposes, and not admissible for 
others, it seems to me any lawyer in the world would see in a twinkle. 
The extent to which it is legitimate evidence after it is admitted is one 
question, its admissibility is another. That it is admissible for some pur¬ 
poses it seems to me every lawyer must say. That it is not admissi¬ 
ble for other purposes it seems to me equally every lawyer will admit. 
I do not see the necessity of taking up time to discuss all these ques¬ 
tions that arise upon the admissibility of evidence. If that is done we 
shall never get through with this case; and, besides, as I have always 
understood, a legislative committee investigating matters of this kind 
are not restrained by the strict rules of law in many respects. Every 
committee I was ever on in my life took hearsay testimony, for instance, 
and admitted a great many other things. You may take any committee 
that ever sat to investigate any question, and a great deal of testimony 
is admitted that would not be admitted under the rules of law before a 
jury, because the idea is to let in light. This matter is to be considered 
by intelligent gentlemen and educated lawyers, who know exactly what 
weight to give to the different species of testimony. I merely suggest 
that if we are to hear argument on every question of this sort, I do not 
know when we are to get through. 

The Chairman. If it is agreeable to counsel, I would suggest, in 
order to expedite the examination, that the question be submitted with¬ 
out argument to the committee. The committee can in its private con¬ 
sultation determine the question. But if counsel insist on arguing the 


78 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


question, my view is that it would be improper to exclude them if they 
desire briefly to state their reasous for the admission and their objections 
to it. If counsel submit it without argument, we cau pass upon it iu 
our private consultations. 

Senator Cameron. 1 understand that there will probably be several 
other afiidavits offered. This is the first one ; and the admission of the 
others will depend upon the decision of this question. It seems to me 
it would be very proper to hear the counsel on the respective sides, if 
I may speak of sides in this investigation. I have no doubt they will 
confine themselves to a reasonable limit. 

The Chairman. I have no objection myself to hearing counsel. 

Mr. Shellabarger. On the suggestion of my client, I repeat the 
suggestion that if it would not disconcert my friend Mr. Merrick’s plan 
in introducing his evidence—and I do not see how it can—in view of 
what Senator Cameron has just said, that there will be other affidavits, 
I would greatly prefer to have the question decided if the committee is 
as full as it will be when the case is disposed of; and if that cannot be 
done, then I defer with pleasure to the wish of the committee in regard 
to whether they will hear us or not. 

Senator Vance. I suggest that instead of deciding positively that we 
will or will not hear counsel, we reserve to ourselves the right to say when 
we want to hear counsel. 

Senator Hill. We can do that. I suggest though, as a practical 
solution of this difficulty, and to let us get along, that the question be 
reserved for the present. You cau go on and examine another witness, 
and in the mean time the only remaining member of the committee who 
is in the city may come in. Then, if the committee want to consult on 
it, they can do it immediately after the close of the examination this 
morning. 

Mr.] Merrick. Of course I am entirely submissive to the direction 
and the wishes of the committee, and will endeavor to adapt myself 
even to the intimations of the committee; but it will more nearly con¬ 
form to my plan for the introduction of my evidence to have this ques¬ 
tion disposed of at present tlian to have it postponed. Although I 
appreciate fully the distinguished ability of the lawyers of the com¬ 
mittee, yet, as lawyers, they know the propriety of a little investigation 
of every question. The conclusion I have arrived at in reference to this 
affidavit is, that it is admissible for all purposes, and I should like a 
few minutes on that point at such time as the committee may choose to 
indicate. 

Senator Kernan. Allow me to ask, do you wish to be heard to show 
that this affidavit would be evidence to prove that the matters which 
are stated in the affidavit occurred*? 

Mr. Merrick. I do. 

Mr. Kernan. That would be, I think, contrary to the rules of law 
in my State in courts of justice, and I want to hear the reason for that 
view. I cau see some other purposes for which it may be competent. 

Mr. Merrick. I want to be heard upon the question of the admissi¬ 
bility of this affidavit generally under the circumstances. I can readily 
appreciate the distinction indicated by Senator Hill. For certain pur¬ 
poses every lawyer, I think, must agree that it is admissible. There 
are other purposes, such as that referred to in the interrogatory of the 
Senator from New York, on which lawyers may differ. My own conclu¬ 
sion in reference to it is, first, that this affidavit is admissible for the 
liurpose ot directly contradicting the witness on the stand, in view of 
what that witness himself manifested before this committee—a spectacle 


8P0FF0RD VS. KELLOGG. 


79 


at which humanity would blush. lu the uext place, it is admissible for 
the purpose of showing that the matters therein stated are true; or, at 
least, of submitting it to the committee, that they may determine, iu 
view of the manner, the deportment, and the evidence of the witness, 
which is true, the statement here or the statement there. He has lied 
here or he has lied there. 

Senator Cameron. One is under oath and the other was not. 

Mr. Merrick. Both are under oath. 

Senator Cameron. No; perjury could not be laid on that affidavit. 

Mr. Merrick. Both are under oath, Senator. The one is under an 
oath here, which is a legal oath, before a legal tribunal, and which, iu 
addition to the moral obligation that attaches, adds as a further guar¬ 
antee of its truth the civil consequences of punishment that attend per¬ 
jury. The other is under oath accompanied only by moral obligation, 
without the possible civil consequences that would attend perjury. 
Taking that into consideration, and giving additional weight, if jmu 
choose, to the testimony here by reason of the criminal consequences 
that would follow perjury here, still the committee may judge as be¬ 
tween the two, from all the circumstances, which is true and which is 
false. 

Senator Hill. Allow me to make a suggestion, Mr. Merrick. The 
question now is not the weight of this testimony, but simply whether it 
is admissible—whether it shall be admitted as evidence. If it is admis¬ 
sible in evidence, of course it goes iu evidence. The effect that testi¬ 
mony has, the weight that the committee should give to it when they 
come to consider the question, will be a matter on the merits. 

Mr. Merrick. You are perfectly right in that. Senator, in a certain 
aspect; and yet 1 am not entirely wrong in answering that you are 
right, because the admissibility of the paper in evidence may depend 
]) 0 ssibly on whether it may bo regarded as evidence of the facts therein 
stated. If it is evidence of the facts therein stated, of course it is evi¬ 
dence. There can be no cavil about that. You are attaching evidently 
so much importance to the fact that the paper is legitimate evidence to 
correct or contradict the witness, that you overlook the second ground 
upon which it is claimed to bo competent evidence, namely, competent 
as original evidence of the facts therein contained. 

Senator Hill. If the committee conclude to admit the testimony, 
does not that end the present controversy f 

Mr. Merrick. O, yes; but these are the two grounds on which I claim 
it is admissible. If the first ground is sufficient, the second need not be 
considered. If the second is sufficient, it is immaterial about the first. 
One ground is enough. 

jNIr. SiiELLABARGER. I understand now, Mr. Chairman, that we are 
in the discussion, and in that view I will again state carefully the way 
this matter occurs to me. 

It is entirely true, as has been suggested by several members of the 
committee, aiil certainly by the chairman, that investigating commit¬ 
tees, acting as the instruments of Congress, are not confined and re¬ 
stricted as a general thing by the rules of the common law controlling 
evidence in the courts. The" reason why that is so is exceedingly obvi¬ 
ous; it lies upon the very surface of things. It is because ordinarily they 
are not trying personal private rights, but are inv’estigating matters of 
public concern ; they are m iking inquisition about public affairs to 
guide their conduct touching those affairs, and in all such investiga¬ 
tions of course not only hearsay but generally the information, the 
opinions, the suspicions* of men, accompanied by the grounds of suspi- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


80 

eion—all these are proper anti legitimate, because they conduct to the 
very ends for which the investigatiou is set on foot. It is to enlighten 
the mind of the legislature touching those subjects-matter; it is to put 
the committee often on the track of things, to hunt them down; and 
hence information, suspicion, intelligence of all sorts is often entirely 
within the scope and purpose and conduces to the end of the inqiiiry. 

That is one class of cases. Here let me say to my friend Senator 
Hill that he and I, I suppose, never addressed a court in our lives 
where we supposed or assumed that we knew more law, certainly I 
never assume that I know as much, law as the court that I am address¬ 
ing ; and yet it is the experience of the administration of the law in all 
enlightened countries that counsel, conducting their investigations, and 
doing their duties fairly and in good faith and with industrious intelli¬ 
gence, often contribute to the just results for which courts are organ¬ 
ized ; and that is my apology for saying anything now to this intelligent 
committee. . 

In that spirit let me suggest and put it here again upon record m 
behalf of my client in this case, that I protest that the rules applicable 
to general investigations do not, in the nature of things, and ought not 
upon the principles of abstract justice, to be applied to an investigation 
or a trial like this. This my friend said yesterday is not a trial of a 
title to a great office. If I were to concede that, then it would be be¬ 
cause it is something more than that. It is something infinitely dearer, 
more sacred, higher, more guarded by the scrutinies which tlie law 
throws around the subject-matter than is the mere question of title to 
office, which in one very important sense is after all mere property. 
The thing here assailed, if it is not a mere trial of title, is character; it 
is reputation; it is honor; it is all that honorable men in this world 
care about. 

Sirs, if this accusation is to succeed in the strength in which it has 
been put dowm in this indictment, or in the strength in which it was 
stated by my brother Merrick yesterday, when he stated what they pro¬ 
posed to prove; if the accusation is to be sustained either in that 
strength or in an approximation to it, there is not an honorable man 
that I address who will not agree with me instantly that there is noth¬ 
ing left of life or hope for my client. And now I put it to you. Senators, 
are you going to put it down in your records for this trial—for you are 
making foot steps; you are making precedents for what we have beeu 
proud to deem the best tribunal of our country not of a purely judicial 
character; you are going to make a march here which is to stand for 
generations and after you will all be dead—as the judgment of this com¬ 
mittee about what is right as a step in the trial of a man wffien that man 
is on trial for that which is worth to him all that he is worth himself. 

Now, what is the proposition of my friend! It is a good rule for 
men when they are trying other men to put themselves in the place of 
the person being tried, of the man in the dock. The proposition of my 
friend is that it is competent for me when that part of our case comes— 
for I prefer to state it that wa^'; there are two sides to this case ; there 
is an accusation laid against his client—my brother says that it is com¬ 
petent for me when that accusation is to be vindicated to go out into 
the slums and the purlieus of society, and in secret manufacture testi¬ 
mony, and then thrust it upon a committee of the Senate of the United 
States and say, “ Gentlemen, you sliall take that as imrna facie true, 
and read it as testimony.’’ 

I think Senator Hill was right, that there is not a lawyer whose in¬ 
stincts would not revolt at the proposition stated as broadly as my 


SPOFFORD VS, KILLOGG. 81 

friend stated it, that it is competent to introduce that affidavit as testi- 
mouy prima facie of the facts which it avers on such a trial as this. 

1 will not, therefore, pursue that part of the inquiry further than to 
say that it is manifestly against the law applicable to such a trial as 
this that the contents of that affidavit should be taken as prima facie 
true as to the facts therein alleged, with no opportunity for cross-exami¬ 
nation, no scrutiny into the circumstances under wliich it was got, ab¬ 
sent from the courts, every safeguard by which the law has solicitously 
surrounded the introduction of testimony withdrawn, not under the 
solemnities of the responsible judicial oath, the danger of perjury and 
its consequences al withdrawn; and that my friend has courage enough 
to say is competent evidence to establish prima facie the facts therein 
stated. 

^Tow, in addition to that, look how hateful the proposition becomes 
to the instincts of fair play when you add that the man who makes the 
affidavit comes forward and says that it is false. 

Now, sirs, the other view suggested by several members of the com¬ 
mittee, and last suggested, I believe, by my friend Senator Hill without 
stating the grounds, is that there were certain other aspects in which it 
would be competent testimony, not to prove the facts therein con¬ 
tained, but for other purposes not stated. I want to be exactly careful 
and frank in regard to how it is in that regard, treating our¬ 
selves now as being governed by the rules of the law as to evi¬ 
dence, because we are trying a case of the most delicate and solemn 
kind, using that word “case” in the sense in which it is used in 
the Constitution of the United States. If this, then, is to be regarded 
as a case on trial, let me ask you how it is competent as impeaching 
evidence. I admit when you call a witness on the stand and he swears 
to a state of facts that surprises you and that is in contrav^ention of 
what you c aim the truth to be, and these facts of an affirmative kind, 
that it is perfectly competent for you to put in evidence the declarations 
of that man made in contradiction of what he swore to on the stand. 
That is for the purposes of impeachment primarily. When the thing 
averred is of an affirmative kind, then you may prove the declarations 
of that man contradictory of his evidence on the stand, by way of im¬ 
peaching his statements and removing the effect of his testimony as it 
stands in the way of your establishment of your affirmative proposition. 
But, Mr. Chairman, I deny that wffien a man comes on the stand and 
says, for instance, that he did not receive $200 as bribe money, you can 
introduce his affidavit as affirmative evidence to establish that he did. 
You may prove that otherwise, so far as you may discredit your own 
witness at all. You may discredit him by proving that he has made 
different statements in regard to the matter at other places, but you can¬ 
not introduce for the purpose of establishing the fact that he did receive 
the $200 his statement that he did, contained in an affidavit or in any¬ 
thing else. That is my i)roposition, and having stated it to these law¬ 
yers 1 leave it, repeating again that I want this statement of mine to 
be regarded not so much in the nature of an argument as in the nature 
of an invocation, a protest in the interest of a fair trial of this man, 
your colleague, your fellow Senator, that you shall not go out with 
muck-rakes and candles into the tilthy lanes of the cities for the pur¬ 
poses of getting up ex parte irresponsible statements in order to blast a 
good name. It is not worthy; it is not fair; it is not law. 

Mr. Merrick. Mr. Shellabarger, do I understand you to admit that 
the affidavit is admissible for any purpose at all ? 

G s K 


82 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. SnELLABARGER. I (lo iiot admit that this affidavit is admissible 
for any purpose at all as evidence of the truth of the contents of the 
paper. 

Mr. Merrick. Is it admissible for any purpose in the case ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. I say not—not such an affidavit as this. 

Mr. Merrick. If the committee please, I may be wrong in the theory 
that I have of this subject, but I will submit to the consideration of the 
committee one or two suggestions upon it. 

I will say in the first instance that I have no appeal to address to the 
committee on behalf of anybody, and no invective to deliver against 
anybody; and I think my learned friend on the other side is somewhat 
mistaken in attaching so much importance to the individual and per¬ 
sonal character of the gentleman whose seat is here in contest. There 
are other matters which to my mind make this case as important and 
dignified as it appears to his mind ; and those matters I think he will 
appreciate and the committee will appreciate areof far more importance 
than the individual character of any citizen or Senator. 

The question before this committee is whether or not the Senate of 
the United States should be purged of that which I shall attempt to 
show has been spawned upon it by the purlieus against*which the gen¬ 
tleman would guard you from allowing me to go to get testimony—a 
question rising far above the sanctity and importance of any individuaPs 
character. Now I submit this affidavit to the committee as competent 
testimony upon two grounds; first, that upon which, as I understood 
the imtimations of the learned counsel on the other side, he partly, if 
not entirely, conceded it to be admissible; but w'hen I interrogated him 
in reference to it, it seemed that I misapprehended him, that where a 
party is examining a witness and has been informed in reference to the 
testimony that that witness proposes to give and the witness gives tes¬ 
timony different from and contradictory to that Nvhich he has previously 
stated he would give, and the counsel is taken by surprise, he is allowed 
always to introduce other statements of the witness to contradict his 
evidence and impeach his credibility as to the particular facts to which 
he testifies. He cannot attack the general character of that witness by 
the testimony ordinarily resorted to as to his reputation for truth and 
veracity ; but as to any particular fact to which that witness testifies he 
may introduce other testimony in the nature of verbal or written state¬ 
ments of the w itness himself, or he may introduce the testimony of third 
parties as to a condition of fact different from that to which the wit¬ 
ness has testified. 

Again, and as a subdivision of that provision of law, w’herever.a wit¬ 
ness is shown to have been under undue infiuences, and his testimon^MS 
varied from that which he previously stated his testimony would be in 
consequence of those influences, whether they be the influences of se¬ 
ductive benefits, or the influences operating upon his fears in the way of 
intimidation—and I propose to show to this committee, before I get 
through, that this witness has been subject to both these undue influ¬ 
ences—his previous differing statements may be proved. 

I claim, in the second place, that the affidavit is admissible as testi¬ 
mony in connection with his examination, to go before the committee in 
proof of the substantive facts contained in the affidavit, to this extent, 
that the committee may compare it with his testimony as given on the 
stand, and determine from the affidavit and the testimony what portion 
of the testimony given on the stand is to be credited or discredited, and 
what additional facts lie behind that he did not disclose here, and did 
disclose in the affidavit. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


83 


I l)on the first proposition I presume it is hardly necessary to refer 
the committee to any authority at all, but I will read a ])assa^?e from 
Starkie on Evidence, pages 218 and 219, in the edition before me, mar¬ 
ginal pages 218 and 249 : 

lu the case of an adv'erse witness, it may fre(|nent]y happen that what he states in 
favor ot the paity who calls him may he regarded as truth nnwillinglj’ wrung from a 
reluctant witness, whilst his counter statements are o])en to great suspicion ; in all 
such cases, former declarations by the witness are obviously of importance with aview 
to ascertain what part of his statement ought to be discredited, whilst credit is given 
to the rest. 

I need not comment upon this paragraph to show to the committee 
that the witness before them yesterday comes entirely within its pro¬ 
visions. That the truth was unwillingly wrung from him was apparent 
to every member of the committee. When 1 asked him time after time, 
repeating the question at least four times, as I find from an examina¬ 
tion of the stenographic report, “ Did Governor Kellogg send you to Mr. 
Souer he evaded and denied that he had so sent him, until finally w’hen 
confronted with this aflidavit the truth was w’rung from his reluctant 
breast that Kellogg had sent him to Souer, and that he had received 
from Souer twenty-five or thirty dollars as a loan, as he stated, and 
which he never has refunded to the present time. His deportment, his 
whole testimony showed to the committee that he w^as a reluctant and 
an unwilling witness on our side, so to speak of the case, and that 
whatever was got from him ha<l to be got by persistent, steady, and re¬ 
lentless cross-examination, whilst w’hen he came into the luinds of Mr. 
Kellogg himself for cross-examination his answers to questions w^ere as 
as ready and as sympathetic as echo itself. 

Kow\ then, that being the case, 1 offer the affitlavit which he admits 
he signed and swore to, which he states was read over to him ami of 
which he had a copy, for the purpose of contradicting the statement he 
made here in contradiction of the atlidavit, and of laying it before the 
committee, that they may in the second place attach such imi)ortance to 
it as original evidence of the statements it contains as they tliink it may 
be w’orth when they come to examine the case at the final hearing, tak¬ 
ing it in connection w ith such other evidence as I may offer in reference 
to the manner of the giving of that affidavit, and other evidence as to 
the truth of the two statements in that affidavit. 

1 do not contend that I could bring the affidavit in here without the 
witness and otfer it as original evidence; that is not my i)roi)osition at 
all; but in connection with the evidence of the witness, I may otfer it 
in order that the committee may judge as between the tw o what is the 
fact; we are looking here to ascertain the fact; and 1 w^as glad to hear 
the announcement made by one of the committee that in these investi¬ 
gations the narrow rules of the common law in reference to testimony 
are not binding. You are looking for the truth ; and being able and 
learned law^^ers, whether the testimony be technically competent under 
the common law’ or not, you are competent to give it such w’eight as it 
ought to receive in the investigation now in progress. 

1 am willing to throw the door wide open and let you have all the 
testimony without regard to rules of law at all, and let you judge of it as 
honorabfe men protecting the character that seeins so vastly important 
above all other things if you choose, and also protecting the dignity and 
purity of that high body of which you are members, the foremost in the 
world. Take the evidence w ithout regard to the rules, and judge it in 
your wisdon), weigh it in your wisdom; and wdiether according to the 
technical rules of hnv this atlidavit, as the Senator from New’ York has 


84 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


suggested, would not be competent testimony of tlie facts it contains, 
leaving those rules of law and accepting what the chairman announced 
yesterday and what was announced to-day as the rule of these investi¬ 
gations that those narrow rules do not tie your hands, let it come in and 
let you weigh it ultimately for what it may be worth. 

In the case of Ewer vs. Ambrose, in 3 Barnewall aud Cresswell, at nisi 
a witness was on the stand to prove a partnership aud to prove 
that the witness himself was a partner of the defendant or plaintiff as 
the case was; and the witness denied his partnership. The counsel who 
put him on the stand offered his answer in chancery in another litigation 
in which he had sworn to the partnership. The court admitted his answer 
iu chancery not only to contradict him, but’ admitted it to go to the jury 
to be weighed by the jury in connection with his evidence, and that they 
might according to all the circumstances in the case accept the truth as 
stated iu the answer or accept the answer as made on the witness-stand. 

Senator Kernan. What is the page of that ? 

Mr. Merrick. That case was subsequently reviewed in the King’s 
Bench, and a different view of the question was taken. It is on page 
749 of 3rd Barnewall aud Cresswell. That case was subsequently ex¬ 
amined in the King’s Bench, aud a different view was taken ; and it was 
held that whilst the affidavit was competent to contradict the witness, 
yet the jury could not discriminate, aud ought not to have been told by 
the court that they might accept the answer as substantive evidence of 
the facts contained iu it. There was a nisi prins court deciding as I 
now ask this committee to decide, aud the court of review reversed that 
decision. Kow, if you are not bound by the rules of the common law, 
and if you are not a jury unable to discriminate, but if you are learned 
aud able men and lawyers, wh}^ is it that this should not be admitted as 
original evidence, to be examined and weighed by your wisdom aud your 
judgment and your power of discrimination ? 

The case to which I have just alluded is commented upon in the text¬ 
books, and is made the basis of very long dissertations and of a variety 
of different views. These questions agitated Westminster Hall for 
many years, and until 1844, I think, when an act was passed regulating 
the practice in regard to them, the weight of opinion all the way 
through being that the different statements, wherever made, of the wit¬ 
ness might be introduced to contradict him, and the weight of authority 
being the other way in reference to those statements as competent evi¬ 
dence of the fact to which they bore relation ; but, as I said to the com¬ 
mittee, they will find that the authorities varied, and whilst some held 
that the contradictory statements made outside of the court-house could 
be admitted not only for the purpose of impeaching the witness, but 
also as original testimony, the weight of authority was that the testi- 
mony was admissible for impeachment, and was not admissible as evi¬ 
dence of the facts to which the testimony had reference; but in view of 
the cht^acter of this body, aud iu view of that variation of courts where 
the strict rules apply, I respectfully submit that it is evidence here for 
both the purposes. If it is evidence, as the Senator from Georgia has 
stated, for any purpose, that is an end of the argument, aud its applica¬ 
tion will come up for consideration at the final hearing. I have nothing 
further to say. ^ 

Mr. Shellabarger. With the indulgence of the committee, I do not 
propose to reply, because I shall not trespass unduly on the committee 
if I can help it. Katurally I should hav^e the opening and close of this 
discussion, as this is my objection. I do not care about that; but as 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGO. 85 

luy brother has introduced authorities iuthe conclusiou to which I have 
had no opportunity to make reply, I want to state this- 

Senator Hill. You have the ri^ht to conclude, Jud^e Shellabarger. 

Mr. SiiELLABARGKR. I sliould like to have the privilege before this 
<luestion is decided of putting in before the committee the authorities 
on my side and of handing them to my brother. 

Lest I may not have been understood in the distinction I sought to 
make, and which my friend did not understand—it was not his fault, but 
probably my fault in stating it obscurely—I want to repeat it so that 
the committee may understand it. I can better repeat it by what I just 
pick up here at hand without having provided myself with it, a decision 
that recognizes the distinction that I rely upon, in the third volume of 
Cranch’s Circuit Court Keports of this District. I find it in Abbott’s 
Digest, volume 4, page 373, section 1G3. I will state it off the book and 
then read it on the book. It is that a party cannot introduce general 
irapeacliing evidence to discredit his witness. ^ly friend and I agree 
about that. He can overthrow facts which his witness has brought in 
and with which he has surprised the party calling him; in overthrowing 
those facts he may introduce the declarations of that man concerning 
those affirmative facts to which he has sworn. But when the man has 
not brought forward any affirmative facts, but has simply negatived 
facts, he can then, either under the head of general impeachment or 
otherwise, introduce his outdoor declarations to establish those affirma> 
live facts. Here it is: 

Althongli a party cannot discredit bis own witness by testimony as to bis general 
character, be may give evidence to contradict any important fact to which the witness 
has testified. 

This witness has not testified to any important fact, but he has nega¬ 
tived facts, and my brother wants to bring in the affidavit to discredit 
or overthrow the negative statements of the man. There is the dis¬ 
tinction, and to that I wish to direct the careful attention of the com¬ 
mittee. 

In conclusion I will say that we are armed with a great multitude of 
affidavits, and if this committee is going to open the door to affidavits, 
I want in all candor and fairness to say in advance that we shall solicit the 
application of the rule to our side. 

Merrick. I take it for granted that a rule applicable to one side 
is applicable to the other. 

y:;^The Chairman. Mr. Shellabarger having stated that he desires to 
blind in some authorities, the committee will not pass upon the question 
at present, but will receive these authorities to day or as soon as they 
can be handed in, and then pass upon the question in their own consul¬ 
tation. (To the counsel.) Are you ready to proceed ? 

Mr. Merrick. I will proceed, sir. 

EXAMIXATIOX OF THOMAS MUBRAY. 

TII 03 IAS Murray (colored), a witness called by the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Ouestion. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In New Orleans, I^a. 

(J. Where did you reside in 1870 and 1877 ?—A. In 1876,1 resided in 
Saint James; in 1877, in New Orleans. , 

(,). What jmsition did you occupy in what is known as the 1 ackard 
legislature of 1870 or 1877 ?—A. 18< <. 


86 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. They couimenced ia 1877 and were elected in 1876 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State the position you occupied there.—A. I was sergeant-at- 

arms of the house of representatives. r i tt 

Q. Did you remain in the building in which the sessions of the House 
were held day and night?—A. Yes, sir; I staid there a few days of 
four months day and night; three months and about twenty-eight days. 

Q. Day and night ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you begin your stay in that building with the commencement 
of the session of that legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And ended your stay in that building with the termination of the 
organization?—A. Yes, sir; a few days before the final end. 

Q. Had you keys to the different rooms in that building?—A. 1 had 
all the keys. 

Q. Did you have charge of the building?—A, Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it yonr business to supervise and take care of it?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. What room did you occupy in the building relatively to anybody 
else’s room that you can name ?—A. My room was on the third floor 
from the ground. 

Q. Who else had a room on the third floor from the ground besides 
you ?—A. Governor Packard had a room up there. General Badger 
had a room up there. 

Q. Did Mr. Souer have a room anywhere there?—A. General Souer 
had a room somewhere up there. 

Q. Where was his room relatively to yours?—A. Eight next door. 

Q. Were you pretty familiar with everything that was going on in 
that house while you were there ?—A. With everything there that came 
under my jurisdiction. 

Q. The house itself, the building, was under your jurisdiction?—A. 
My part of it was. 

Q. You had to take care of the legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where was Governor Kellogg during the first few days of the ses¬ 
sion of that legislature up to the time of his alleged election to the Sen¬ 
ate ?—A. Governor Kellogg never staid in the building at all; he was 
outside. He came to the building every day to his office. To my rec¬ 
ollection he uev^er staid a night in there. 

Q. Did he send for you on occasions?—A. When he would come to 
his office he would send for me sometimes on business. 

Q. Where was his office ?—A. On the left-hand side of the building. 

Q. In the building ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he ever send for you for the purpose of taking members of the 
legislature from his office to Souer’s office ?—A. He might have sent to 
me for that. He sent to me for various objects. 

Q. Did he send to you for that purpose?—A. I cannot recollect right 
now. 

Q. Did you, after being sent for to go to his office, receive direction 
from him to show persons who were members of the legislature and 
who were in his office when you went there to Souer’s room ?—A. I 
might have. 

Q. Can you make it more definite than that?—A. I cannot be posi¬ 
tive. I have taken persons to every office in the building. 

Q. Has he not repeatedly sent for you to come to his office, and has 
he not repeatedly directed you to show men members of the legislature 
who were in his office to Souer’s office?—A. Y"es, sir; he might have 
done that many a time. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 87 

Q. He might and he might not; but has he not done it?—A. Well, 
yes. 

Q. Repeatedly ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you showed them to Souer’s office ?—A. Certainly I did. 

Q. Ho you know what they went to Souers’ office for ?—A. No, sir. 

(2- Did they ever tell you, any of them, what they went there for?— 
A. Some of them have. 

Q. What did they tell you? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Wait. Is that competent? Is not that hear¬ 
say purely, what third persons said to this witness? 

Mr. Merrick. I understood from the rulings of the committee that 
hearsay evidence was competent under some circumstances; and that 
as to the weight that would be given to it, that was a matter for the com¬ 
mittee to determine. I offer this evidence under that ruling, as I under¬ 
stand it, first. I offer this evidence, secondly, under this principle : It 
is not my jmrpose to offer the declarations of any third parties outside 
except the declarations of members of the legislature of Louisiana and 
of that part of this legislature that constituted the alleged quorum that 
voted for Kellogg for the United States Senate; and these men whose 
declarations I offer I expect to prove were parties to a conspiracy to or¬ 
ganize an illegal legislature under the direction of Goreruor Kellogg, 
and were general parties to a contract to elect him by bribery to the 
Senate of the United States. I therefore offer it as the declaration of 
co conspirators with the party whose case we are investigating. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Now, let us take one thing at a time. First, in 
regard to the conspiracy. Mj- friend is too good a lawyer not to know 
that the declarations of a co-conspirator can never be given in evidence 
against the other conspirators until the substantial and original fact of 
a con8i)iracy has been established prima facie; and then I confess, that 
being first established, dum fervetopus\^ the maxim, you can give the dec¬ 
larations of the co-conspirators in evidence. He has not yet done that. 
Therefore, tipon that principle, the declarations of third persons against 
Governor Kellogg cannot be given in evidence if we are to be governed 
b^^ any known, or even any approximation to a known, rule of evidence. 

Then, in regard to the first proposition, the gentleman states that the 
declarations of third persons are admissible here in evidence. If that is 
ruled by the committee, I bow. I do not so understand it. I shall be sur¬ 
prised if the committee so rules in a case of this kind. 

Senator Hill. Judge, what do you say to this suggestion: The act 
of these gentlemen in going to the room of this man Souer you admit 
is admissible. Is not a declaration made by them explanatory of their 
purpose in going and coming, at the time, admissible ? 

Mr. Siiallabarger. The Senator will pardon me. Where an act is 
part of the there any verbal declarations accompanying the act 

and tending to give character to it are competent evidence. The ever- 
lastinglj’-cited examples in the law books, you remember, is the case of 
Lord Gordon’s riot; the screams and outcries of the mob, when the fact 
was competent, gave character to the fact an<l to the riot. That I re¬ 
cognize; that is right. But that is not this case. Here it is nothing in 
the world but an attempt to show that a third person, a member of the 
legislature, said he was going to a certain room. 

Now let us try this by an illustration. Has it come to pass, is it so 
that any Senator of the United States may now be assailed by calling 
in a third person and having that third jierson say of that Senator, “ He 
paid me something for voting for him ? ” Do not our common instincts 
.tell us that that cannot be the law? Why? First, because it is the 


88 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


merest, inirest, and most exactly stated hearsay ; second, because that 
statement 'was not under oath; third, because that man himselt is a 
competent witness to be called to give the truth in reg^ard to the matter 
that you are seeking to take at second or third hand as hearsay. Will 
that do ^ If you are going to let it in as hearsay, as I said before, 1 
bow of course to the committee ; but it will not do as a precedent; you 
will not follow it, I am sure. You are trying a fellow Senator, and it 
will not do to try him by any such rule unless you just throw open the 
flood-gates and iet in everything and anything that anybody chooses to 
say about these shining marks of the nation ; for your experience, my 
experience, and everybody’s has taught us that there is nobody more 
liable to be assailed by calumny than gentlemen occupying the positions 
you do. 

Now, then, I say, as the declaration of a conspirator, this is not com¬ 
petent, because no conspiracy is yet proved; as a declaration giving 
character to an act it is not competent, because the act itself is no part 
of a res gestae; as* hearsay it is not competent, because hearsay is not 
competent; and that is the strongest way that I can state it. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 have sent lor a book, Mr. Chairman, containing, I 
think, an authority which leaves it very much within the discretion of 
the court as to the time during the progress of a trial when the decla¬ 
rations of alleged co-conspirators become admissible against the con¬ 
spirator on trial. The general rule is as the counsel states it. There 
must ordinarily be laid the foundation by prima facie proof satisfactory 
to the court that there is enough of a show of conspiracy to justify the 
admission of the evidence; but if it should so happen that that evidence 
has not yet been admitted, and counsel states his expectation in regard 
to the evidence, the court may determine to admit it or not, subject to 
be stricken out afterwards, unless the conspiracy is established to the 
satisfaction of the court. 

If that is the rule where a court is sitting with a jury, and where the 
minds of the jury are liable to be influenced by evidence that is offered 
and submitted to them, even although it should afterwards be taken 
away from them, certainly that ought to be and is the rule where the 
court itself is trying the case, and where if the evidence is afterwards 
stricken out it cannot by any possibility have any influence on the mind 
of the court by reason of the learning and the wisdom of the individuals* 
who are to judge. If this evidence should afterwards turn out not to 
be competent by the failure to prove anything in the nature of a con¬ 
spiracy between these parties, it cannot have any influence on this com¬ 
mittee. They can brush it away; and it will only become competent 
ultimately, in that aspect of the case in the event that there is a suffi¬ 
cient show of the existence of a conspiracy. 

Now, I may state to the committee that I expect to establish this^ 
conspiracy by proof with which they are in part already familiar. I 
expect to show that Mr. Kellogg, by bis manipulation of the returns at 
that election, and his improper and illegal interference with those re¬ 
turns, in conjunction with the members who constituted the body that 
elected him, secured in that body a pretended quorum of the so called 
legislature of Louisiana. If I should happen to prove that, I shall have 
proved a great deal tending in the direction of a conspiracy. That 
proof alone would go very far to establish the conspiracy. And if that 
proof was in I presume the counsel on the other side would not hesitate 
for a moment to admit that the declarations of co conspirators would 
be competent. I say the committee is familiar in part vith this evi¬ 
dence that 1 propose to introduce. I expect to show that ]Mr. Kellogg 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


81> 


l>articipateil with certain ofiicers, under the law of Louisiana, in making 
up illegal and fraudulent protests, in order to secure the election of in- 
strninents that he could use by personal influence or through the seduc¬ 
tions of mouej' considerations. And this statement has further weight 
than statements ordinarily made by counsel, for it is the statement in 
reference to evidence that the court itself knows all about. 

I shall lollow the evidence up, when I come to it, by proof of actual 
organizations and arrangements between these men by which Mr. Kel¬ 
logg’s election to the United States Senate was to be secured, and the 
actual use of money, and I shall prove that it was an understood thing, 
and that there was a fixed price for the majority of these men, from 
$200 to $250. 

Again, I claim the admissibility of this testimony upon the ground 
suggested by the able and learned Senator from Georgia, that it is cer¬ 
tainly competent for me to prove that this man was directed by Kellogg 
to conduct members of the legislature from his room to Souer’s. Souer 
has already come into this case, gentlemen. Ue has already come into 
the case through the testimony of Johnson ; Johnson told you yester¬ 
day, after much travail on my part to get it out of him, that he was 
directed t)y Kellogg (to whom he applied for money, and who said he 
was not able to let him have it) to go to Souer, where he might get it, 
and that he went to Souer and did get it, and he says it was a loan ; 
but he also says it has not been paid yet, and I presume he never in¬ 
tends to pay it. IJow far that was a loan, and for what purpose that 
money was paid, is a matter for the consideration of the committee, in 
view of the testimony of Johnson and of the other testimony which will 
hereafter be offered before it. 

It is in proof, therefore, that one of these men went to Souer, and, to 
say the least, without straining the evidence, got money from Souer on 
Kellogg’s direction, under questionable circumstances. Now, I propose 
to prove by this witness that he was sent for by Mr. Kellogg to go to 
his room; that he found in his room when he went there on many occa¬ 
sions members of this alleged legislature, men who constituted the al¬ 
leged quorum that elected Mr. Kellogg to the Senate of the United States, 
and that Kellogg directed him to show them toSouersroom ; that he did 
show them to Souer’s room, and that immediately, as part of the transac¬ 
tion of showing them into Souer’s room, and when they were coming out, 
he had conversation with them as to the purpose and object of their going 
in there. 

If it was competent to prove that he took them to Souei’s room, and 
if the object for which they went there is of any importance, their dec¬ 
larations, whilst in the course of the transaction of going there, and 
being there and leaving there, constitute competent evidence as part of 
the res gesUv of that transaction. I do not ask at present to i)rove what 
they said at other and remote periods of time; it may come to that here¬ 
after; but the testimony I now offer is that when those men were in 
there, or when they came out of there, they told this witness that they had 
received money to vote for Kellogg, and showed him the money. Is 
not that a part of the transaction of taking them thereJ And if they 
were members of the legislature who co-operated with the party whose 
seat is now contested in securing his election, and voted for him, is not 
their evidence competent, may it please the committeeJ And did they 
not co-operate ? Johnson told the committee yesterday that there were 
eighty-three men i)resent at the time, I think, and when I asked him if 
he had voted for Mr. Kellogg, he said yes, they all voted for Kellogg. 
Now I otbu' to i)rove that the i»ien who voted for him, at the time they 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


90 

rccsivecl the money for their votes, stated, that they had received it for 
that purpose and for that purpose alone. 

The Chairman. Whatever may be the rules of law governing this 
matter, the course which this committee pursued in another case would 
admit this testimony. In the case of Senator Grover, where the testi¬ 
mony was taken on the Pacihc coast, questions calling for hearsay evi¬ 
dence, general hearsay, even to the extent of rumors upon the street, 
were propounded by Senator Morton, and at that time 1 interposed an 
objection; but the views which I entertained were not observed by the 
committee, and the widest latitude was given to the inquiry. Here is a 
question Avhich was put; 

Q. State whether there were or were not charges made in the hotels and upon the 
streets in regard to the use of money in that election. 

That question was put by Senator Morton. 

A. I heard a great deal of talk ahont such things, about money being used. There 
was a good deal of talk of that kind on the streets ot Salem ; yes, sir. 

I simply cite this to show to what extent the inquiry went in that par¬ 
ticular case, not to establish that as a proper rule to govern this case, 
but I do not care to have this taken down by the stenographer. 

Senator Houston. Allow me to suggest that if we put upon our rec¬ 
ord everything that is said here, the argument of counsel and all of this 
by-play, Ave shall haA^e a document that will never be read by theSenate. 

Senator Hill. We cannot settle that now. 

Senator Houston. I know it; but I Avaut to bring up that point in 
this connection. 

The Chairman. Well, let what I say go down. I have read a ques¬ 
tion put by Senator Morton to a witness in the Oregon case, and his 
answer. Then this follows: 

Q. You heard a great deal of talk?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State whether it was confiued to a few persons, or whether it was somewhat gen¬ 
eral among the community.—A. Well, it was somewhat general. It was quite au.inter¬ 
esting contest. Men were changing from one side to the other, and people, perhaps 
ungenerously, said certain men were influenced by money in their changing. Whether 
they were or not I do not know. It was talked on the streets and reported to me that 
such and such men were being bought up. 

Senator Saulsbura'. I submit at this i)oint whether it is proper, in investigations 
of this kind, involving the right of Governor Grover to a seat in the United States Sen¬ 
ate, and involving, to a certain extent, the integrity of his character, to inquire into 
rumors made upon the street, or hearsay evidence, and whether we should not confine 
the investigation to the knowledge of the witnesses in reference to the questions in¬ 
volved in this investigation. 

This case differs, in my opinion, very materially from such investigations as we have 
heretofore had, in reference to charges of intimidation and violence interfering with 
the freedom of elections, &c.; because there is here involved a private right, the right 
of a Senator to his seat in the Senate of the United States, and beyond that, it involves 
the integrity of his character. That being the case, it seems to me proper that an in¬ 
vestigation of this kind, having consequences so serious, should be confined as nearly 
as possible within the rules that govern the admission of evidence in courts of justice. 
I submit these views to the consideration of the committee. 

That Avas the \\e\\ wliicb I entertained as [iroperto govern that case; 
it is the A’ieAv I entertain as to Avhat is proper to govern this case; but 
at the same time I refer to it for tbe purpose of saying that such has not 
been tbe practice of this committee. On tbe contrary, hearsay evidence 
of every description Avas admitted in that investigation in reference to 
tbe use of money, Avbetber by Governor Grover or by any person else, 
even to tbe extent of admitting common rumors upon tbe streets. 

Senator Houston. That is a very different question from the one now 
before the committee. 


8P0FF0RD VS. KELLOGG 


91 


Senator FI ill. I move that the question be permitted to be put. 

Senator Houston. These questions ought to be decided by the com* 
inittee in consultation as they are raised, if that course would not occa¬ 
sion inconvenience. This may become a very important point. This 
sergeant-at-arms takes parties" to the room; he goes in with them and 
hears a conversation between Souer and the member of the legislature 
he took there. At the door the party comes out and has money in his 
hand. He asks, “ What have you got it for?” and an answer is made. 
That is very different from the question that was read from the Grover 
investigation. 

Senator Cameron. That is not this question. That is not what Mr. 
Merrick ])roposes to prove. 

Mr. Merrick. That is what I stated. 

Senator Cameron. It is not claimed that the witness here heard the 
conversation in the room. 

Mr. Merrick. He heard what was said when the man came out. 

Senator Houston. I Avas illustrating the strength of the position by 
that statement. 

Senator Hill. 1 think it is very unwise forjudges to give long reasons 
for their opinion. It seems to me in any view of the case the questions 
now asked are admissible. It is a very serious question with me whether 
they Avould be admissible in a court of justice, but clearly under the 
practice well established in an investigation of this kind the testimony 
is admissible, and what it is worth is to be determined bj* us afterwards. 
It is a part of the res gesta'; it will illustrate the transaction; it will 
throw light on the case as it is then made. In any view of the case, it 
does seem to me that this testimony is admissible for what it is worth; 
and without delaying the committee by argument I move that the tes¬ 
timony be admitted. 

Senator Cameron. I do not admit that it is part of the res gesUe at all. 
I look upon it simply as hearsay testimony, nothing more, nothing less. 
For that reason I do not think it ought to be admitted. 

The Chairman. The question is on the motion of the Senator from 
Georgia that the testimony be admitted. 

The question being put, the motion was agreed to—yeas o, nays 2, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Senators Bailey, Hill, Houston, Vance, and Saulsbury (chair¬ 
man.) 

]SrAYS— Senators Ingalls and Cameron. 

Mr. Merrick (to the witness). Mr. Johnson, were the persons that you 
took to Souer^s office at the suggestion of Mr. Kellogg members of the 
legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Were they members of the legislature consti¬ 
tuting part of that quorum which elected him to the Senate ?—A. Yes, 
sir; they were. 

Q. State to the committee what any of the men who were members 
of the legislature that you took under Mr. Kellogg’s direction up to Mr. 
Souer’s room told you when they came out.—A. This was before Mr. 
Kellogg was elected to the Senate. 

Q. State it, before he was elected to the Senate.—A. The men who 
came there before the election were hard up, and when they came there 
they generally went to the governor for a little money. Many times, as 
I told you a while ago, he sent for me to show diffv.n’ent men to offises in 
the building. I had taken at various times men to .Mr. Souer’s office as 
I told you. So far as that is concerned that is all I know on that i)oint. 


92 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. That is all you know about that*?—A. On that point that is all I 

know about it. , ^ 

Q. That was before the election ?—A. That was before the election. 

He was governor at that time. t 4 a <•*- 

Q. After his election he sent for you to take men up there ^—A. Atter 
his election he was not governor; Mr. Packard was governor, 
eruor Kellogg never sent for me atter that to take any more men to Mr. 
Souer’s office. I have taken men from my office very many times to Mr. 
SouePs office. ^ , 

Q. You took men from your office to Souer’s office ?—A. Yes, sir. My 
office was the headquarters for the boys there. 

Q. And you took them up ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were the friend of Mr. Kellogg, were you ?—A. Certainly I 
was. 

Q. In favor of his election ?—A. I do not know so much about being 
in favor of his election. I was a Rejiublicau, and was in favor of nearly 
everything the party done. 

Q. When you took those men up from your office to Mr. Souer’s office 
did you know from anything they told you at the time they came out 
what they went there for?—A. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Q. What did they tell you when they came out ?—A. Some would tell 
me one thing and some other things. 

Q. Tell us what some of them told you.—A. Some of them told me 
that they Avent there to see when their warrants would be ready. 

Q. Souer prepared the warrants; he indorsed the warrants ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. That was his business. He did not pay the officers ?—A. Ko, sir j 
he only issued vouchers for the warrants. 

Q. He took the vouchers, and with those vouchers they went to the 
auditor and got the money ?—A. Ko, sir; they went to the auditor and 
got the warrant. 

Q. He issued the voucher and they went to the auditor and got a 
warrant, and on the warrant they got the money.—A. If they could 
get any money. I never got any. 

Q. They were supposed to get it. Some told you they went there to 
see when the warrants would be ready. What did the others tell you ?— 
A. Some told me they went to get money. 

Q. Money for what ?—A. Money for voting for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Hid they show you the money they got ?—A. Some did. 

Q. How much did they show you ?—A. Some showed me as high as 

$ 200 . 

Q. How many men showed you the money they got which they said 
they got voting for Kellogg?—A. Two or three. 

Q. Besides the men who showed you the money they got and which 
they said they got for A^oting for Kellogg, how many others told you 
they got money from Souer for voting for Kellogg who did not show it ?— 
A. It was general talk around my office; a good many of them. I did 
not take time to count them, as I don’t believe everything I hear colored 
people say. 1 did not put much hearso to it, but some have showed me 
their money that they said they got for voting for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Seeing was believing in your case ?—A. That is pretty good proof. 
They say what the eye sees the heart is bound to believe. 

Q. You saw the money ?—A. I saw some of the men had as high as 
$200 that they said they got for voting for Governor Kellogg. As I 
told you, they were colored men, and I don’t rely much on what they say; 

didn’t put much hearso to it. 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


93 


Q. You did not put much “bearso” to it, but they showed you the 
money, and seeing is believing?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know any other way in which those men could become 
entitled to that much money at that time ?—A. Money was pretty scarce 
around there about those days. 

Q. There was not much of it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Everybody was hard up?—A. I was pretty hard up. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do you believe what you hear a white man say ?—A. Sometimes. 
It depends on what kind of a white man he is. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. I do not think you have yet stated how many men there were who 
told you they were paid for voting for Governor Kellogg who did not 
show you the money. How many were there?—A. I have stated that. 

Q. I do not recollect that you did.—A. I said it was current rumor 
around my ofijce that all of them got money, but I took that for what 
it was worth. 

Q. That was what you heard generally around the office ?—A. What 
I heard generally around the building. 

Q. Was it generally talked of among the members?—A. Yes, sir; 
among the colored people. They talk about lots of things that don’t 
concern them. 

Q. How many were there who talked to you about the thing who 
were concerned in it, and told you they had got money and did not show 
it to you ?—A. Three or four—I could not recollect exactly—four or 
five. 

Q. Four or five ?—A. Yes, sir; that I seen the money. 

Q. You saw the money of four or five ?—A. I saw the money of from 
three to five. 

Q. Who showed you the money ?—A. Yes, sir ; who said they got the 
money, and I seen a portion of the money. I seen some of them have 
as high as $200. I have already repeated that. 

Q. From three to five told you they got money and showed it to you. 
How many told you they got money and did not show it to you ?—A. I 
answered that question just now. I could not say. 

Q. Can you say about how many ?—A. No, sir; I am under oath here, 
and I don’t want to tell anything but the truth. 

Q. 1 certainly do not want you to tell anything but the truth.—A. I 
understand that; it is a very delicate point, and I want to sustain what 
1 say and nothing else. 

Q. Was there more than one ?—A. Yes ; more than one. 

Q. More than five ?—A. There was general rumor among all of them; 
that is the way I will answer that. 

Q. Your office was the headquarters where they came?—A. My office 
was the headquarters for the boys while we were shut up there in the 
building. 

Q. You were shut up in the building?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You never left the building?—A. I never left the building. 

Q. Did the members of the legislature leave the building?—A. Not 
often; only when they went out on business. 

Q. Did they sleep there ?—A. Some of them did. 

Q. Do you know a man by the name of Swazie ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is his first name?—A. George. 

Senator Bailey. Before you leave this part of the case, I should like 


94 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


to know the names of those members of the legislature, if it does nob 
disturb the line of examination. 

Mr. Merrick. Not the slightest; it comes in the proper place here. 
(To the witness.) Give the names of the men who showed you the money, 
if you recollect.—A. That I saw have money ? 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Yes; and who told you they got it for voting 
for Governor Kellogg for Senator; can you give me the names ot the 
men ?—A. Yes; I can give the names. 

Q. Do so, if you please.—A. Simmes, of Saint James. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Give his first name.—A. Sonny. 

Q. Was that a nickname or his real name ?—A. That is the name I 
know bim by. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You have not given the other names. Who is the other ?—A. Ma- 
gloire, of Avovelles Parish. 

Q. Who else! Did Johnson ever tell you that he got money!—A. 
Which Johnson ! 

Q. Johnson who was examined here yesterday; Joseph J. Johnson.— 
A. I do not think he ever told me. 

Q. He is of De Soto, is he not!—A. Yes, sir; he is of De Soto. No, 
sir: he never told me. 

Q. Who else told you !—A. Johnson, of Terre Bonne, I think told me. 

By Senator Kellogg ; 

Q. There were two Johnsons from Terre Bonne ; which one was it!— 
A. Kobert Johnson. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Who else, if you can recollect!—A. That is all I can recollect 
now. 

Q. It was common talk about your office among them all !—A. Well, 
it was common talk around there; they had nothing else to talk about, 
I suppose. 

Q. What was the price !—A. Which price ! 

Q. How much did they get apiece; what was the talk as to the 
amount they had each received, this talk around your office when they 
came in to discuss this question !—A. Two hundred dollars. 

Q. Two hundred dollars was the market price!—A. It was after the 
election I heard them talk about that. 

Q. You said that you knew Swazie. What is his first name!—A. 
George. 

Q. What is his business!—A. He was a member of the legislature at 
that time. 

Q. What is he now! -A. I do not know what he is now ; I could not 
say. 

Q. What office does he hold !—A. I don’t know that he holds any. 

Q. Do you not know that he is in the custom-house !—A. Y^es, sir, I 
heard he was in there; I don’t know it. I could not say positively that 
he is in there, for he is in Washington. 

Q. When did he come here!—A. I don’t know, sir ; we found him 
here. 

Q. W hen did you find him here !—A. Monday night when I got here. 

Q. Where did you find him !—A. 1 met him at the depot. 

Q. Where did you last see him before you saw him at the depot the 
night you got here!—A. I do not understand your question. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 95 

Q. My questiou is pretty plain.—A. Sometimes gentlemen do not un¬ 
derstand ])lain questions. 

Q. Where did you last see him before you saw him at the depot ?—A. 
I saw him at New Orleans, at home. 

Q. When? How long before you left? —A. I did not know he left 
until after I left; I saw him, I think, last Saturday 5 I would not be 
certain ; I saw him nearly every day. 

Q. Did he come on with you and the other witnesses ?—A. No, sir, I 
met him here. 

Q. You met him at the depot ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whom was he with ?—A. I do not know ; there was a big crowd 
there ; Ido not know particularly who he was with ; he met us there. 

Q. Was there a man there by the name of Lewis ?—A. Lewis who ? 

Q. That is his last name, is it not? 

Senator Cameron (to the witness). He means James Lewis. 

A. James Lewis came with us on the train. He went from New Or¬ 
leans with us. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) What is his business now ?—A. He is the na¬ 
val officer at New Orleans. 

Q. He came with you ?—A. He came on the cars with us. 

Q. Have you ever seen Swazie and Lewis since you got here?—A. 
Yes, sir; we are all stopping at the same house; 1 see them every day. 

Q. Are Swazie and Lewis there all the time ?—A. Y^es, sir; we all 
eat at the same table and we are rooming side by side with each other. 

Q. Are Swazie and Lewis in the same house in company with the wit¬ 
nesses that came on, and at all hours, as far as you know ?—A. I could 
not say that all the time they are in company with the witnesses. They 
are in company with me sometimes backwards and forwards. They are 
all storiping there together. 

Q. Did you hear Swazie make any remarks to any of the witnesses in 
reference to their testimony and how they should testify ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you overhear any conversation between Swazie and any of the 
witnesses ?—A. No, sir ; not about this case, I have not. 

Q. Did you overhear any conversation between Swazie and the wit¬ 
nesses about their testifying and going back on their party?—A. Not 
so far as this case is concerned. 

Q. I am not talking about this case particularly. I am talking about 
conversations between Swazie and the witnesses coming on from New 
Orleans or since you got here—not coming on, for he did not come with 
you, I believe; did he?—A. No, sir; he did not come with me. 

Q. Since you got here, have you overheard any conversation between 
Swazie and these witnesses about their testifying or about going back 
on their party, no matter whether it was this case or something else? 
—A. No, sir; I have paid no attention to conversation on this case, be¬ 
cause I have not allowed anybody to talk with me. George might have 
talked with me something about something of that kind; but I have 
not paid attention to it. 

Q. Now that your attention is specially directed to what occurred, 
try and refresh your recollection.—A. I say he might have said some¬ 
thing to me about my party. 

Q. What did he say to you ?—A. I don’t recollect. 

Q. Try and recollect.—A. I have had several conversations with him. 

Q. Try and recollect.—A. I do not know; he might have said some¬ 
thing to me about going back on my party. 

Q. Now, did you not hear him say to these witnesses or some of them, 
or did he not say to you, that if they went back on their party they would 


96 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


be drummed out of the party?—A. He might have said it j that is nat¬ 
ural. I might have said the same thing. 

Q. He might have said many things; but I want your recollection of 
what he did say on that point?—A. I do not recollect on that point. 

Q. What do you mean by saying he might have said it. Why do 
you think he might have said it?—A. Because these witnesses are all re¬ 
publicans, and naturally one republican might say to another that his 
party was at stake, and may talk something personal to him and say 
things that way, and he may probably have talked that way to me. That 
might be natural; a personal thing and friendly talk. 

Q. You think that might have been?—A. He might have said that 
to me or might have said that to any other witnesses. I say 1 did not 
hear it. He may have said it to me. We are rooming together. 

Q. Hid not you hear hear him say it to you ?—A. He might have said 
that to me. 

Q. Hid you not hear him say that to you ?—A. I do not know : I am 
not positive. 

Q. AVhat is your best recolectiou ?—A. I am under oath here now. 

Q. I know you are under oath.—A. When I make a statement that I 
am not positive about I am not responsible. 

Q. I do not want you to be positive.—A. I have said he may have 
said that to me. 

Q. That is not enough.—A. Let us see how much more you want. 

Q. I want all I can get.—A. That is what I am going to give you. 
Y"ou must recollect I am a Eepublican. 

Q. I know you are a Republican.—A. And a Republican under oath, 
and I must tell the truth. 

Q. I want the truth. You stated that he might have said it, and you 
stated your reason for thinking he might have said it, that it would 
probably be natural for a Republican to so speak.—A. Certainly. 

Q. Now, you say you will not be positive he did say it; but what is 
your best recollection?—A. He might have said it to me. 

Q. Is it your best recollection that he did say it?—A. I will not an¬ 
swer that. 

Q. I am going to have an answer now.—A. Well, you are going to 
wait on it then. 

Q. I will wait on it. 1 submit it to the committee that I want an 
answer.—A. He has had several conversations. He may have said this 
very thing. 

Q. I know he may have said a thousand things; but that is not an 
answer.—A. And there might be one point that you might catch me in 
error on. He might have said that to me, which he has a right as a 
Republican to talk to another. He might -have said that to me. My 
mind has been very full since I have been here. Both sides of these 
parties expect to get a good deal out of me, and 1 want them to get the 
truth. I do not want to be in error. I being a Republican he may have 
talked with me on that point. He may have said those very things that 
I might deny he did say, and I do not want to answer positively on the 
question. 

Q. I do not want you to answer positively. 1 accept that statement 
as sounding like the statement of a correct thinking man, but I want 
you to answer to the best of your recollection without being positive.— 
A. I say yes, he might have said that to me. 

Q. To the best of your recollection he did say it?—A. To the best of 
my recollection he has had several conversations with me and may have 
said that thing. That may be the question that he might have said to 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 97 

me. lie might have said other questions that I do not recollect more of 
than I do that. 

Q. Have you any recollection at all, either positive, or vague, or iu- 
detinite, that you ever heard Swazie say to you or to any other of these 
^vitnesses that if they went back on their party here they would be 
drummed out?—A. He might have said that. 

Q. That is not my question?—A. That is an answer though. 

Q. Have you any recollection about it ? 

By Senator Cameron; 

Q. Do you remember anything he did say to you?—A. I remember 
several things he said to me. I do not remember tliat, but he might 
have said it. I remember several things. 1 remember he said to me 
like this, if the committee will allow me to say what George did say to 
me that 1 recollect, and in that he might have said more. He said to 
me that I had a family at stake and that ray family probably would not 
like my course, and that I should be very particular; and in saying that 
he may have said that I would be drummed out of the party, or some¬ 
thing, in talking about things as men when they commence to talk do 
talk. But I have a certain duty to perform, and he may have said that 
to me, and I would hate to say to you that he did not say it and probably 
he did say it. He said a good many things to me since I have been 
here, and lots of other men, Republicans, have said a good many things 
to me about this case. Some of them asked me to tell the truth. I told 
them 1 would. Both sides have asked me to tell the truth; and that is 
what I am going to try to do. I am going to try to tell the truth as far 
as I know and nothing else. You might keep me here six months and 
you would not get anything but the truth out of me. I am going to tell 
the truth as far as 1 know and nothing else, and you might just as well 
take that answer for what it is worth. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I believe you will tell the truth.—A. That is what I come here to 
do, and what I am going to do if 1 stay here all the year. 

By ]\Ir. Merrick : 

Q. Now, a man listening to a convwsatiou which he has got no right 
to listen to is sometimes obliged to overhear it, l)eing near, and he can¬ 
not help himself, unless he stops his ears?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Without trying to hear it, did you hear Swazie say to any of these 
witnesses that if they did not stand up to their party they would be 
drummed out, or if they did not stand up to their party they could not 
live down in Louisiana?—A. If he said that, I did not listen to him. I 
am one of tliose men that don’t stop to listen, because eavesdroppers 
never hear good of themselves. I never stop to listen when the busi¬ 
ness don’t concern me. 

Q. That is true; but a man in passing by two persons in conversation 
sometimes hears what he does not stop to listen to.— A. He sometimes 
hears what he doesn’t want to hear, too. 

Q. Yes; he may hear what he did not want to hear and did not in¬ 
tend to hear.—A. 1 might hear what I didn’t want to hear. 

Q. Not wanting to hear Swazie say they would not be allowed to live 
in Louisiana under certain circumstances, did you hear it; not wanting 
to hear him, did you hear him, anyhow ?—A. He might have said that; 
he might have said that to me; he might have said it to every witness 
that came up here. 

7 s K 


98 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you hear Lewis, in the journey up here, talk to these wit¬ 
nesses !—A. I did j be talked to me. 

Q. Did you hear him telliug them that they would be drummed out of 
the party?—A.—No, sir. 

Q. Under certain circumstances ?—A. No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. You did not hear him say that ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You are positive you did not hear him say that ?—A. I am posi¬ 
tive I did not hear him. I did not hear him tell any witness there that 
w'ord. 

Q. There is no mistake about that ?—A. There is no mistake about it; 
I didn’t hear him say that word, that they would be drummed out of 
the party. 

Q. What did yon hear him say would happen or would be done ?—A. 
O, I have heard him say a good many things. 

Q. Tell us some part of them ?—A. What has that got to do with this 
investigation, about what he said on the cars to me 1 

The CHAIR3IAN (to the witness): Answer the question, and state what 
was said just as it occurred. 

A. He come along with the boys, being one of the boys himself, I 
suppose to see that they were well taken care of, and he had various 
conversations with me on the cars as to my course. I told him I was 
going to do my duty here and nothing else. That is what I said to him, 
and he told me it was a party question, a question that our whole party 
was interested in. He might have told me other things in private con¬ 
versation that I do not think the committee ought to want me to tell. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Well, the committee is a very inquisitive body.—A. I know, and 
sometimes they hear things they douT want to hear, and he might have 
said things to me that the committee would not like to hear. 

Q. I reckon they can stand it.—A. What he said to me was private 
conversation. I do not think it belongs to the world. 

Q. The world wants it.—A. The world cannot get it. 

Q. I reckon we shall have to have it. 

Senator Cameron (to ]Mr. Merrick). The witness may misunderstand 
you. Perhaps he does not understand you to refer to conversations in 
reference to this case. 

Mr. Merrick. Possibly not. Senator, you may correct me. 

Senator Cameron. 1 can imagine that they may have had conversa¬ 
tions on private subjects which had no relation to "this case. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You mean that you talked about what you came for ?—A. I told 
that part. 

Q. Tell all he said to you about coming here, although he mav not 
have mentioned the names of parties in this case ?—A. I told what he 
said to me. 

Q. You have not told all ?—A. What Lewis said to me on the way 
here, I told that. Did I not just tell that ? I douT want to go over it 
again. 

Q. You said you had private conversations about this case ?—A. No, 
sir ; family conversations he had with me, and this case has nothing to 
do with that. I do not think the committee want to know it. I will 
tell them, though, if the committee insist on my telling it. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. I do not want it it it had no relation to what you and the witnesses 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


99 


were going to do when you got here, either directly or by inference.— 
A. No, sir; it had nothing to do with that. 

Q. He told you, as I understand jou, that you had a family at stake ?— 
A. Yes, sir; he told me that. 

Q. A family at stake upon what you were going to do here, was it 
not ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When he told you that you had a family at stake on what you 
were going to do here, what else did he tell you at that time?—A. He 
asked me to be cautious in my movements here, and not let myself be 
liable to prosecution. Jim is one of those kind of men that always give 
Other men advice, and sometimes it is pretty good and sometimes it is 
not, but his advice goes a long ways with most of us; we take his ad¬ 
vice. He may have said something else, though I don’t recollect all. 

Q. Did he know what you were going to testify to?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he know that you were going to testify to anything at all 
damaging to Mr. Kellogg ?—A. Well, he knew that I was summoned 
here by ^fr. Spoiford. 

Q. And he told you that this was a party question?—A. Yes, sirj 
and the others, all of them, told me that. 

Q. Who told you that?—A. All the leading Republicans told me that 
at home before I left. 

Q. That this was a party question ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Not a question between Mr. Spoffurd and Mr. Kellogg?—A. Yes, 
sir; they all told me that. 

Q. Did they tell you the whole party was involved in it?—A. The 
party I belong to they told me was involved in it. 

Q. The Republican party?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you mean any other party—any Louisiana party ?—A. No 
Louisiana party. 

Q. You meant the general Republican party ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And having told yon that the Republican party was involved in 
it, he told you that you" must recollect you had a family at stake ?—A. 
Yes, sir; and to be cautious in my actions. 

Q. To avoid prosecution ?—A. Yes, sir; I believe he told me that. 

Q. Did you hear him tell that or anything like that to any of the other 
witnesses ?—-A. 1 don’t know. I am only talking about what he said 
to me. All the other witnesses are here, and when they go on the 
stand I think tliey ought to answer for themselves. 

Q. 1 shall ask them when they come on the stand ?—A. I didn’t hear 
him say anything to other witnesses, but he said it to me. I have my 
suspicions about it; but I didn’t hear him with my own ears. 

Q. I do not want your suspicions, but I want your best recollection ? 
—A. I have not got any. 

Q. Did any of the other witnesses tell you that Swazie had said any¬ 
thing to them ?—A. No ; I do not think that any of them told me that 
Swazie had. They had been out with Swazie all the time. None of 
them told me anything about it. 

Q. Whom does Swazie room with ?—A. He rooms with De Lacy, I 
think. 1 room with Kelly. 

Q- Y"ou know De Lacy!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did De Lacy ever make any affidavit about this business, the elec¬ 
tion of Kellogg ?—A. DeLacy is" here and you will have De Lacy on the 
stand. Y^ou are examining me now, and not De Lacy. 

Q. I know, but did De Lacy ever make any affidavit that you recol¬ 
lect ?—A. Do Lacy is here. 

cj And you are here too?—A. Certainly I am. 


100 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Merrick. You are the man I am talking to. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. If you were jweseut when De Lacy made the affidavit state so ?— 
A. Yes, sir; I was. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Who dictated that affidavit?—A. I was not right in there when 
the affidavit was dictated. I don’t know. 

Q. Did De Lacy ever tell you ?—A. That he made that affidavit ? 

Q. No; you know that is not my question.—A. You asked me if De 
Lacy told me he made an affidavit. 

Q. Did DeLacy ever tell you who dictated that affidavit?—A. DeLacy 
dictated it himself, I guess. He told me he made the affidavit. I didn’t 
see him dictate it. 

Q. Did he not tell you that he told the man what to write and put in ? 
—A. DeLacy told me he made the affidavit. 

Q. Did he tell you who dictated it ?—A, I suppose he dictated it. 
He is an intelligent man and ought to have sense enough to dictate it. 

Q. Did he tell you he dictated it?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Did he not tell you, to the best of your recollection ?—A. iYowyou 
want too much of the best of my recollection in this thing. 

Q. It is hard work, Murray, but I am going through.—A. It will take 
you some time. 

Q. So it seems. Did De Lacy tell you who wrote it?—A. No, sir; I 
thought ho wrote it himself. He writes. 

Q. Did he tell you he wrote it himself ?—A. No, sir; he told me he 
made an affidavit. 

Q. Did he tell you anything else about it ?—A. He told me he was 
going to Washington as a witness for Spotford. 

Q. Did he tell you he was going to stand by that affidavit ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Do you know whether Seveignes made an affidavit?—A. Seveignes 
is here. 

Q. I know he is, and you are here too. 

The Chairman (to the witness). Answer the question if you know 
whether he made an affidavit ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir; I know it. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q, Did you see him write it?—A. Yes, sir ; I saw him write it. 

Q. You saw him write it himself?—A. Yes, sir; I saw him swear to 
it. 

Q. Do you know how many men who were in the legislature which 
elected Governor Kellogg to the Senate are now employed in the custom¬ 
house in New Orleans?—A. How many men that were in the legislature 
when Governor Kellogg was elected are now employed in the custom¬ 
house ? 

Q. Yes; those fellows around your office when that was the head¬ 
quarters?—A. There are a good many of them in there, I understand— 
a number of them. 

Q. As near as you can come to it, how many of them are there in the 
custom-house?—A. I suppose there are at this time twenty some odd, 
as far as I can recollect. I would not be positive on that, because I 
never counted. I should like to be there myself. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


101 


B}’ Senator Bailey: 

Q. But you (lid not vote ?—A. Xo, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You bad no vote; wbat are you talking about? About bow many 
of those men were in tbe custoin bouse on tlie 4tb of March last, as near 
as you can recollect?—A. Of wbat men—of those twenty men? 

Q. Of those twenty-odd men about bow many were iu tbe custom¬ 
house, if any at all, on tbe 4tb of March last ?—A. Three or four. 

Q. Then all tbe rest have been put in since the 4tb of last March?— 
A. Yes ; they have all been put iu there recently, since Mr. Badger went 
there, since this change was made there. 

Q. Since which change was made ?—A. Since Badger was made col¬ 
lector. 

Q. When was he made collector?—A. Some time last j^ear, I think ; 
I do not know exactly. I wdll not be positive about that. 

Senator Cameron. It must have been in February or January. 

Senator Kellogg. It was February, the last of the session. 1 think 
the last of February; I am not sure. That is a matter of record. 

The Chairman. The records will show the names of the parties in 
the custom-house. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. How many have been put iu within the last mouth ?—A. Ido 
not know. 

Q. You ought to know, as you are around about among these people 
all the time.—A. 1 do not know exactly how many. 

Q. Guess at it; give the best of your recollection. Pardon me, Mr. 
Chairman, for using the word “guess.’’—A. I should not like to guess 
at it; I might make a inisguess. 

Q. I do not w’aut you to guess; I take that back. To the best of 
your recollection and knowledge, without being positive, state how 
many. Come as near to it as you can.—A. I will tell you I never 
counted them. I do not know. I know there is a number of them 
there, but to say how many of them have been put iu there the last 
mouth, I could not answer that and be positive of it. I know that since 
Mr. Badger went into the custom-house, since the 4th of March last, 
there have been some twenty-odd ex-members of the legislature put iu 
the custom-house. 

(,). Of that legislature which elected Kellogg to the Senate ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Do you know the names of the men ?—A. Not all of them. I know 
them all, but I could uot tell all their names. It would take mo some 
time to tliink of them. 

Senator Hill. You have stated the fact; that will do. 

Mr. Merrick. ]Mr. Chairman, I think I shall suspend the examina¬ 
tion here. I do not now think of anything else that I have to ask the 
witness. The witness is with the other side. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I should like to ask one or two questions. Is the man Swazie you 
spoke of in this room ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Where is he—there (pointing) ?—xV. Yes, sir; that tall man (indi¬ 
cating). 


102 


SPOFFOUD TS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. Is the man Lewis in this room ?—A. IS'o, sir j I do not see him. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Who is that man talking to Mr. Kellogg'?—A. Yes, sir j that is 
him. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Is the man Kelly in this room ?—A. Ko, sir; he is not. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. What other persons accompanied the witnesses from Kew Orleans 
to Washington besides Lewis?—A. Besides all the witnesses ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Charles Cavanac ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Any other person ?—A. Ko, sir; no other person. He was in 
charge. We come up with him, under his instructions. 

Q. Is he deputy marshal?—A. Ko, sir; the deputy marshal subpoe¬ 
naed us and told us Mr. Cavanac would go along in charge. 

Q. What other persons have you met ?—A. I have met plenty of 
men, old friends, here. 

Q. But I mean those that have come from your ])lace within the last 
three or four days?—A. Nobody but those two. Kellj" is an old friend 
of mine. He has been here some time. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do I understand you to say that Swazie and Lewis are both in the 
custom-house now ?—A. I do not know where Swazie is now, whether 
he is in the custom-house or not. He was in the custom-house, I said. 

Q. Did you say that Lewis is now the naval officer ?—A. Y^es, sir; he 
is the present naval officer. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Swazie was in the custom house, when ?—A. He was in the cus¬ 
tom-house the last I knew of him. 

Q. When you left there ?—A. I do not know whether he was in there 
when I left New Orleans, because we got witnesses in the custom-house 
and they resigned before they left. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q.- How long has Lewis been the naval officer?—A. He has been the 
naval officer I do not know how long, but several years. 

Q. Several years ?—A. Nearly two years. 

Q. Have you seen any member of the House of Bepreseutatives from 
Louisiana since you came here ?—A. Congressmen ? 

Q. Y'es, sir; Bepreseutatives in Congress.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many of them ?—A. Two of them. 

Q. What two?—A. I saw Mr. Ellis yesterday and Mr. King. 

Q. When did they call on you?—A. I met them here in the building. 

Q. Where ?—A. In the Sergeaut-at Arms’ office. 

Q. How soon was it after you arrived at the Sergeant-at-Arms’ office 
before Mr. Ellis and Mr. King called on you ?—A. I suppose I had been 
in the office waiting for orders there yesterday an hour before they 
came; I could not say exactly; it might have been an hour and it 
might have been a little longer; they came in there with Mr. Cavanac. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What time of the day yesterday was that ?—A. About ten o’clock 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOG*G. 103 

between ten and eleven. It might have been eleven, probably, when 
they came in. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q, Did Mr. Ellis and Mr. Kiug say anything to you ?—A. Mr. Ellis 
didn’t say anything to me. 

Q. Did Mr. King f—A. Mr. Kiug told me he did not ask me to go 
back on the party. All he asked me to do was to tell the truth and 
nothing else. 

Cross-examined by Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Since this matter is up, I will ask a question or two touching your 
last replies: Who is Mr. Cavanac?—A. The State registrar of voters 
down there. 

Q. Does he hold a State office?—A. Yes, sir; registrar of State vot¬ 
ers. I don't know whether it is the State now or the city; anyway, he 
is the registrar. 

Q. Did he claim to act as the representative of Mr. Spofford?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. When did you meet him first on the day that you left New Or¬ 
leans?—A. The day I left there now? 

Q. Y'es.—A. I met him that morning about half past 7 o’clock—Mon¬ 
day morning. 

Q. Where did you meet him ?—A. I met him at the corner of Canal 
and BawSin, or Canal and Franklin ; I would not be certain ; Canal and 
Basin, 1 think. 

Q. Where did you go with him ?—A. I went down to his office. 

Q. How long were you there ?—A. Ko ; I didn’t go to his office with 
him. AVe took the cars at the corner of Canal and Basin street to Ram¬ 
part street, and went down to the corner of Franklin and Rampart 
street, a continuation of Rampart street. We were going to Jeremiah 
Blackstone’s house. 

Q. Is that one of the witnesses ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. One of the witnesses here present?—A. Yes. I am only telling 
this so as I can get myself straight, because I suppose you want to catch 
me; you want to pick me up on it. I know that, and I want to show 
why I tell you this. We were going down to Blackstone’s house to 
notify him that we were going away that evening. 

Q. Had Blackstoue been summoned?—A. Just wait a minute and I 
will tell you about the summons. 

Mr. Merrick. One minute, if it is not interrupting the examination. 
Blackstoue is one of the witnesses I have summoned here. I feel it 
due to myself and my client to have him discharged. I do not need him. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Blackstoue will not leave. Let him remain. 

The Chairman. Is Blackstoue in the room ? 

Senator Kellogg. Y^es, sir. 

Mr. AIerrick. I shall not examine him. 

Senator Cameron. The government ought not to have been put to 
the expense of bringing him here. 

Mr. Merrick. The reason I ask that he be discharged is not because 
of information before bringing him here, but because of information 
since he has been here. 

The Chairman. Y"ou ask that the witness be discharged ? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

The CnAiR3iAN. The witness is discharged for Mr. Spofford. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Blackstoue, you will remain in the city. Do 


104 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


not tbiuk of leaving. Eemember that. Now I will proceed with the 
cross-examination of Mr. Murray. 

Q. (By Mr. Kellogg.) You went to Mr. Blackstone’s with Mr. Cav- 
anac, the agent of Mr. Spofford, on Monday?—A. No, sir; I did not 
say that. 

Q. I misunderstood you, tben. Please state the fact.—A. I say I 
went to the corner of Franklin and a continuation of Eampart street, 
on my way to Mr. Blackstone’s, to show Mr. Oavanac where Mr. Black- 
stone lived. When we got out of the cars we met Mr. Blackstone about 
four blocks from his house. Mr. Blackstone whistled at me, and I told 
Mr. Cavanac that Mr. Blackstone was on the corner. He went over 
there and talked to him. What the conversation was I do not know. 
I saw Blackstone afterwards, and he told me that he did not know that 
he could do Mr. Spofford any good. I think I overheard the conversa¬ 
tion that he told Mr. Cavanac, but I will not be sure of that. I did 
hear him say that he did not know his evidence would do Mr. Spofford 
any good. 

Q. Now, where did you go after leaving that point ?—A. I went right 
down to the corner, walked down with Blackstone, and, taking the cars, 
came back to Mr. Cavanac’s office. 

Q. About what time of the day was that ?—A. That was about nine 
o’clock in the morning. 

Q. How long did you remain in Cavanac’s office?—A. I remained 
there until the witnesses came. I promised the Sergeant-at-Arins of 
the Senate that I would notify the witnesses to come to Mr. Cavanac’s 
office to serve subpoenas on them Monday at nine o’clock. 

Q. The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the United States?—A, 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. Did the witnesses come there to Cavanac’s office to be summoned ? 
—A. Y"es, sir. That was to save the trouble for the Sergeant-at-Arms. 

Q. How many came ?—A. Seven of them came, I think. 

Q. Name them, please.—A. William Ker, one; Blackstone, two; 
Milton Jones, three; De Lacy, four; myself, five; Sev^eignes, six; and 
Johnson, of De Soto, seven. 

Q. YMu were there first, were you not ?—A. Y^es, sir ; I think I was 
there first. I think I came right from Blackstone’s to the office and 
remained there. 

Q. \\ hen did the officer come ?—A. He came just at nine o’clock 
sharp. 

Q. Was he there before they came, or did he come afterwards ?—A. 
He came afterwards. They were there a few minutes before nine o’clock. 

Q. Did he serve the subpcenas on them there at Mr. Cavanac’s office ? 
—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Where did they go then ?—A. They went home then to get ready 
to leave that evening, after they were served, with instructions to be 
back there at one o’clock to get the money from the Sergeant-at-Arms to 
pay their fares over. 

Q. Did they come back at one o’clock to Mr. Cavanac’s office?_A. 

Y^es, sir; you know a colored man always comes. When you tell hini 
to come for money, he never fails. 

Q. Where did they go from there ?—A. After they got the money to 
go on, they went back home and got ready. I did not see them any 
more. 

Q. Till when ?—A. Till I met them at the cars at five o’clock. 

Q. What depot was that—the Mobile depot?—A. The Mobile depot. 






SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 105 

Q. Did 3 ’ou meet the Sergeant at-Arms of the ISenate there?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you meet Mr. Cavanac there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were yon pat in charge of any one ?—A. No; the Sergeant-at- 
Anns told us right in Cavauac’s office when he served these subi)Oiaas 
on ns. 

Q. What did he tell yon?—A. He told us Mr. Cavanac would go to 
Washington with us. 

(,>. Would take charge of you ?—A. He did not say “ take charge of 
you.” 

Q. What did he say ? State what the officer said.—A. The officer 
said Mr. Cavanac would go to Washington with us; that he w’as not 
going, and we had to report to the ‘Sergeant-at-Arms here at nine 
o’clock Thursday morning; had to be at his office at nine o’clock Thurs¬ 
day morning. 

Q. At the Capitol here?—A. Yes, sir; the Sergeant-at-Arms’ office 
here, and the Sergeant-at-Arms would bring us to the committee room 
at ten o’clock. That is what the Sergeant-at-Arms told us all. 

Q. Did you come through in charge of Mr. Cavanac?—A. Yes, sir; I 
understood it in that wa^^; we came through in his charge. 

Q. Who had the money to pay the expenses along ?—A. We all had 
our own money. We all got $25 apiece from the Sergeant at-Arms, 
gave hime our certificates for it. The Sergeant-at-Arms told us he would 
be at the train and furnish us with tickets. He was going to purchase 
tickets for us. 

Q. Did he furnish you tickets ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Who carried the tickets ?—A. ^fr. Cavanac. He told us wiicn we 
got there that Mr. Cavanac had our tickets. 

Q. So Mr. Cavanac had j^our tickets all the way through ?—A. He 
had mine. 

Q. He had yours ?—A. Y"es, sir; he had all our tickets. 

Q. Before you arrived here did Mr. Cavanac request you to go with 
him anyw here ?—A. No, sir ; Mr. Cavanac told me on the cars to take 
all the boys to w here I thought best. 

Q. To keep them all together ?—A. Yes, sir; he told me to keep them all 
together as nigh as I could, and he suggested for us to go to the St. 
James. 

Q. The St. James Hotel ?—A. Y>s, sir. 

Q. Not to any colored house ? That is a hotel near the depot, is it 
not ?—A. I do not know' where it is; the St. James anyways; and 1 con¬ 
sulted Colonel Lewis on the subject about Williams’s house. The delega¬ 
tion, after I had talked to them all, a sort of broke up, coming to different 
places, and Colonel Lew is suggested that we all go to Mrs. Brown’s. I 
went back and told Mr. Cavanac that they all had agreed to go to Mrs. 
Brown’s and I did not believe I would go to the St. James; all were in 
fiivor of going to ^Irs. Browm’s, and I said 1 wouhl go there too. So we 
all agreed to go together. 

Q. You all went together ?—A. Y"es, sir; we all agreed on the cars to 
go together before w’e got off the train. When we got here we met 
Kelly, and he wanted me to go w ith him, and George wanted his friends 
to go with him, and Colonel said we would all go together, and we all 
went to Williams’s, where we all are yet. That is the end of that. 

Q. Where have you been since that time ! —A. I have been right 
there at Williams’s. 

Q. Have yon seen Mr. Cavanac often ?—A. Yes, sir; I have seen Mr. 
Cavanac. 


lOG 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. When did you see him first after you arrived?—A. Eight here in 
the Sergeant-at-Arms’ ofifice. ' 

Q. Did you have any conversation regarding where the boys staid ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he say anything to you about keeping your eye on them, to 
follow them around and see where they went ?—A. No, sir ; he did not 
ask me to follow them around. 

Q. Well, to keep your eye on them ?—A. He might have said to keep 
my eye on them; I am not certain about that. 

Q. What time did you report to the Sergeant at Arms ?—A. Nine 
o’clock. 

Q. Thursday morning?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At the Capitol?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did you remain there before you were called before the 
committee?—A. We went there and we remained there for an hour or 
more, waiting for the Sergeant at Arms to come, and when he came we 
were all introduced to him, and he came up to see Mr. Saulsbury. Mr. 
Saulsbury came into the office, I think ; I wouldn’t be certain about it, 
but somebody said it was Mr. Saulsbury. He came up and told us to 
stay there, that the committee would want us probably about twelve 
o’clock. Some staid and some went out around the building and in 
the House of Eepresentatives. I staid in the office almost all the time. 

Q. Until you came up here to testify?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did any of the other witnesses stay there?—A. Blackstone and I 
were together. Some of them staid there and some went around the 
building. We were very tiresome traveling. 

Q. Who came in to see you while you were there ?—A. Mr. Ellis and . 
Mr. King and Mr. Cavanac came in there to see us. 

Q. Who are Mr. Ellis and Mr. King ?—A. Congressmen. 

Q. They came in with Mr. Cavanac ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They are Democratic members of the other house ?—A. Yes, sir j 
Democratic members. 

The Chairman. The witness said that I went in there. 1 did not say 
anything to any of you ? 

The Witness. No, sir; I said I would not be certain it was you. 

Senator Kellogg. He said you came in and spoke to the Sergeaut-at- 
Arms. (To the witness.) Did any of the members of the Senate go in to 
see you ?—A. No, sir; not that I know of. If there was, I didn’t know 
them. They might have come to see somebody else. None spoke to 
me. 

Senator Kellogg. I address iny inquiry in reference to myself more 
than any one else. Was 1 in the room ? 

A. No, sir; I never saw you until I saw you right in here. I have 
had no conversation with you whatever, and 1 have not spoken to you 
up to yesterday since I have been in the city. You treated me so roligh 
the last time I did not care to speak to you again. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Did Mr. Ellis and Mr. King have consid¬ 
erable conversation with the witnesses in the room ?—A. Mr. Ellis did 
not have much to say to me. 

Q. But did he to the other witnesses ?—A. He didn’t have much to 
say to anybody else. He didn’t stay very long. The most he said, he 
said to me. He is member from my district, and of course he had a 
good deal to talk about. Most of his conversation was about the repu¬ 
diation of the State debt and the convention down there. 

Q. That is a good subject.—A. That is the most he had anything to 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 107 

say about. Mr. King staid a very considerable time, and talked with 
all the boys, 

Q. You testified that you were sergeant at-arms of the lower house of 
the legislature ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Were you sergeant-at*arms or connected with the legislature of 
1875, growing out of the Wheeler compromise*—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you in any manner connected with the legislature of 1870 ?— 
A. Y^es, sir ; I was keeper in 1870. 

Q. Keeper of the hall?—A. Y'es, sirj during your administration 
there. 

Q. Where was Governor Packard’s room in the State house ?—A. In 
1877? 

Q. At the time you have been testifying in regard to the meeting of 
the legislature.—A. That was in 1877. 

Q. Y^es; where was Governor Packard’s room ?—A. It was a room 
that used to be used for the returning-board, or right adjoining that, on 
the third door from the ground, second door after you get up, right 
over the house of representatives, right opposite my room. 

Q. Where was General Badger’s room ?—A. General Badger’s room 
was the very next door to mine toward sunrise when you come into the 
State-house. 

Q. What position did General Badger hold at that time ?—A. Ser¬ 
geant-at-arms of the senate. 

Q. Y^'ou spoke of Souer’s room; where was General Souer’s room ?— 
A. That was the adjutant-general’s room, just below mine, the door be¬ 
low it. 


By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Do you mean beneath?—A. No ; just below on the same door. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Down the hall ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Next below yours ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Who was the adjutant-general at that time?—A. The adjutant- 
general was General Baldy. I would not be certain. There might 
have been a change made, but I think he was the adjutant-general. 

Q. And General Souer occujned that room?—A. No, sir; General 
Souer occupied his own room. It was called General Souer’s room, but 
it had “ adjutant-general” on the door. 

Q. Were there two rooms communicating there?—A. With General 
Souer’s room ? 

Q. And the adjutant-general’s?—A. No, sir; General Badger was 
occupying one i>art of the adjutant-general’s office for his room. 

Q. Are there any communicating doors between those rooms ?—A. 
Y’'es, sir. 

Q, Between yours and Souer’s ? —A. No; none between me and Souei’s. 

Q. A partition !—A. No, sir; an aisle leading out to the big clock 
between my room and his about this size (indicating about two feet); 
not quite the space of a door. General Souer lived in the building, 
and had a be<l-room and had a private office, and that went in first. 

Q. Adjoining?—A. Y'es, sir ; adjoining. 

O. Did General Badger have a room in the same manner ?—A. Gen¬ 
eral Badger had a room in the same manner. 


108 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did Governor Packard have a suite of rooms iu the same manner 
and stay there?—A. Yes,sir. 

Q. He slept there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was General Souer connected with the contingent committee of 
the house, as it was called ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he chairman ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Now, you have had a good deal of experience in matters of legis¬ 
lation, tell the committee what the practice is there in regard to the con¬ 
tingent committee and the chairman of the contingent committee iu 
relation to the members. What do the mem hers do to get their pay ?— 
A. After the appropriation is passed they hunt up the chairman and get 
vouchers from him. 

Q. When they get the vouchers what do they do ?—A. They go to the 
auditor and get their warrants. 

Q. Then what do they do ?—A. Then they do the best they can. 

Q. What is the best they can do ?—A. The best they can do then is 
to keep them iu their pockets. 

Q. As a general thing there is no money in the treasury, is there?— 
A. Never in Louisiana. 

Q. Except when I was governor; then you had something. Did you 
not sometimes appropriate enough to pay the interest on the public 
debt?—Y^es; after it was scaled pretty low. 

Q. Y^ou do not mean the interest, but after the principal was scaled 
pretty low. There is not enough now to pay it when it is scaled low ?— 
A. They want to repudiate now and get rid of the whole. 

Q. The Democrats want to repudiate the whole? 

]\Ir. Merrick. The witness did not say that. 

Senator Kellogg. But the Democrats are in possession of the State 
government. We may as well have a Boland for an Oliver. 

Mr. Merrick. Between you and Murray, I have no objection. 

Senator Kellogg. Not at all. (To the witness.) Was it not the 
practice of members to take their warrants and, when there was no 
money in the treasury, to sell them ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Or hypothecate them, pledge them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did not all the appropriation bills provide that the particular war¬ 
rants that were given for mileage and per diem should be receivable 
for licenses ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And being receivable for licenses that were due along in January 
and February during the sessions of the legislature, did they not appre¬ 
ciate higher in value—were they not nearer par than any other warrants 
in the State?—A. Under your form of government it was—in your ad* 
ministration. 

Q. I am speaking now of the practice and of the law ?—A. Y'es, sir ; 
but it was not so that session. They never went upj they kept on go¬ 
ing down that session. 

Q. I know, during Packard’s administration, but not during mine?— 
A. Y^es; during your administration. 

Q. My administration continued up to the 8th of January?—A. Yes, 
sir; and we did not have any warrants after you went out. 

Q. Was not a bill passed during the first week in my administration 
to pay the members mileage and per diem ?—A. Yes, sir; the latter part 
of the first week. 

Q. The first week of the session ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the amount appropriated ?—A. It was a pretty 
good amount. I could not say exactly ; but I know it was a pretty good 
pile. 


SPOFFOHD VS. KELLOGG. 


109 


(ij. The chairman of the contingent expenses committee under that 
law would issue vouchers to tlie members, would he not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. And they would be entitled to the warrants whenever they were 
issued ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(ij. The voucher was evidence of the right of the member to the war¬ 
rant, was it not 1 —A. Centainly. 

Q.^ And it was just as good as the warrant; so held to be generally?— 
A. Generally; it was customary. 

Q. Because the holder of it could go and get the warrant ?—A. It was 
the custom to treat it to be as good as the warrant. 

Q. The holder of it could go and get the warrant ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it not always a practice that some men, it might be one, tw<o 
or three, bankers or brokers, would advance the money and pay mem¬ 
bers of the legislature upon their vouchers more or less, according as 
they esteemed them to be valuable, and keep them in their possession 
to draw the warrants ?—A. That was customary before that year. 

(i. Was it not customary that year?—A. No, sir; the members could 
not get anybody to buy them that year. 

Q. The question I ask is if they were not issued in that manner ? —A. 
Yes, sir; they are always issued in that manner. 

Q. Then if any man I’elieved that the Packard government was going 
to be maintained they would be of value to him, would they not ?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. If a man had reason to believe that if Governor Hayes was Presi¬ 
dent and Mr. Packard governor, and ]\Ir. Packard was going to be main¬ 
tained as I was, they would have been valuable, would they not ?—A. 
Well, I do not know. 

Q. If Mr. Packard was maintained ?—A. O, if Mr. Packard was main¬ 
tained. 

Q. That is what I say. Listen, if you please, to the (]uestion. If any 
person believed that Mr. Packard would remain as governor they would 
have been valuable?—A. They would have been valuable ; yes, sir. 

Q. You say they would have been valuable?—A. Certaiidy. 

Q. They would have been as valuable as in previous years ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Because they were receivable for licenses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they were always a great deal higher than any other war¬ 
rants of the State ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Bating at 90 per cent., and sometimes more ?—x\. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it not the constant [)ractice, 1 ask again, for the members of 
the legislature holding those vouchers and being imj)ecunious, coming 
from the country, to sell those vouchers ?—A. I have answered that. 

Q. xVnd they generally got pretty nearly the face value of the war¬ 
rants f —xV. Except that year. 

Q. So that if any one believed that Mr. Packard would be governor, 
in his estimation those warrants would have been valuable?—xV. YYs, 
sir. 

Q. So they went to the chairman of the contingent committee to get 
those vouchers, did the}' not ? You answered that, but 1 want to have 
it fully understood.—A. Well, now, I told the other side, and I am go¬ 
ing to tell you what I told the other side. 1 did not go in there with 
these members. I don’t know what they went there for. 

Q. I do not ask you that. I ask you if thaf was not the practice ?— 
A. (), yes; that was the practice. 

Q. Task merely if that was not the practice?—xY. Yes, sir; that was 
the practice, to go there and get vouchers signed. 


110 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. And sometimes outsiders, brokers and others, would advance 
moiiey to pay members, because the members had to have something to 
stav there with, having come from the country, and they could not pay 
their board bills otherwise?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. These members generally came down the first week of the session, 
did they not, pretty poor ?—A. I have said that to the other side. 

(j). 1 know you did. They came from the country pretty poor ?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

(»>. And there Avas a good deal of excitement on both sides at that 
tin e ?—A. There was in the building. I was not around much. 

Q. But there was an efiort to oA^erthrow the Packard government ?—■ 
A. Yes, sir, 

Q. And there was an effort made by the opposition to induce mem* 
bei s to go over to the other house, Avas there not ?—A. Yes, sir : there 
was. 

Q. The other assemblage, as it was called, sat where; where did they 
conA^eue?—A. Which other members? 

Q. The members of the other assemblage, the Nicholls legislature ?— 
A. The Nicholls administration—they were sitting over in Odd Fellows^ 
Hall. 

Q. Did they have a committee appointed—do you know yourself— 
for the purpose of raising money by contribution and deal it out to 
members upon their Amuchers ?—A. I do not know that; I heard so. 

Senator Cameron. Y"ou have testified in regard to all sorts of rumors. 

Q. (By Mr. Kellogg.) Did they not pass a laAv on the A^ery first day 
of their session authorizing the issue of $300,000 of warrants and the 
appointment of a committee of citizens to gather funds, those funds to 
be paid to members to keep them up while that contest was going on?— 
A. Y>s, sir; I think they did. 

Q. The A^ery first act approved by Governor Kicholls, as he is now 
called, whatever he claimed to be then, or the second act, provided, did 
it not, for the issue of $300,000 in that manner ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that was for the purpose of keeping that legislature together, 
was it not ?—A. Y^es, sir; I suppose so. 

Q. Kow 1 want to ask you another Cjuestion on that point. The first 
day of the session was w’hen ?—A. The first Monday in January. 

Q. Did the two houses convene at the State-house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there, to the best of your recollection, a quorum in both 
houses ?—A. The first day of the session ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In both houses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Y"ou were sergeant-at-arms of the house ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Did they transact business ?—A. The first day I do not think they 
did anything much except to organize. 

Q. Who w'aselected speaker?—A. Michael Hahn. 

Q. Who was his competitor ?—A. Warmoth. 

Q. Governor Hahn got the caucus nomination and was elected. Avas 
he not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember what was done on that day ?—A. In caucus? 

Q. No, in the legislature, after the organization, and after Hahn was 
elected speaker. Did they proceed to legislate, to do business as a leg¬ 
islative body ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. You Avere sergeant-at arms ?—A. Yes. 

Senator Hill. The records will show that. 

The AVitness. That is a problem I do not know. They may and they 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 111 

may not. If you get tbe journals the record will show it, and then per¬ 
haps you will have me in another lie. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) I simply wanted to know whetlier they 
remained in session and whether they went on with the semblance of 
business?—A. I will tell you what they done; tliey went on with the 
semblance of business for four months there from that time. 

Q. But during that week who was governor of the State ?—A. Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg. 

Q. 1 am speaking of that week; and I ask you if that first day the 
legislature, the low^er house, of which you say you were sergeant-at-arms, 
did not proceed to do business in the usual manner ? r 

Mr. Merrick. 1 think we had better have the record, Mr. Chairman. 

The Witness. It is not necessary for this, because I will answer. 

Mr. Merrick. Just wait until I speak. I should like to have the 
record. If the party on the other side has that record we might as well 
have it in. 

Senator Ca^ieron. Mr. Kellogg does not ask what wms done; he 
simply asks whether or not the lower house proceeded to do business. 
That I think is competent in any view of the case. 

Mr. Merrick. I withdraw the suggestion. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Since the counsel calls for the record, 
look at that (exhibiting a paper), and see if that is the record for the first 
week.—A. I w ill answer your question. 

Q. Ko ; look at that, and see if it is the record of the first week.—A. 
(Examining the paper.) Yes, sir; this is the record. 

Q. Is not that the w^ay that for years in the legislature they were in 
the habit of printing a book of that kind every week ?—A. Yes, sir; 
every week. 

Q. And then putting them together afterwards?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (Producing a paper.) Bead that official journal of Tuesday; read 
tbe title-page.—A. (Examining.) That is the proper way. They always 
do that every year. 

Q. Just read that.—A. I did. 

Senator Hill. The papers will show for themselves. 

Senator Kellogg. I thought I wmuld refresh the memory of the 
witness regarding two or three matters. (To the w^itness ) You can 
read, can you not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. And write?—A. I do not write very well. 

Q. But you read w ell, do you not ?—A. Tolerably well. 

Q. You recognize this, then, as the official journal of the house during 
the first week ?—A. Yes, sir; it is always printed that way. 

Q. (Presenting a paper.) Look at that, and see if that is the oflicial 
journal of the second week, in the usual form ?--A. (Examining.) That 
is the journal of the second week, in the usual forni. 

Senator Kernan. Are these the originals ? 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir; they are duplicate originals. These are 
certified to and w^ere issued under an act of the general assembly of the 
State for years, making them evidence in any court of law" or elswhere. 
(To the witness.) This, then, is the >ame as the official journal^ we have 
had for sessions, except that it embraces but one week ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) And afterwards they are put together ? 
When two, three, four, or five weeks pass, they are put together and 
then published to the w'orld at the end ot the session ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So that so far as two weeks are concerned there is the record of 


112 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


the lower bouse aiul also here of the senate (producing other papers) ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, then, during that week there was more or less legislation, as 
the journal will show ?—A. I never said there was not legislation. 

Q. No; I simply want to know generally; were you in attendance?— 

Senator Kernan. The witness said they went on for four months. 

Senator Kellogg. I know. He was sergeant-at-arms during all that 
week ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) You were in constant attendence, were you 
not ?—A. Not all the time. Sometimes I was out of town after members 
more or less. 

Q. You were in the habit of running out after members?—A. Yes, 
sir; they were in the habit of running me out after them nearly all the 
time. 

Q. You were in the habit of running out to bj’ingin members to make 
a quorum ?—A. Yes, sir; but I was in attendance all the time for four 
mouths right straight along. 

Q. And that is the way it was the first week ?—A. Yes, sir; that is 
the way it was. 

Q. You say I was governor during that week?—Y'es, sir; you 
were governor. 

Q. Did what was called the Nicholls legislature, that assemblage in 
Odd Fellows’Hall, continue?—A. Yes, sir, I think they continued; I 
am not certain. I never was in the building. I never went up there. 

Q. Do 3 'ou know of any committee coming down from that assem¬ 
blage and waiting upon me the first day of the session?—A. I heard 
something. I do not know anything about it, only what I heard. 

Q. Coming down to be recognized ?—A. I don’t know what their 
business was. 

Q. This hall of the house of representatives where our legislature, 
as it was termed, met was in the State-house ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q, Was the office of the secretary of state there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The senate chamber was there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was the State-house of the State ?—A. Yes, sir; the State-house 
of the State. 

O. All the different office of the State were there ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. The seal of the State ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The archives of the State?—A. Yes, sir; all were there. 

Q. You were in charge of that portion of the State-house used for the 
house of representatives and those rooms belonging to it, so that you 
saw all these offices ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were there committee-rooms all over the building ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Of the two houses ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the auditor’s and treasurer’s offices were there, and the vaults 
of the treasury ?—A. Yes, sir; all were there. 

Q. All the offices of the State and the archives of the State were there 
under that root?—A. Everything was under that roof except the supreme 
court. 

Q. And that was where ?—A. That was in the hands of Nicholls. 

Q. No ; mind what you are saying now. I am speaking of that week 
when I was governor.—A. O, that week it was there, down to the failure. 

Q. I \vant you to be particular in what you state in a good many things 
that I wish to ask you. You must be very particular in answering my 
questions. 1 do not want to mislead you, but I want you to answer.—A. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 113 

If I do not understand your questions, I am not too proud to ask them 
again. 

Q. That is right. The governor’s office in 1877 was there ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Where was the house of representatives ? Was it on the lower 
floor ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. The first floor above the basement?—A. The first floor above the 
basement, the second floor. 

Q. What offices were on the lower floor?—A. The auditor’s office and 
the treasurer’s office. 

Q. Were those all?—A. Yes, sir; I think those were all. 

Q. What were on the second floor ?—A. On the second floor the sec¬ 
retary of state’s office,- the gov^ernor’s office; the superintendent of pub¬ 
lic education and the legislature, the house and the senate. 

Q. Was not the attorney general’s office there?—A. Yes, sir; I be¬ 
lieve the attorney-general’s office was in the State-house at that time. 

Q. Was not the registrar of voters?—A. Yes, sir; but he was not on 
that floor. 

Senator Hill. The witness said everything was in that building but 
the supreme court. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Perhaps there were other offices there ? — 
A. Now, you see you are trying to puzzle me up. You commenced on 
the floors and now you are skipping floors and asking a direct question. 
I do not know what your object is, but that is what you are doing. 

Q. Then, what offices are on the third floor?—A. I just told you that 
the committee-rooms were on the third floor, and the only offices ui) there 
are General Souer’s office and the adjutant-general’s ottice. 

Q. And the committee-rooms ?—A. Well, if you will letmegetthrough; 
you ask me how many offices and then you cut me off. The State regis¬ 
trar’s and the auditor’s office were on the third flooi’. 

Q. Are you through?—A. Yes, sir; I am through giving the offices 
on the third floor. 

Q. Does that embrace the whole building?—A. No, sir; not yet. 

Q. Go on.—A. The State engineer’s office was on the fourth floor at 
that time, and a few of the committee rooms were up there ; the senate 
committee-rooms were on the fourth floor. That embraces the whole 
building. 

Q. Is that all?—A. That answers your question; that is what you 
asked me. 

Q. That is all on the fourth floor ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the last fioor ?—A. Yes, sir; except the militia and troops. 
I have given all the State offices there. 

Q. When was Governor Packard inaugurated ?—A. I think he was 
inaugurated on the 8th ot Januar 3 \ 

Q. The 8th of January?—A. 1 think so. I would not be certain. 

Q. You are right, I think ; was Lieutenant-Governor Antoine inau¬ 
gurated on that day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did the two houses meet in joint session ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A quorum both houses?—A. On that day? 

Q. To count the vote for governor ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q, The second Monday of the session ?—A. Yes, sir; 1 think there 
was a quorum there. 

Q. Were you present on that day ?—A. On the day of inauguration ? 

Q. Yes.—A. 1 was. 

Q. When was the Senator elected?—A. I think the Senator was elected 
8 s K 


114 


SPOFFORIi VS, KELLOGG. 


on the second Tuesday in January; that would make it the 19th of Jan¬ 
uary. 

Q. Was there a joint session on that day?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many men were there present on that day, to the best of your 
knowledge?—A. I will give you that portion of it just as I have got it 
and not as the journal has got it, if you do not catch me on that point. 

Q. K 05 I do not intend to catch you.—A. Well, I see you are trying 
to catch me and I am going to give it to you as 1 have got it. The other 
side are doing the same thing. I have got it down here (drawing a pa¬ 
per from his pocket) and I am going to give it to the committee just 
that way. There was- 

Q. I am not asking you the names or anything the other side asked 
you.—A. You asked me worse than names. You asked me about how 
many members there were, and I am going to give it to you. 

By Mr. Merktck : 

Q. What day does that refer to ?—A. That refers to Tuesday, the 
day of the election of Senator. 

By Senator Kelloggs : 

Q. How many men were present on that day ?—A. I was instructed 
to bring in ten members about half past eleven o’clock to fill that quo¬ 
rum. 

Q. What day was that A. That was on Tuesday, the day that your 
election took place. I went out with a posse of deputy sergeants-at- 
arms, and I got three men. I come back and somebody told me where 
there were two more. I went there and they were gone, but I overtook 
those two on the way back. That made five. I went out for the other 
five, and I went down on Custom House street to get Mr. Barron, I 
think. When I came back they were balloting for Senator. I reported 
to Mr. Vigers, and he told me he had a quorum. 

Q. Who was Mr. Vigors !—A. Mr. Vigers was the assistant clerk. 1 
reported to him that I could not find these men, and he said he had a 
quorum. 

Q. Who were the candidates ?—A. Is that all you want to know on 
that point? 

Q. That is all. Who were the candidates ?—A. The candidates were 
yourself and Governor Warmoth. 

Q. Was Governor Warmoth nominated?—A. I just told you that I 
went after these other five members, and when I came back they were 
balloting. I was not there when the nominations were made. 

Q. I ask you if Governor Warmoth received any votes ?—A. No, sir 5 
I do not know that he received any votes. 

Q. Whom did Governor Warmoth vote for?—A. He voted for you, 
according to my understanding. 

Q. Did every member vote for me?—A. That is what the record shows. 

Q. Well, did they? You were there during the balloting 5 you heard 
it announced ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear any dissenting votes ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you not know the fact to be that they all voted for me ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. So that I was the only candidate and received the unanimous 
vote ? Is that the fact?—A. The only candidate when I came in. 

Q. I mean when the vote was announced, so far as you know, I was 
the only candidate voted for and received all the votes cast ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


115 


Q. That is all I wanted to know. Now will 3*011 not tell the commit¬ 
tee where ]Mr. Packard had his office ? He was gov*eruor when I was 
elected Senator, was he not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I was no longer governor ?—A. lie was governor the day before 
that, I think. 

Q. l^^ow tell me where he had his office ?—A. He had 3*our office. I 
just now explained ; in the left-hand side of the building. 

(,i. I did not OCCUP3’ it after I ceased to be gov'ernor ?—A. Not that I 
know of. 

Q. When 3-011 spoke, as I understood you in your direct testimony, 
of my sending for you and sendingyou to members, you were speaking 
of the time, you said, when i was governor ? That was the tirst week, 
was it not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was not that in reference to the speaker’s vote ? —A. I think it 
was in reference to Michael Hahn’s vote against Warmoth. 

Q. That was the first Monday, the first day of the session ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And before there was a fight between Governor Warmoth and his 
friends and Governor Hahn and his friends which should be speaker, 
which ran through, caucusing and electioneering, a week before the legis¬ 
lature met?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And on the first day there was a ballot resulting in the election of 
Governor Hahn ? Was not that the case ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Audit was during that time you spoke of when I was governor, 
during that week, and in reference to that election for speaker, that I sent 
for members ?—A. Yes, sir; I explained that to the other side. 

Q. I only wanted to make it clear.—A. I explained to the other side 
that it was the week you were governor. 

Q. I wish you would tell the committee what day it was when you saw 
those members, when they told you that they had got some money from 
Mr. Souer.—A. That I do not know. I could not tell that. It would 
take a Philadelphia lawyer to keep all that in his head. 

Q. Was it before or after the election for Senator ?—A. I explained 
that to the other side just now, that, so far as you were concerned about 
the money matters, it was before the election of United States Senator, 
when these men went to Mr. Souer. 

Q. It was before the election of Senator?—A. Yes, sir; so far as 3*011 
were concerned. Now if you ask me the other wa3*, I will answer it. 
The way you ask me I could not answer that way ; I do not know what 
day. 

Q. Then you can say that it was before I was voted for as United 
States Senator, can you not ?—A. What ? 

Q. That this conversation took place with the men.—A. Yes, sir. 
What conversation—about them showing me the mone3’ ? 

Q. Yes.—A. No, sir. 

Q. Please state when it was, for I myself cannot quite understand.— 
A. Well, you are giving it to me, and I am hardly able to understand 
either; we are both just alike. 

Q. I will give yoii all the time you want to get it straight.—A. I am 
already straight. I said to the other side that I saw members have two 
hundred dollars after Mr. Kellogg was elected, and I said that they told 
me they got it for voting for Mr. Kellogg. I did not bring you in that, 
and you keep on trying to make me bring 3^011 right into it directly. 

Q. I do not want to draw myself in improperl3'.—A. You will draw 
yourself in if you keep on ; you have not got very fiir to go. 

Q. What I want to know is. Just as near as you can tell, when it was 


116 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


that you had a conversation with those men.—A. I do not know j some 
time during that four mouths after your election. 

Q. Tell me, if you please, which one it was that told you first, if you 
can remember. Can you remember which one of the three told you that 
first ?—A. Several of them told me that. 

Q. I know; but the three you mentioned that showed the money ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. Mr. Chairman, 1 will correct the gentleman on the 
other side. Tbe witness did not specify three; he said three or five. 

Senator Cameron. He gave the names of three. 

The Witness. I gave the names of three. 

Mr. Merrick. He said there were more. 

Senator Kellogg. I am speaking of those three men. (To the wit¬ 
ness.) You remember those three men ?—A. No, sir ; I don’t remember 
now, but I can bring them to my memory, and I have a good one, and 
may bring some more. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) But give the names of the three.—A. I 
did give them. 

Q. Can you tell me when it was that they said that ?—A. It was some¬ 
where during the mouth of January ; some time during that four months. 

Q. Hid you see Mr. Souer pay them the money ?—A. I did not see 
Mr. Souer iiay them ; no, sir; but I did see Mr. Souer pay money. 

Q. What for*?—A. To members of the legislature. 

Q. Hid you know what it was for?—A. Now you are going too far 
again. I do not know what he paid it to them for, but 1 think he paid 
it to them, so they said, for voting for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Now these three men told you that? What I want to get at, I will 
tell you frankly—A. You will get out too much directly. 

Q. I want to know exactly when it was, if you can tell me. I will not 
press you, but I should like for you to tell me.—A. I had a good deal to 
think of then. I hardly knew when Sunday came. 

Q. But those three members told you that they received money from 
3 Ir. Souer lor voting for me ?—A. Yes, sir; that is what they told me. 

By Senator Yance : 

Q. You saw Mr. Souer pay the money to them ?—A. No, sir; not to 
them. 

By the Chairman : - 

Q. You saw him pay money to some members?—A. Yes, sir; to some 
members. 

Q. Ho you remember the names of those members ?—A. I know them, 
but cannot give the names now. 

Q. How much money did you see them paid ?—A. $150 apiece. 

Q. Not these members ?—A. No, sir; other members. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Ho you remember how many there were of those ?—A. I have 
stated that. 

Q. Let me see if I have got it right.—A. This $150 that these men 
got was after the warrants had been issued, after the legislature war¬ 
rants had been issued. This money I saw paid was after the warrants 
had been issued. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Ho you know whether or not they gave up their warrants to him ?— 
A. That 1 do not know. I am only showing that, because they will 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


117 


come back and annoy me again directly. I am only showing that this, 
was after the warrants had been issued. lie was not governor at that 
time. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. I was not governor ?—A. Ko, sir. I do not know of any money 
being paid while you were governor. 

Q. I was governor for how long before I was elected Senator ?—A. 
Say that again. 

Q. How long wiis I governor before I was elected Senator ? 

Senator Cameron. Tell when Mr. Kellogg went out of office. 

Witness. He went out of office on the 8th of January, I think. 

Q. (By Senator Kello'ig.) And when was I elected Senator?—A. On 
the 9 th, I think. I may be a little mistaken about that, but that is my 
impression. 

Mr. Merrick. I think it was the 10th. 

Senator Kellogg. I think, in justice to the witness, I ought to state 
it so as to have it right. (To the witness.) I will remind you that the 
election for Senator did not take place on Tuesday. It took place on 
Wednesday—the joint session. That would be the 10 th.—A. Well, it 
may have taken place on Wednesda}^. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) That would be two days after I went out 
of the governor’s office ?—A. Yes, .sir. 

Q. I went out of the governor’s office on the 8th, and the election 
was on .Wednesday, the 10 th ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. They voted in the separate houses on Tuesday. 

Senator Kellogg. Certainly; but I refer to the joint convention. I 
intended to direct attention to that. The witness said—unintentionally, 
of course—that it was Tuesday. 

Senator Yance. That shows the impropriety of questioning a witness 
on such a matter when the record is here to speak for itself. 

Senator Cameron. No ; the fact that he was elected is a matter that 
can be proved by parol, without regard to the records. 

Senator Hill. The election undoubtedly was on Tuesday. The wit¬ 
ness is right. 

The Witness. Yes, sir; the convention was held on Tuesday; con¬ 
solidated on Wednesday. 

Senator Kellogg (to the witness). I think I can get this straight, so 
that you will understand it. It does not amount to very much, but 
there was no quorum in the senate, was there, on Tuesday ? There was 
an effort to vote, but there was no quorum in the Senate? 

Senator Kernan. The witness said it was Tuesday, although he 
might be mistaken, he said. 

Senator Kellogg. I want to get the evidence right on that point. 
(To the witness.) During the time I was governor there was no money 
paid that you know of?—A. Not that I know of. Now, I say not that 
I know' of. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Let me see if I have these names right: 
Simmes, of Saint James; w'as that one of them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And ]Magloire, of Avoyelles; was that another?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Bobert Johnson, of Terre Bonne; was that another ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Are tho.se all ?—A. All I think of. 

Q. Did I understand you to say, in your direct examination, that 
there were others who said that they had got money, but you did not 
see the money ! —A. I did not say that I had .seen them get the money. 

Q. You saw' them have the money, I mean.—A. Yes, .sir. 


118 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were there any others than those three that you mentioned 1 —A. 
That I heard say that they got money ! 

Q. Yes; that you can name.—A. I heard nearly all of them say they 
got money. 

^ Q. For what purpose—A. For voting for yon. 

' Q. Can you not name some of them besides those three?—A. Well, I 
have not got the record here; I could not think of the names; but it 
was a current thing around there; current talk. 

Q. Do you say that you can name any of those three ?—A. I say I 
heard them say so. I say I heard this current talk about it, but I did 
not see the money. 

Q. But you heard these three men say they got it ?—A. I saw that 
money. 

Q. And they said they got it from Souer?—A. Y"es, sir. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Give the names, if you please, of some of them who told you that 
they had got money, but who did not show their money to you ?—A. I 
wili tell you I cannot think of their names, but all of them said so, that 
I had conversation with. 

Q. Is that the best answer you can give?—A. No, sir; it is not the 
best answer, but I think it ought to suit. 

Q. It will suit if it is so that you cannot give the names;—A. If it is 
the truth, it will suit. Y'ou cannot come nigher the truth than that. 

Q. So that the truth is that you cannot give the name of anybody.— 
A. I could not think of the names right now. That is what I say. 

Q. I want you to think, if you can. If you cannot, just say so, and 
that is all right. Do you want to leave it that way, that you cannot 
give the names of any who told you they got money for voting for Kel¬ 
logg, but whose money you did not see?—A. I think that is the best 
way to leave it. 

Q. Now as to those three whose names you do remember and whose 
-money you saw; what time in January, as near as you can fix it, was it 
that they told you this?—A. I do not know. I just answered that to 
■Governor Kellogg, that I could not answer that question correctly. 

Q. Y^ou cannot tell when they got it nor when they told you they had 
got it?—A. They had not had it very long when they told me so, be¬ 
cause colored i)eople don’t keep money very long. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did I understand jmu aright to say that the money you saw paid 
to those other men, the $150 apiece, was after tlie warrants were is¬ 
sued ?—A. Yes, sir; after the warrants. 

Q. I did not quite understand why I had the word warrants” down 
here in my notes.—A. It was after the warrants were issued that I saw 
this money paid. 

Q. After the warrants were issued upon vouchers ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Issued by the auditor ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When they got the money did they give up the warrants?—A. 
When who got the money ? 

Q. Were the members in the habit of transferring their warrants?— 
A. I do not know anything about that; 1 do not know that they did 
that, but I said that the warrants had been issued at that time. 

Q. But I Avanted to draw a distinction. The vouchers upon which the 
warrants Avere issued by the auditor are issued at any time, are they 
not, by the chairman of the committee on contingent expenses?—A. 
No, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


119 


Q. When are they issued ?—A. It is customary to issue them at any 
time, but Mr. Souer did not issue them that year until the warrants 
were issued and then he gave the vouchers, and they went down and got 
their warrants. 

Q. When was that ?—A. That was, I think, a few days after you went 
out. 1 might be a little mistaken about that. 

Q. It was therefore the second week ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The law was passed the first week ?—A. Yes, sir. 

C^. It was during the second week ?—A. The law was passed and the 
auditor was not ready ; but as soon as the auditor got ready he issued 
the vouchers. 

Q. And the vouchers were issued some time during the second week ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I was elected on Wednesday of the second week ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. What was the per diem pay of these members ?—A. Eight dollars 
a day. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. What is the mileage and per diem of members of the Louisiana 
legislature ?—A. 1 do not know what the mileage was. 

Q. The per diem is $8 a day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The appropriation was intended to cover the session ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. What is the length of the session ?—A. Sixty days. 

Q. How much per diem would that give each member ?—A. $480. 

Q. Then the mileage would be in addition to that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that they got at once, did they not ? Under the appropria¬ 
tion they would draw the whole in bulk ?—A. I do not know how they 
drew it. 

Q. Was not the practice to give them vouchers and wairants at once ? 
—A. Not for all of it. They generally made two issues, one for mile¬ 
age and the other for per diem. 

Q. The api)iopriation bill passed the first week of the session. They 
would give them all the warrants or vouchers in bulk, one for mileage 
and the other for per diem. They generally iiaid twice, once the mile¬ 
age and the next time the per diem, in two separate issues ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. But they could under the law and the practice was to do so, draw 
their pay in advance. They w^ould draw their pay under the appropri¬ 
ation bill that was passed the first week for the whole session, or until 
there w'as to be another appropriation bill passed ?—A. They might. It 
w’as not customary to do it that way. 

Q. Was it not customary always for the chairman of the contingent 
expenses committee, w’henever an appropriation bill passed, to pay 
members their pro rata of mileage and per diem under the whole ap¬ 
propriation bill!—A. Yes, sirj but not to pay them all atone time. It 
w'as not customary. 

Q. What j)roportion did they pay ?—A. They would generally pay 
'them half. A man would have no money w^hen he came there, and he 
generally got half the first time. 

A. AH the mileage and }ialf of their pay ?—A. Some of them did not 
have any mileage; city members did not. 

Q. But the country members did?—A. Yes, sir; they used to draw 
their mileage or their per diem. 


120 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. That would be $240 apiece?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You testified regarding some men in the custom-house appointed 
by General Badger. Do you remember when General Badger was 
made collector?—A. I stated that I did uot know exactly when. 

Q. Can you tell nearly ?—A. Some time in January, I think. 

Q. 1 do not expect to pin you down ; I just want your best recollec¬ 
tion. It was last winter?—A. Yes, sir; some time last winter. 

Q. Mr. Smith was collector until Mr. Badger went in?—A. Yes,sir. 

Q. Mr. Badger was postmaster, and then went into the position of 
collector, did he not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was not Mr. Badger a favorite among the colored people and 
among the men who were adherents of the Packard government?— 
A. Yes, sir; the colored people liked him very well. 

Q. When he was postmaster he appointed a good many of them, did 
he not?—A. I do not know. I do not know anything about post-office 
matters. 

Q. Do you not know that he appointed several members of the legis¬ 
lature and others who had been prominent?—A. ISTo, sir; 1 never knew 
it;* I did not know he appointed any member of the legislature when 
he ^as postmaster. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Gardere, of the seventh ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he in the post-office?—A. He was there long before Mr. 
Badger was thought of being put in. 

Q. He was continued by Mr. Badger ?—A. He had been there four or 
five years. 

Q. Was Mr. Desloudes (secretary of state under the Packard govern¬ 
ment) in the post-office ?—A. He was not a member of the legislature. 

Q. No; I am speaking of prominent men?—A. Ask me about one 
thing at a time. You are asking me about members of the legislature. 

Q. Was Mr. Guichard clerk of the house?— A. He was not a member 
of the legislature. 

Q. He was clerk of the house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I asked you about Mr. Deslondes, the secretary of state. When 
I say that, of course it precludes the idea that he was a member of the 
legislature.—A. You asked me first about members of the legislature. 

Q. But I asked you about Mr. Deslondes.—A. I answered that. 

Q. Now I ask you about Mr. Guichard, clerk of the house.—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Was he not in there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. After Mr. Badger became collector of the port he was besieged by 
a great many applicants, was he not?—A. I expect so, I do not know. 
It is generally so V7hen a man comes into an office. 

Q. Has it not been the practice of our Federal officers to take care to 
appoint men who were connected with the Packard government and 
who got out of office in consequence of the overthrow of the Packard 
government?—A. Yes, sir; it has become very necessary in the last 
four or five weeks. 

Q. But has it not always been the practice ?—A. No, sir; I seen some 
of the Packard men there very hungry since the Packard government 
fell, and their enemies holding good positions right in their faces. 

Q. You spoke of twenty men having been appointed in the custom¬ 
house ; can you name them ?—A. I told the other side I could not name 
them, that I knew their faces but did not know all their names. 

Q. Can you name ten ?—A. It would take me some time to think of 
them. I suppose I could go to work and name ten, but it would take 
me a good while. If the committee wants to wait, I will commence on 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 121 

them. I am willing to do anything to satisfy this committee and get at 
the truth, and to satisfy both sides, as they expect so much of me. 

Q. Yon spoke of Mr. I)e Lacy making an athdavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I understand you to say that you were present when Mr. De Lacy 
made an affidavit ?—A. You did not understand me to say that I saw 
^Ir. De Lacy make an affidavit. 

Q. Did you see Mr. Swazie make an affidavit ?—A. I never said Mr. 
Swazie made an affidavit. 

Q. I know, but I ask yon, not in reference to anything that yon have 
said, if you know that he made an affidavit ?—A. No, sir ; I never 
saw it. 

Q. When and where did Mr. De Lacy make the affidavit?—A. He 
made it at Mr. Cavanac’s office. 

Q. Do you remember the time when he made it?—A. No, sir; I do 
not remember the day exactly. 

Q. Do yon remember who was present?—A. No, sir; not exactly. I 
was not in the private office when Mr. De Lacy made this affidavit. I 
said that to the other side. 1 said Mr. De Lacy had told me that he had 
dictated and made that affidavit. 1 did not say that I saw him make it. 

Q. Do you know who was present?—A. I said it was in IMr. Oavan- 
ac’s private office. I explained that. 

Q You spoke of conversations coming along on the cars that occurred 
between you and Mr. Lewis. I want to ask you if Mr. Lewis did not 
tell you that he wanted you to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. 
—A. Is that your question ? 

Q. Yes; I only want to ask that question, I thought you left him in 
a false position ?—A. I said that Mr. Lewis asked me to tell nothing 
. but the truth. I said that to the other side, that he told me to say no¬ 
thing but the truth, and to be cautious how I did, or I would get myself 
in trouble, which I thought was very good advice. I said that to the 
other side. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. He also asked you not to go back on the party?—A. Yes, sir; I 
said that on the other side. 

Q. To tell the truth but not to go back on the party. There is a little 
matter I want to have explained here. You said that at this session of 
the legislature of which we have been speaking there were no vouchers 
issued until they were ready to issue the warrants?—A. Yes, sir; there 
was some mistake about the auditor getting the blank. Of course Mr. 
Souer withheld the vouchers on th^^t account, and did not issue them 
until the auditor got ready to issue the warrants. 

Q. Was it not the custom ot the person occupying the chairmanship 
filled by Mr. Souer at otherlegislatures to issuethe vouchers when called 
upon to issue them regardless of the warrants ?—A. That is left to the 
committee on contingent expenses. 

Q. But was it not the custom to let the vouchers issue and let the 
men who had the vouchers get the warrants ?—A. Practice makes cus¬ 
tom. 

Q. But was it not the practice at other legislatures ?—A. Other leg¬ 
islatures might do it and that one might not do it. 

Q. That is true; but did not other legislatures do it ?—A. Sometimes 
they did. 

Q. Was it not the general practice for other legislatures to do it ?— 
A. No, sir. 



122 


SPOPFORD VS. KELLOGG, 
f 

Q. Did other legislatures wait until the warrants were issued before 
the vouchers were issued ?—A. Nearly all the time. 

Q. You have said that they could not draw their per diem at once, 
but that it was divided ?—A. I did not say that they could not do it. I 
said they could do it, but I said it had been customary that they only 
drew half of it on the first payment. 

Q. Did they draw their per diem before they had served during the 
number of days for which they were paid Did they draw their per 
diem in advance ?—A. They may have done that. 

Q. Was it customary to do that ?—A. No, sir; it was not customary 
to draw the per diem in advance. 

Q. But they have done it?—A. Of course. I was only asked what 
was the custom. 

By {Senator Kellogg : 

Q. They could do it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. Pardon me, I do not wish the other side to interpose 
when I am examining the witness. 

Senator Kellogg. I beg your pardon, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. They could do it, but it was not customary to do it ?—A. No, sir; 
it was not customary to do it. 

Q. You said that you saw Souer pay money to two individuals, mem¬ 
bers of the legislature who constituted this body and who voted for Mr. 
Kellogg, and that they told you they got it for voting for Kellogg, did 
you not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To Mr. Kellogg you made that answer ? 

Senator Cameron. "No; he did not state that those whom he saw 
Souer pay the money to said that they got it for that purpose. 

Mr. Merrick. I am very much in error if he did not. 

Senator Cameron. No ; he said three men that told him that, but he 
did not see the money paid to them. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 thank you for the correction. (To the witness.) You 
saw Souer pay money to two individuals?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Did they tell you what that money was paid 
for ?—A. No, sir; not those two. 

Q. Those two did not ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know what it was paid for ?—A. No, sir; 1 could not swear 
what it was paid for. 

Q. Have you any knowledge on the subject?—A. No, sir; only my 
own suspicion. That I do not care to give. 

Q. What was your suspicion founded upon ?—A. Upon rumors. 

Q. What were the rumors you heard?—A. Just rumors about the 
building. 

Q. What was that rumor?—A. That they were getting so much to 
vote for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Were they being paid that day ?—A. There was no pay-day in it. 
I don’t know anything about pay-day. 

Q. Were others being paid that same day ?—A. Not that I know of. 
They might have been. 

Q. Did you hear from anybody that these men had got this money 
for voting for Governor Kellogg ?—A. No, sir; I did not hear from any¬ 
body that those two individuals did. 

Q. Those two particular individuals ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. At what time was it that you saw that money paid by Mr. Souer ?_ 

A. It was two or three o’clock in the evening, I think. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


123 


Q. On what day, do you recollect ?—A. I cannot recollect. 

Q. How loll" w’as it after the election for Senator ?—A. It was some 
time during the month of January, a few days after the election. 

Q. A few days after the election for Senator ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Souer was paying out a gi’eat deal of money to a large number 
of persons a few days after the election of Governor Kellogg ?—A. That 
is what they said he was doing. 

Q. Do you not know, as the sergeant-at arms, and having observance 
over what was transpiring in the building, that that was the fact?—A. 
That he was paying out a good deal of money? 

Q. Yes; that there were a good many fellows going up there for a 
few days to get money, more than had been going before or more than 
went long afterwards?—A. There was a good deal of running up there. 

Q. For a few days?—A. There was a good deal of running up there 
before, too. 

Q. Was not there a great deal more running up there a few days after 
Mr. Kellogg was elected than there was either before or long after ?—A. 
They had a combination, and generally met every day even afterwards, 
and it continued so for some time; a month or so. 

Q. When did that combination first meet ?—A. It met some time in 
December, I believe. It first met directly after the returning-board 
made their returns. 

Q. How many men were in that combination ?—A. I do not know ; a 
good many. 

Q. About how many; fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five?—A. More than 
that, I reckon. 

Q. Thirty?—A. I don't know exactly how many. 

Q. Do you know wliat the combination was for?—A. It was a Souer 
combination. 

Q. It was a Souer combination?—A. That was the Souer combina¬ 
tion. 

Q. What was the Souer combination organized to accomplish ?—A. 
To accomplish the speaker. 

Q. Was there anything else for it to accomplish ?—A. There was a 
Senator to be elected. 

Q. Was not that combination organized to elect that Senator?—A. I 
don’t know about that; 1 could not say. 

Q. Did you ever hear any members of it say that was what it was 
organized for?—A. The combination was organized to elect the officers 
of the house, ailmiuistration officers of the house of representatives; 
that was the combination ; that was what the combination was organ¬ 
ized for; they carried that programme all the way through until they 
got down to me; the administration fought me, and I was elected over 
the administration. 

Q. Y"ou beat the combination?—A. My friends beat the combination, 
I did not beat it; after the combination went to work and nominated a 
a real administration candidate that night afcer they came down stairs, 
they went back and h^id that reconsidered and elected me; the adminis¬ 
tration was opposed to me for sergeant-at-arms. 

Q. Which administration?—A. Mr. Kellogg’s administration. There 
was but one then; Mr. Nicholls had not set up any administration. 
They went back and reconsidered that vote, and elected me. I was the 
only man that the Souer combination did not carry through. 

^ Q. That they did not beat, you mean ?—A. Did not carry through. 
My friends elected me. Whether there was anything about selling in 
that combination or not, I do not know. I never was in the combina- 


124 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


tion. I fixed up the rooms for them and had them attended to, but dur¬ 
ing my election I never went up there at all. 

Q. What rooms did they have ?—A. They had rooms on the second 

floor. ^ a 4 tt n 

Q. A private room devoted to that combination alone ?—A. Hold on 

now ; don’t go so fast; let us take our time about it. They had a room 
left to the superintendent of public education, I think. I think that is 
the room that the Souer combination had, back of the State senate, on 
the second floor. That is the room they had, I am certain of that. 

Q. That was their room ?—A. A^es, sir. 

Q. Nobody else had any business in that room ?—A. I had business 
in that room. 

Q. Of course; you were janitor, sergeant-at-arms of the building; no¬ 
body else but you having control of the building. And the combination 
had the use of the room ?—A. Yes; they were all there; they went to 
their rooms every day. 

Q. Did that combination continue in existence after the election of 
the officers of the house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did they continue to occupy that room ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know anything about their having co operated as a com¬ 
bination in the election of Governor Kellogg ?—A. 1 don’t know any¬ 
thing about what they did so far as United States Senator was con¬ 
cerned. 

Q. Was it the members of that combination particularly that you con¬ 
ducted up to Mr. Souer’s rooms ?—A. While the Senator was governor? 

Q. Yes.—A. Yes, sir, they were generally members of that combina¬ 
tion. 

Q. Was it members of that combination in whose hands you saw the 
money which they told you they had got from Souer for voting for Mr. 
Kellogg!—A. Yes, sir, members of that combination. That was the 
only combination there was in the State-house. 

Q. Was Mr. Kellogg himself a member of that combination and asso¬ 
ciating with them at that time, after this matter of the returning-board 
business! Y^ou spoke of the returning-board, did you not!—A. I did 
not speak of the returning board. I said this combination was formed 
soon after the returning-board completed the returns. 

Q. At the time that you saw Mr. Souer pay those men $150 apiece, 
was it not !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see those men assigning any warrant to Mr. Souer!—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Did he give them any paper ?—A. No, sir, I didn’t see any pass. 

Q. My attention was diverted for a moment when you answered that; 
I did not hear it—A. They may have done it; I did not see it. The 
warrants had been issued at that time. 

Q. I know. You volunteered that statement to Mr. Kellogg. He did 
not ask you.—A. No, he asked me that. 

Q. You volunteered it first.—A. Did I ! 

Senator Cameron. The witness was having a private conversation 
with the chairman, and I thought it ought to go in with the rest of the 
statement. It was not in response to Mr. Kellogg at all. 

Mr. Merrick. I did not mean to cast any reflection on the witness, 
but I understood him subsequently to say to Mr. Kellogg that he had 
given him that for his benefit, that he might mnke the best of it he 
could ; but it is not material. (To the witness.) They may have given 
him a paper, but you did not see any paper given ? —A. No, sir, I did 
not see any paper. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG, 125 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Was there anything said when Souer handed 
them this money A. Nothing was said that I heard. 

Q. Were you close enough to hear when the monej’ was handed to 
them by Souer ?—A. The way I came to see these two men get the 
money- 

Q. That is it; now tell it, whatever it is.—A. The warrants had been 
issued. My office had been running at very heavy expense, and the 
people had shut down on me and 1 could not get anything. 1 had busi¬ 
ness in Mr. Souer\s office that evening, and I went up to see him. I 
took the bunch of keys out and went in, and he was paying these two 
men that money. That was the way. 

Q. You took out a bunch of keys and went in. Was his room-door 
locked ?—A. Ilis room had been always locked. 

Q. When he was in?—A. Yes, sir; all the doors had locks like that 
[pointing to a door of the committee-room], but 1 had a pass-key to all 
the doors. 

Q. Was his room-door locked and he locked up in there with these 
two men, and did you have to i)ut your key in the lock to get in ?— A. 
Don’t go so fast; you see there were a good many people there in the 
building. I had to keep latches on all the doors and had to keep them 
all locked at all times. There could not have been any suspicion made 
of that, because I had to be in the room and its doors were always shut 
and nobody went in there but the proprietors and me. I went to see 
Mr. Souer, and I took the key out and walked into the room the same as 
turning the knob. 

Q. The door might be latched. Did you have such a latch as that on 
Mr. Souer’s door [indicating a door of the committee-room.j ?—A. Just 
the same. 

Q. But it is not locked now; it is open.—A. Yes, sir; this committee 
is in session. 

Q. When you went to Mr. Souer you found the door locked and used 
your key to get in ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you went in did you walk up to wiiere Mr. Souer was stand¬ 
ing or sitting ?—A. Mr. Souer was sitting at his desk. 

Q. Uow far was his desk from the door ?—A. As far as from me to 
you. 

Q. About three yards, or two and a half yards ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were all three standing together when you went in?—A. They 
were like two gentlemen standing around a desk and he sitting down 
talking to them. 

Q. What did you hear said after you entered the room ?—A. I heard 
nothing said ; 1 told the general I wanted to see him. He said, “ That’s 
all right, boys,” and they went out. 

Q. You heard nothing said, except you said, “General, I want to see 
vou”?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he said to them, “That’s all right, boys,” and they went out? 
—A. Yes, sir; they went out. 

Q. Did he hand the money to them at the time he said, “That’s all 
right, boys” ?—A. He paid them the money just as I went in. 

Q. And after you got in you said to him, “General, I want to see you,” 
and he turned to the men and said, “Boys, that’s all right,” and they 
went out?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is all there was of it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have spoken in your cross-examination about the value of the 
warrants, and vou have stated that the vouchers or the warrants of the 



126 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


legislature, or this committee of the legislature, could at other legisla¬ 
tures be sold ?—A. Yes, sir; I said that. 

Q. I understood you to state on your cross examination that the war¬ 
rants issued to members upon vouchers for their services were securities 
that sold readily during the session of other legislatures than the legis¬ 
lature that elected Kellogg !—A. That is right; I said that. 

Q. They were regarded as very good paper in the market ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. I also understood you to say that neither the vouchers nor the 
warrants issued for the services of the members of the legislature that 
elected Kellogg could be sold for anything in the market. Did you say 
that ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is right!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Kellogg asked you whether or not if a person believed that 
the Packard government would be maintained he would not regard those 
warrants as of some value.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it not a fact that the apprehension in regard to the condition 
of the government under that administration was so universal and so 
general that nobody that you knew would take these warrants for any¬ 
thing!—A. Yes, sir; that was the cause of it. 

Q. Did any outside party or broker, that you know of, ever advance 
anything at all upon those warrants of that legislature !—A. I under¬ 
stood that Mr. Bray, who is a broker there now, and was a broker at 
that time, was advancing to members some money on their warrants. 

Q. He advanced money on the warrants!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But did not buy them !—A. He did not buy them. 

Q. Do you know how much he advanced ; what percentage !—A. I 
heard at one time that he wa.s adv^ancing ten per cent. 

Q. Ten per cent, upon the warrants and the vouchers !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that was the highest advance 3 ’ou heard anything of!—A. I 
think during the legislature there one time they went up a little higher 
than that for one day. 

Q. How high do you remember they went!—A. They went up to 
30 cents, I think. 

Q. From 10 to about 30 in one day, and the next day tumbled back to 
10 !—A. They never were down to 10. They never were worth any¬ 
thing. They went on the market one day and were worth 30 cents. 
After that they went right down again in the market. 

Q. Then the first day the warrants were issued and went on the mar¬ 
ket they were worth 30 cents !—A. They never went on the market. I 
did not say they went on the market. , 

Q. Then I misunderstood you.—A. 1 said the warrants at one time 
during the four months went up to about 30 cents. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. In one day !—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. And then fell back to nothing !—A. Wait; I can’t answer when 
two of us are talking. 

Q. That is true. I accept the criticism, and you have a right to talk 
when you are asked a question, until the question is answered.—A. Are 
you through ! 

Q. I am through.—A. Kow let me get through. The warrants, I 
think, the day after Mr. Hayes was inaugurated were 30 cents. I think 
it was either that day or the day before the commission declared the 
election that they went up to 30 cents, and the next day they went down 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


127 


to notliiiig. You could not get a thing for them. That was the only 
time there was any value in them during the session. Nobody did sell 
because everybody thought that the thing would turn out all right. I 
am answering the question. You asked me did I ever know any brokers. 
The brokers did offer on that day 30 cents. A broker came into my 
office and offered me 30 cents. 

Q. That was one day ?—A. That was one day. 

Q. That was the 5th of March ?—A. I cannot say exactly; either the 
day after the commission declared Hayes elected or the dav after he was 
inaugurated. 

Q. One or the other ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Bailey: 

Q. You say that the brokers advanced to the members upon the se¬ 
curity of the warrants 10 cents to the dollar ?—A. One broker. I am 
not positive. 

Q. You were speaking a little while ago about the value of the war¬ 
rants?—A. I was speaking first that they got 10 per cent. Then I was 
speaking about the Packard warrants that went up but once during the 
four months.' 

By Senator Kernan: 

Q. No one sold ?—A. No, sir; no one sold that I know of. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. They went up from nothing to 30 cents one day, and then fell back 
where they started from, namely, to nothing ?—A. Yes, sir; there was 
no demand for them except that day. 

Q. Is there any law of that legislature at present in force in Louisi¬ 
ana that you know of?—A. Which legislature? 

Q. The legislature which elected Mr. Kellogg to the Senate.—A. That 
I know of? 

Q. Yes.—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cameron. Be careful, Murray; they will have you arrested 
for peijury if you are not careful. 

The Witness. I am going to be careful. 

Senator Hill. No, sir; never fear that. 

Senator Cameron (to Senator Hill). I did not speak of you. I did 
not suppose you were connected with the matter. 

The Witness. I am not going to tell anything but the truth. 

Mr. Merrick. I can say with Senator Hill that I do not think any¬ 
body will ever undertake to arrest this man for perjury. 

The Witness. He asked if there was any act in force passed in that 
legislature, and I told him yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Was there any volume of laws, that you know 
of, that is in force now ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What is the act referred to that is in force now?—A. Mr. Kellogg 
is in the United States Senate. 

Mr. Merric K. I shall certainly not want to arrest him. 

Senator Vance. If you do, I will go his bail. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Murray, is not that the only single act that 
that legislature ever did that is now in active operation?—A. That is 
the only one. 

Q. JMr. Kellogg asked you something about how many men were 
present on the day of the election of Senator; do you know how many 
men were present ?—A. I answered that. 

Q. Well, I am going to ask it over again. Do you know how many 



128 


SPOFFOKD VS, KELLOGG. 


meu were present in that joint convention on the day he was elected 
Senator?—A. I will answer that like I answered it for Mr. Kellogg. I 
was not there when that ballot commenced. I said that to Mr. Kel¬ 
logg. 

Q. I understood you to say you were out to bring in absent members 
and when you returned you found them balloting.—A. I had instruc¬ 
tions to get ten members to complete the quorum. I want to give you 
the same I gave him. 

Q. Just go on and tell about it.—A. But you will have me on the 
stand to-morrow and then you will have me down in the District of 
Columbia jail and I want to be careful about it. I got five members. 
I got three first. I went out to get two more, and while I was coming 
back I overtook them and I went into the house and they were ballot¬ 
ing. I went again to Custom House street for five members, and when 
I came back they were balloting. I made the report to the clerk, and 
he told me they had a quorum. I am answering this just as I answered 
to Mr. Kellogg, because you will both have me again on the same point 
and every time you get at me you will get the same. When 1 came 
back the clerk told me he had a quorum, and I did not bring in all those 
five members he had given me instructious to get. [Referring to a 
memorandum.] When the vote was announced they announced 83 
votes. 

Q. You have not answered my question yet.—A. I told you I would 
answer you just like I answered for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Let us see if you can come any nearer to it. Do you know how 
many members of the legislature, including the house and senate, were 
present in that joint convention when the ballot was taken !—A. I can¬ 
not answer. 

Q. Do you know or do you not know? Kow I am cross-examining 
you on Mr. Kellogg’s examination.—A. I told Mr. Kellogg I did not 
know. 

Q. Did you say you did not know ?—A. No j I did not say I did not 
know. I answered you just the same. 

Q. Now I want to get at something further. I observe that he stopped 
there, and 1 want to follow up what he omitted to pursue. Do you know 
or do you not know how many members of the legislature, including the 
house and senate, were present in that joint convention at the time the 
ballot was taken for United States Senator that resulted in the alleged 
election of Mr. Kellogg?—A. The journal shows a quorum. 

Q. I am not asking you what the journal shows; I am asking you 
whether you do know or whether you do not know how many members 
of the legislature were there at that time, in fact, without regard to the 
journal?—A. I cannot answer. 

Q. Can you not say whether you do know or whether you do not 
know ?—A. I tell you that I cannot answer. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Why can you not answer ?—A. According to what my father told 
me the last time I seen him, ‘‘ Don’t never put your arm where vou can’t 
get it out.” 

Q. Is it because you do not know ?—A. I just now told them there 
were five members 1 did not bring in. I answered to the question for 
Governor Kellogg just like I answer him [pointing to Mr. Merrick] 
There were five members that they sent me to bring in to compel a 
quorum, and when the vote was announced there were eightv-three 
members. " 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


129 


Q. Who were those men !—A. That is the reason I do not want to 
answer, because I have not the names on my mind. If I had their names 
on my mind 1 would answer. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q- Were those five out of the eighty-three ?—A. There were ten men 
to be brought in to compel a quorum. 1 got five and went back. 

Q. Eighty-three without those five ?—A. Sixty-six members, the clerk 
tohl me they had, and seventeen senators. 

Q. The clerk told you that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q Did he include in that number the five you did not get?—A. 1 iu- 
clinled them myself to make it. 

Q. To make eighty-three ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It took those five to make up the eighty-three ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But you did not get them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. They were not there then ?—A. No, sir ^ not to my knowledge. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You did not get the five, and they were not there ?—A. I said I 
did not get them. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you say they were not there ?—A. I said I did not bring them 
there. 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. I ask you if they were there ?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You knew, then, their names and you knew their faces?—A. They 
were calling the roll when I came there. 

Q. Did you go in and move around and talk to the members ?—A. No, 
sir; I went back to my olfice. 

Q. Did you go into the joint convention at all?—A. I went in and 
made my report to the speaker, to the chief clerk, and went back to my 
office. 

Q. Did you ever see any of those five men afterwards ?— A. O, yes, 
sir; I have seen them afterwards. 

Q. Did they not tell you, some of them, that they were not there ?—A. 
They might have told me that. 

Q. Now you come back to “ might ^ again. What is the best of your 
recollection as to what they did tell you ?—A. They might have told me 
a good many things. 

Q. That is very true, but I do not want a good many things.—A. I 
know you do not. 

Q. i want a particular thing. What did they tell you about their be¬ 
ing there or not being there at the time of the ballot for Kellogg?—A. 
I cannot answer that. 

Q. Why can you not answer it ?—A. Because I want to hear some of 
the witnesses here before I answer that question. Let them come and 
tell the truth like I tell it, and then I will answer it. I cannot answer 
it; that is my reason for not answering it now. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I understand you to say that it took the five men that you went 
for and did not get to make the eighty-three?—A. That is what the 
clerk told me when I went out. 

Q. You did not see any of them there when you returned ?—xV, No, 

9 S K 


130 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


sir; they were calling tbe roll. I said, ‘‘Have you a quorum?” H& 
said, “ I have a quorum ; ” and I went back to my office and I did not 
see any of those men when I went out. 

Mr. Merrick. Hold up your head and answer so we can all hear. 

The Witness. I did not come here to tell any lie to this committee 
or anybody else, and want them to know that I am not ashamed. If I 
hold my head down in talking I am not ashamed to testify. You want 
me to answer this point, and I do not want to answer it, and I have 
reasons for it, and my reasons are good. There are other witnesses. Let 
them come here and tell the truth. I do not want to get caught with 
a lie in my mouth. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 do not think there is any danger to anybody who 
tells the truth. 

The Witness. I do not think so either. I always found the truth to 
be the best way. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Do you know Thomas, of Bossier ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was a member of that legislature?—A. I did know him. 

Q. Was Thomas, a member from Bossier, present in that joint conven¬ 
tion ?—A. The journal shows that he was. 

Q. What do Murray’s head and recollection tell ? I do not want what 
the journal shows.—A. He was home sick, on Perdido street. 

Q. Then he was not there ? The journal shows that he was there, but 
he was not there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he one of the five that you went to bring ?—A. I am not sure 
on that point. 

Q. Pardon me; I thought you were.—A. Now there will be a hundred men 
to break down my evidence on thatpoint,toshow thathewas there, you un¬ 
derstand. I tried hard to get the doctors certificate before I left the ^tate to 
show to this committee. Everything on God’s earth has been done; my 
whole reputation as a gentleman has been at stake for the past six weeks 
on that very point in New Orleans, in my own State. My official record 
has been raked from top to stern to get up something on me to bring 
before this committee to break my evidence down. I have held several 
little positions down there. I was street commissioner there for four 
years. Everything has been searched over even to see if I sold a load 
of dirt to bring it before this committee. 1 was a member of the legis- 
ture two years, and I was sergeant-at-arms, and held various positions, 
and it has all been passed over. 1 was discharged out of the mint be¬ 
cause somebody did not like me down there, and they have brought up 
a charge on me and they have got that on the way here. I stood two 
examinations, one before Governor Hahn and one before Governor 
Burton, and was acquitted both times; and they have those papers to 
bring before this committee against me. I could not get the doctor’s 
certificate to prove that on that day Thomas was sick ; but I went to see 
him that day myself. There is going to be a hundred witnesses here to 
swear that they saw him there. I want to tell the committee that my 
whole reputation will be at stake on this thing, and they are going try 
very hard to break me down. I thought both sides had better let it go. 

I hated to see Governor Kellogg go into that portion of it, but I have 
got to tell the truth, and I will tell it, if 1 am murdered going out of this 
town. I have made up my mind to do it. 

Q. Tell it—A. What may come will come. Mr. Thomas was home 
sick in his bed, and when the time comes I will show that he was home 
sick in bed. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I3I 


By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Was be one of those five ?—A. He was one of the five. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Did you go to his house that day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. How long was the time between your going to his house and the 
time when the voting took place?—A. I went to his house about half 
past seven in the morning. 

Q. At what time did the voting take place ?—A. At 12 o^clock. 

Q. Y^ou saw him in bed ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you that he was sick and unable to go?—A. I know he 
was sick. He had the small pox, and died too. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. From that sickness?—A. He got well and came down to our legis¬ 
lature during the session j he got up again, but he caught cold from it 
and died from the efiects of it anyway afterwards. He died somewhere 
a few days after the JS’icholls government was set up, I believe. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Do you know that he was not in the legislature that day voting, 
the day Governor Kellogg was elected ?—xV. 1 am swearing that he was 
not there. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Was he not personated by a man who was not a member?—A. 
That is another point 1 am not ready for you to take. My reputation is 
at stake on that too. 

Senator Hill. Just tell the truth, Murray. 

The Witness. I am not able to tell it yet. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) I have an affidavit here of a man by the name 
of Watson (producing paper). A. He has got them out by the wholesale. 
Y^ou see that is the reason I am not ready to tell that, I understood 
there were some on the other side too. That is the reason I am not 
ready to give it, I am not willing to put my reputation at stake for 
nobody. I want to be on the safe side when this thing is all through, 
and they will say, “ Well, he is a pretty darned sensible fellow.’^ 

Q. I will withdraw the question for the present. You say he was 
home sick with the small-pox. Was Seveigues, a representative from 
La Fourche, present?—A. I refuse to answer on that point. 

Q. Did he ever tell you that he was not present ?—A. I refuse to 
answer on that point. 

Q. Do you know his handwriting when you see it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (Presenting a paper.) Is that in his handwriting?—A. (Examin¬ 
ing.) Yes, sir ; that is his own signature. 

Q. Is the body of the paper in his writing?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Kead it. 

Mr. Shellararger. What is this ? 

]\Ir. iVlERRiCK. This is a declaration from a man by the name of 
Seveignes. 

The Witness. I refuse to - 

Mr. Shellararger. Wait a moment. Do you propose to give that 
in evidence ? • 

Mr. Merrick. I ask the witness if Seveignes had ever told him that 
he was not present at that time. 


132 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


Mr. Shellabaeger. I ask if you propose to put that paper in evi¬ 
dence? ... 

Mr. Merrick. I hand the witness a paper which he identities as m 
Seveignes’s handwriting, both the body and the signature. 

The Witness. Yes, but I say I will not testify anything on that paper. 

Mr. Shellabaeger. 1 want to know whether you offer the paper in 
evidence ? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir; I offer it in evidence as a declaration of 
Seveignes by putting it in the hands of the witness and asking him to 
read it and state whether it is Seveignes’s paper or not. 

The Witness. That is Mr. Seveignes’s paper. 

Mr. Shellabaeger. Just wait. 1 want the committee to rule whether 
that is competent testimony. 

Mr. Merrick. I will withdraw it for the present. (To the witness.) 
Do you know anything about that paper?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) What did Seveignes tell you about that paper? 

Mr. Shellabaeger. Is that any better ? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

The Witness. I refuse to answer on that point. 

Mr. Merrick. I must have an answer on it. 

Mr. Shellabaeger. If that comes within the ruling of the com¬ 
mittee, I simply want it understood that it is competent evidence to 
state what Seveignes told him. 

Mr. Merrick. I think it is within the ruling of the committee for 
him to state what Seveignes told him. I ask that the witness shall 
state what Seveignes told him about the paper which I have shown to 
the witness, and which the witness has identified as in Seveignes’ hand¬ 
writing. 

Senator Bailey. How can we know that this is pertinent to the issue 
until the paper itself is read to the committee ? 

Mr. Merrick. I will read the paper. I will not offer it in evidence, 
but read the paper to show that the question I propound in reference to 
conversations relating to it is a legitimate question. 

Senator Bailey. Can the paper be read without being put in evi¬ 
dence? 

Mr. Merrick. I suppose for the purpose of showing what the witness 
said about it it may be read to the committee. 

» The Chairman. It ought not to go down on the record. 

Mr. Merrick. No ; it need not go on the record. I propose to read 
the paper to the committee, not as evidence at present, but for the pur¬ 
pose of showing that my inquiries as to what Seveignes said about the 
paper are legitimate inquiries to bring out legitimate evidence in the 
case. 

The Chairman. I suppose the counsel can read it just as a court can 
examine a paper and look at it. 

Mr. Merrick. That is all I ask to do. 

Mr. Shellabarger. There is no objection to that. 

Mr. Merrick read the paper, and then put the question. 

Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Seveignes about this paper, 
and what did Seveignes say to you about it? 

Mr. Shellabaeger. That is objected to, of course, subject to the 
order of the committee. Seveignes is here a witness subpoenaed by Mr. 
Spoffbrd. Now they propose not to call him, for the present at any rate, 
but to prove what he has been saying. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Merrick). The committee would rather you 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 133 

sbouUl waive this question at present and they will hold a private con¬ 
sultation upon it. 

Senator Kernan. We understand that you want to prove what this 
gentleman said as to whether he was the author or not. 

Mr. Merrick. I want to prove what he said in relation to this paper. 
The substance of this paper I have read, and I want to lay a founda¬ 
tion for the possible introduction of the paper. 

Senator Kernan. But I do not see how it is evidence at all, unless 
the author comes on the stand and swears about something, and then 
you can introduce it to impeach and contradict him. 

Mr. Merrick. Then I will withdraw the question. 

Senator Cameron. Has not similar evidence been submitted in refer¬ 
ence to another affidavit made by another person ? 

Senator Hill. If the question is reserved it is not necessary to dis¬ 
cuss it now. 

Senator Kernan. I think we had better reserve it. 

Senator Cameron. I have no interest in it, as the chairman has not 
seen fit to consult us. We have no interest in regard to it. 

The Chairman. The chairman has consulted with no person about 
it. I went there [pointing to the seats occupied by Senator Hill and 
Senator Kernan] to suggest my view to those gentlemen that we had 
better reserve this question. 

Senator Hill. He did not consult me. 

The Chairman. The chair is not compelled to go around and consult 
other gentlemen. One member of the committee has just the same 
right to express his opinion as any other member of the committee. 

Senator Cameron. But the chairman comes to a conclusion without 
allowing that to be done. 

Senator Kernan. I announced my impression and consulted nobody. 

Senator Cameron. Not until the chairman announced his. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Cameron). Do you object to reserving the 
question ? 

Senator Cameron. 1 do not object. 

The Chairman. 1 do not feel that the criticism of my brother Senator 
is either just to me or just to what every member of this committee 
must have seen. His objection is that I di(i not consult him. 

Senator Cameron. I do not make the objection ; I simply state the 
fact. 

The Chairman. I simply made the suggestion to brothers Hill and 
Kernan that 1 thought we had better reserve tliis until we could have a 
jirivate consultation of the committee. When gentlemen of the com¬ 
mittee see proper I hope they will not hesitate to interpose any objection 
they have to anything, but I hope they will not expect me to go around 
from chair to chair to ascertain what is the wish and will of every 
member. 

Senator Cameron. We saw the chairman start, and supposed he would 
go around when he did start. 

Senator Hill. I object to this ; it is all out of place. 

Senator Cameron. I do not think it is. 

Senator Bailey. Nothing has been determined except the chairman 
of the committee has suggested that the question be withdrawn until 
the committee itself, including the Senator from Wisconsin, can be con¬ 
sulted. I imagine no discourtesy is shown to him in the chairman asking 
or suggesting that the Senator shall be consulted. 

The Chairman. It was for the very purpose of getting consultation 
from the committee that I made the suggestion. 


134 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG, 


Senator Bailey. The very thing that the chairman seems to desire is 
tlie very thing the Senator desires. 

The Chairman. It is utterly impossible to consult with each member 
of the committee without first having the room cleared, when we can 
consult as a body. I simply made a suggestion to several gentlemen to 
see if it met their views. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick). Did Mr. Seveignes say anything to you about 
being present or not being present at that joint convention when Mr. 
Kellogg was declared elected to the Senate^ 

Mr. Shellabarger. That, I think, comes within the question that 
has just been ruled as one to be reserved for consultation in committee. 
At any rate I want to make the objection and have it go on the record 
that that is attempting to give in evidence the declarations ot a witness 
now under subpoena on behalf of Mr. Spotford, and who is present, and 
who is not yet called. 

Mr. Merrick. That question 1 understood the committee have already 
ruled. The other question was in reference to the paper written by Se¬ 
veignes and what he said about the paper. 

Senator Cameron. I wish to give notice here that I shall move to 
strike out the testimony of this witness in regard to what De Lacy said 
to him in reference to the affidavit that it was said he, De Lacy, made. 

Senator Hill. That was brought out by both sides. The Senator 
may give notice, and he can make the motion at any time. 

Senator Cameron. I am aware of that, and I will give notice now if 
I choose, and I have given notice. 

Mr. Merrick. Shall 1 put the question to the witness ? 

The Chairman. What is the question ? 

Mr. Merrick. The question is whether Seveignes said anything to 
him about being present or not present at the joint convention which 
declared Mr. Kellogg elected to the United States Senate. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cameron, you have heard the question j what is 
your opinion 

Senator Cameron. I object. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ingalls, what is your opinion ? 

Senator Cameron. I want to make a remark right here. The com¬ 
mittee, as I understand it, has not yet determined that it will hear any 
evidence except the evidence in regard to bribery or corruption upon 
the part of Kellogg or those who acted for him or in his interest. The 
Senate has already determined that the legislature by which Kellogg 
was elected was the lawful legislature of the State of Louisiana, and 
that a legal quorum was present at the time he was elected. I want the 
committee to determine now whether they pro])Ose to go into the ques¬ 
tion as to whether that was the legal legislature or not, and as to whether 
a quorum was present or not at the time of the election or the alleged 
election of Kellogg. 

The Chairman. So far as the committee has determined the extent 
to which the inquiry should go, I am not aware that there was any such 
conclusion. We addressed to Mr. Spofford and to Mr. Kellogg a com¬ 
munication. We passed a resolution calling upon them to specify the 
points upon which they desired to take testimony and about the num¬ 
ber of witnesses that they would require to sustain each point. To that 
resolution, which was inclosed to each of them, Mr. Spofford, or his 
counsel, made reply, giving the points on which he proposed to take 
testimony and which is on the files of the committee. They were four 
in number, suggesting that the inquiry first be made upon one particu¬ 
lar point. I am not aware that the committee have ever passed upon 


SPCFiTORD VS. KELLOGG. 


135 


t\re fiuestion as to whether they would examine as to all four of the 
points specified, or whether they would limit it to one particular point. 
Mr. Kellogg, in reply to that resolution, specified (acting upon the de¬ 
fensive, the committee could readily see) that it was impossible for him 
to indicate the number of witnesses that he might want until the testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Spofford was in. It was after the replies of those gentle¬ 
men that the committee came to the conclusion to take any evidence in 
Washington, because, as is known to some of the members of the com¬ 
mittee at least, my own opinion individually was that if we had to go 
into a very extended examination, an investigation here at all was an 
improper thing to undertake; but as Mr. Kellogg had declined to indi¬ 
cate any number of witnesses that he would want and Mr. Spoftord had 
indicated that he w^ould not want exceeding fifteen, we determined (as 
we could not get anything from Mr. Kellogg upon tliat point until after 
the testimony of ^Ir. Spotford was in) that we would start the investi¬ 
gation, intending, as I understood at the time, to limit the inquiry here 
to a small number of witnesses, so that if further investigation was to 
be had it should be made in the city of Kew Orleans at less expense to 
the government. But I am not aware that the committee have deter¬ 
mined either the extent to which they will carry the inquiry or the par¬ 
ticular points that they will examine into. If my brother Cameron has 
so understood the action of the committee, it is different from my own 
understanding. 

Senator Cameron. I did not state that the committee had determined 
that. 

The Chairman. I thought you had. 

Senator Cameron. I did not. 

Senator Vance. I want to call attention to the fact that, according to 
my recollection, this whole matter of the legality of the legislature and 
whether there were members present to form aquorum, &c., was brought 
out by Mr. Kellogg himself in cross examination. 

Mr. Merrick. Of course it was. 

Senator Vance. So much so that I was at the point of interfering 
and asking that the inquiry be confined to its proper limits at this stage 
of the investigation. 

The Chairman. While the parties are represented here by very able 
counsel, I have thought that it would not be iucumbeut on me to inter¬ 
pose an objection to anything in the absence of any objection on their 
part. 

Senator Cameron. I shall consider myself at liberty to interpose an 
objection whenever I think one ought to be interposed, whether the 
counsel interpose it or not. What I desired to know is, whether or not 
the committee is going into an investigation of those questions which 
the Senate has determined. 

The Chairman. That would be a matter, I suppose, to be determined 
in the private consultation of the committee. 

Senator IIiLL. Mr. Chairman, allow me to say one thing. I think 
the point made by Judge Shellabarger is a very correct one, and that 
is that the question last propounded by Mr. Merrick is the same that 
this committee has reserved for consideration. 

Mr. Merrick. I withdraw the question for the present, awaiting the 
decision of the committee upon the result. 

The Chairman. Then let counsel proceed with the examination of the 
witness. 


136 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. This man Seveignes, you say, was not there at the time of ballot 
ing for Senator?—A. I refuse to auswer all the questions on that point 

Senator Cameron. He has not answered anything about Seveignes. 
He declines to answer as present. 

Senator Hill. He answered about Thomas. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I will come to Thomas, then. (To the witness.) 
Is Thomas a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) What district did he represent ? Where 
was he from ?—A. From Bossier, I think. 

Q. What was his first name?—A. I disremember right now. 

Q. Is his first name Jules—Jules Thomas ?—A. I think his name waa 
Sam. I would not be certain, but I think it was Sam Thomas. 

Q. He represented Bossier, you think?—A. Yes, sir.. 

Q. What time of the day did you see him on the 10th of January ?— 
A. I saw him in the morning. I did not see him in the day at all. 

Q. What time in the morning?—A. Between 7 and 8 o’clock ; I would 
not be certain ; it was in the morning. 

Q. Was he in bed when you saw him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you see him next ?—A. I saw him two or three days 
after that. 

Q. Where?—A. At his room. 

Q. Did you see him when he went into the legislature afterwards?— 
A. After he got well ? 

Q. After you saw him sick ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long was it before he appeared in the legislature after the 
voting day on Senator?—A. I disremember. 

Q. About how long ?—A. I cannot recollect. 

Q. Can you come within ten days of it?—A. I expect I could come 
within ten days of it. 

Q. AVas it within ten days after ?—A. It might have been. 

Q. Is that as definite as you can be about that?—A. The way you 
put the question it is. 

Q. Are you positive that he was not there at the time of the ballot¬ 
ing ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How do you know that?—A. I had left him home. 

Q. You got there. If he was able to go he had time to get there, be¬ 
cause you got there before the voting was done, after you left him?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The only reason why you say he was not there then is because 
you left him sick in bed, and you thought that he was not able to go ?— 
A. He said that he was not able to go. 

Q. Is now your declaration that he was not there based alone upon 
the fact that you saw him sick in bed?—A. No, sir; that is not ex¬ 
actly it. 

Q. What else makes you say he was not there ?—A. I am not ready 
to give the balance of it yet. 

Q. Sir ?—A. I am not ready to give the balance of the declaration. 

Q. Do you mean by that you are not willing to give the rest of the 
reasons for saying he was not there ?—A. I say he was not there because 
I left him home. To the best of my belief, I do not believe he was 
there. I will answer that way. Does that suit you ? 

Q. Anything will suit me that suits you. I want you to answer my 
question.—A. Will not that be an answer ? 

Q. I want to know whether there is any other reason than the fact that 
he ^vas sick as you saw him that makes you say that he was not there 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


137 


at the time of balloting.—A. 1 am not ready to make my declaration 
on that point yet. I do not think you ought to try to draw it out of me 
when I would not answer it for the parties that subpcenaed me. If you 
want it answered, just come again and I am going to give it to you. 

Q. Very well; I want you to state positively whether he was there or 
not, if you can state it positively ; and, if not, state it just as you want 
to state it.—A. No, sir; he was not there. 

Q. He was not there I —A. No, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. I call the counsel’s attention to the fact that the wit¬ 
ness told him if he would repeat his (piestiou he would give his reasons 
for saying he was not there. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Very well; I want to have that. I have asked 
two or three times for that. 

The Witness. Are you ready for it ? If you is, you are going to get 
it. You will draw these things out. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) I have asked you, sir.—A. Well, Mr. 
Watson told me. 

Q. I do not wmnt any hearsay; I want your knowledge.—A. I told 
you I was not ready to make that declaration, but you kept on pulling 
me out on it. 

Mr. Merrick. I submit to the committee that counsel having asked 
the witness for his reason he can state the declaration of the third party 
as constituting part of his reason. Though the declaration of a third 
l)arty may not be evidence of the fact to which the declaration is made, 
yet it may constitute a legitimate answer when made in reply to a ques¬ 
tion, What were your reasons for such and such a thing ? 

]Mr. Shellabarger. My friend is, as I said before, too good a law¬ 
yer to think that that will do. I asked the witness for his reasons. 
When he comes to give a reason which is hearsay, the fact that I have 
asked for reasons does not preclude me from saying that I will not ac¬ 
cept hearsay as a reason. It is true that it is a good answer to my 
(piestion, and it answers the purposes of the law for the moment that 
he discloses that he has no other reason than such a one as that, which 
becomes no reason at all; so that the object of my question is attained, 
and I have a right to say that I object to any hearsay, because that is 
not a reason upon wdiich a witness can base aflirmative knowledge of a 
fact to which he professes to swear. Otherwise, by indirection you 
could everlastingly get in all sorts of hearsay and deliver it as substan¬ 
tial original testimony of afhrmatiue facts. 

Mr. Merrick. The difference between the counsel and me is this : If 
you ask a witness how do you know such a thing, he may answer how 
he knows it. Y^ou then interrogate him as to his own individual and 
actual knowledge of the matter to which the interrogatory has relation. 
When you ask the witness to reason wdth you you must let him reason 
as he pleases, as you reason as you please. The counsel has asked the 
witness to reason with him. 

]\Ir. Shellabarger. No; I did not ask him to do that. 

Mr. Merrick. Now let him reason. Let him answer the question 
what is his reason, and give his reasons, reasons that have convinced 
his judgment. They may be unavailing and of no good to you ; you 
may think they are reasons insufficient; they may be reasons adequate. 
He has given his opinion of a fact that Thomas was not there. He is 
now asked his reasons for that opinion. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Let me say that \f yon desire him to give that 
reason which was hearsay, I have no objection to its coming out on your 
nvitation, but I do not want to bring out any answers like that. 


138 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Merrick. Then the counsel ought not to have invited it. I have 
not given the invitation. I tried to get at the fact legitimately, but 
could not. The counsel pushed and pushed him. The witness said he 
would not answer, and did not answer j but finally the witness told him, 
“ If you come again I will give you the answer.” The counsel seemed 
disinclined to come again, when 1 informed him of the invitation he 
seemed to have forgotten, and he then asked, “ What is your reason ? ” 
Now I submit let the witness give it. You cannot tell whether it is 
competent until you hear it. Though it begins with Mr. So-and-so 
told me,” he may have been one of the officers of that very meeting; 
he may have been that very clerk who told him there was a quorum 
there. When your honors have heard it, then the question as to its ad¬ 
missibility may be raised. 

The Chairman. I supposed from the form in which the question was 
put as to the witnesses reasons he wouhl give whatever reason he pleased 
for the opinion which he formed. I apprehend that he might under that 
form of question state any reason, or state anything that entered into 
his own mind, as controlling his views and opinions on the subject. If 
the question is in that form, “ What reasons have you for the opinion 
that you express?” I do not see that we can exclude what he wishes to 
give as his reason. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I withdraw the question, unless Brother Mer¬ 
rick wants it answered. 

Mr. Merrick. I would rather have it answered. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I withdraw it simply because I went far enough 
to learn that the answer the witness was going to give was going to get 
in the declaration of the third party, and I did not want any inquiry of 
mine to open the door to hearsay testimony. 

Mr. Merrick. The counsel says he will withdraw the question unless 
I do something. If the contingency of withdrawal depends upon any¬ 
thing I do, I do nothing; the contingency does not happen. 

The Chairman. I think the counsel has a right to withdraw the 
question. 

Mr. Merrick. Of course he has. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I withdraw it for the present, and will ask the 
witness some other questions. 

The Chairman. I think it proper, if the counsel will allow me to say, 
that while the committee sir. by and permit counsel to conduct this cause 
they themselves have duties to perform, and they have a perfect right 
themselves to any knowledge which the witness has for the purpose of 
enabling them to arrive at a proper conclusion, whether it is drawn out 
by counsel on one side or the other. 

Mr. Merrick. And they have a perfect right to it in that shape. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I am one of the committee, and do not belong to either side. You 
are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 
—A. That is all I am going to do. 

Q. You have said to each of these gentlemen that there are other 
reasons you have for saying why this man was not there. I think you 
ought to state them.—A. I did state them. 

Q. The other reasons. You did not get them out. Commence again.— 
A. I said I was not ready to answer on that point for Mr. Spofford just 
now; but Mr. Kellogg was determined to get hold of me; he put the 
same questions, and wanted me to answer anyhow. I told him he 
ought not to force them out. I told him the third time. Then I started 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


139 


to explain my reasons, and was cat off. My reasons are these: I could 
not explain without bringing in the third party, and I suppose that one 
side or the other will subpceua the third party. 

Q. Is that third party here ?—A. Ko, sir; that is the reason I did not 
care about bringing it out right now. 

It is not pro])er for you to withhold testimony because of Mr. Kel¬ 
logg’s desires, or Mr. Merrick’s desires, or Mr. Spofford’s desires.—A. I 
am not going to withhold it. 

Q. It is your duty to tell the facts, and when you are asked for your 
reasons you ought to proceed to give them.—A. I did start to give them, 
and if you want my reasons I will give them. 

Q. Give your reasons. I ask the question.—A. My reason was be¬ 
cause the third party- 

Senator Bailey. Do not give the reasons why you would not give 
it, but the reason why you say Thomas was not there. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Give those additional reasons why you say he 
was not there. I think it is proper for yourself that you should give 
them.—A. Because a man told me that day that he voted for Mr. 
Thomas, and he was going to get his sugar for it. 

Q. Who told you that?—A. Mr. Watson. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Was he a member of the legislature?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He voted for Thomas in the legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do I understand you to say that Mr. Watson told you that he voted 
for Mr. Thomas in the Joint convention ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Mr. Watson was not a member of the legislature?—-A. No, 
sir. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. He was going to get what for it ?—A. His sugar. Now, I am tell¬ 
ing you he is a very unreliable man. I will tell you this betorehand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. He was going to get his sugar for it ?—A. Yes, sir; he came to 
me—I might as well go through with all this- 

Q. Go thiongh with it.—A. He came to mo about two months ago, 
I think 5 I will not be certain, but as nigh as I can remember, and he 
asked me who was managing Judge Spofford’s case. I told him that I 
thought Mr. Cavanac was managing it. He asked me if there was any¬ 
thing in it. I told him that there was not that I knew of. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What did you understand him to mean ?—A. Money, money. What 
else does a colored man mean when he asks another if there is anything 
in it? I told him there was not a cent that I knew of. I want everybody 
to hear this. Says he, ‘‘I should like to see Mr. Cavanac.” Says I, 
“ What do von want with him ?” He says, “I want to make a statement.” 
Says I, “ What sort of a statement do you want to make ?” Says he. 
“Don’t you know the day you sent me in by Cheatham ?” I said, “ Yes.” 
He said, “I voted for Thomas under instructions.” I said, “You did?’’ 
This was sitting down in my own parlor at home. I said, “ You did ?” 
He said, “ Yes.” Says I, “ If you are mean enough to vote for a man 
and get sugar for it, and are now mean enough to make another affida¬ 
vit, I think vou are a pretty darned mean, bad man.” He says, “ That 
will be all right.” I said, “ I don’t think Mr. Cavanac wants to see you. 




140 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


because he will be very particular about that kiud of evidence; but,’^ 
says I, “ you can come and see Captain Flood, who is a personal friend 
of mine, and will talk business to you.” He says, “All right.” Says 1, 
“ You come here to-morrow morning; I am in Spofford’s interest, and 
propose to help Spofford through if I can, and I will take you to Flood’s 
office.” “Good,” he says; “I will be here at seven o’clock.” The next 
morning he was there at ray house before I got up. I took him down 
to Captain Flood, an ex-sergeant-at-arms, like myself, of the legislature, 
and introduced him to him. He made an affidavit before Captain Flood 
and Colonel Bush about this long (extending both arms), and he coupled 
with that affidavit Antoine and the chief clerk. 1 saw Cavanac the next 
day and told him about the affidavit of Watson, and said, “ I expect 
you to see him.” Said I, “I wouldn’t touch him. In my opinion he is 
a dirty scoundrel.” I came out and I met Watson. Said he, “ I want 
you to introduce me to Mr. Cavanac.” Said I, “Certaiul 3 \” I took him 
back to Cavanac’s office, and introduced him to Mr. Cavanac. I am not 
afraid to tell anything I do, and to have everybody know everything I 
do. I was going over to Mr. Griffin’s on business. 1 said to Mr. Cav¬ 
anac, “ Don’t take that fellow’s affidavit.” Said I, “ He has made as 
strong an affidavit as can be made; I would not take it; don’t under¬ 
stand his motives anyhow.” Cavanac said to me, “ Do you think there 
is any truth in it?” Said I, “As far as my sending him into the house 
on that day by one of the deputies, that is true.” (To Mr. Cavanac.) 

* Did I not tell you that ? 

Senator Hill. He is not on the stand. 

The Witness. I am only showing you how all this thing came about. 
I went over to Griffin’s and never saw anything more of Watson, be¬ 
cause I did not think Cavanac had taken his affidavit. Three or four 
days after that I met Cavanac. He said, “I got Watson’s affidavit.” 
I says, “ Did he make an affidavit for you ? ” He said “Yes.” I never 
thought anything more about that. The first thing I knew Mr. Wat¬ 
son was put in the custom-house. He had no more show to get in the 
custom-house than a man on the river. He had been walking around 
there three or four years. He was put in the custom-house, and then I 
saw my name assailed, that I had done this. I went to Colonel Lewis 
and asked him about it. He laughed (you know how hearty he is that 
way) and said, ‘‘Ah, my boy, look out.” Said I, “There’s nothing in 
it; lam not in it. He never made an affidavit for me; Mr. Cavanac got 
it.” I went to Cavanac’s office and said, “Let me see that affidavit,” 
and he showed it to me and he had coupled me on it. I said, “ He lies; 
I never done such a thing.” He said, “ It makes no difference; I am not 
going to use it. I have found out he is a big scoundrel.” That is what 
Cavanac said to me. He said, “They tell me you promised him so much 
money.” I said, “Y^ou know better than that”; I told him not to take 
it. He said, “I will stand by you.” When it came to that he stole 
away from mo and made it and got out of my combinations and got in 
the custom-house. I think Mr. Watson voted for Mr. Thomas; that is 
my candid opinion; but I think this was a game he was playing to get 
into the custom-house. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Did he get into the custom-house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is he there now ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In what business?—A. IN^ight inspector. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What did he say about you in the affidavit ?—A. He said in the 


SPOFPORD VS. KELLOGG. 141 

affidavit that on my direction be bad taken Mr. Thomas’s seat and voted 
for Mr. Thomas. 

Q, Was that true or false ?—A. That was false. Under my direction 
be was sent into tbe bouse of representatives to Mr. Thomas’s seat, 
sent in by a messenger, Mr. Cheatham, and I wanted him to run on here 
and testify that, but Mr. Cavanac would not permit him. 

By Senator Hill ; 

Q. When was Watson put in tbe custom house ?--A. He was put in 
tbe custom-house somewhere since the twentieth of last month. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you understand that he has made an affidavit that you offered 
him a certain amount of money ?—A. And did not pay him. 

Q. If he would make the affidavit which Mr. Cavanac has?—A. Yes, 
sir; he made two affidavits, one right after the other. This is not the 
original affidavit. There is another one in New Orleans held by Colonel 
Bush, a longer one than that, which couples on the lieutenant-governor 
and the chief clerk. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. This one was made before he was put in the custom house?—A. 
Both of them were made before he got in there. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. You say he made another affidavit I—A. He made one before this. 
He made one in my presence, that the committee has got; that tells the 
whole plan ; how he came to me to get his instructions, and that tells 
everything. He swears to that before a United States commissioner in 
my presence and before two or three other witnesses, and then he slips 
down to Cavanac and makes this and couples me on it. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. And then went to the custom-house and made another one ?—A. 
And made another one against me, charging me with not paying the 
money. 

By Senator Bailey: 

Q. Since he made that last affidavit he has been put in the custom¬ 
house ?—A. Y^es, sir ; I never saw that affidavit, and do not know any¬ 
thing about it. That is a delicate point, and I did not care about get¬ 
ting into it, but since it has come you know the whole job. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. The twoaffidavits are just exactly the same, except that he coupled 
you on one ?—A. They are just exactly the same, only he couples me on 
the last one. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Who has the appointment of those officers in the custom house ?— 
A. I don’t know; 1 suppose the collector. 

Q. Who is the collector ?—A. General Badger. 

By Senator Kernan: 

Q. The collector is not here ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. The naval officer is here, you say ?—A. The naval officer is here. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. You say you sent Watson into the legislative hall that day ?—A. 


142 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Yes, sir. He came to my desk. I bad just come in, I had been after 
members. After I was elected against the administration, I pledged 
the Eepublican party to do every thing I could to secure a quorum on 
that morning. I pledged that to Mr. Souer, and I pledged that to all 
my friends who had gone in and elected me, and I worked very hard 
trying to make a quorum in the interest of Governor Kellogg. I worked 
all night and all the morning up to that time trying to get this quorum, 
because I did not want them to think I was a great friend of Governor 
Warmoth, and that I was working in Governor Warmoth’s interest. I 
wanted to do my duty, and was working very hard to compel a quorum. 
I had just come in, and I went to my office, and Watson came to me 
and said he wanted to go into Thomas’s seat and I sent one of these 
deputies, one of these pages, to show him Thomas’s seat. I thought 
he was going in there to write a letter. 

By Senator Hill ; 

Q. Did he ask you to send him to Thomas’s seat ?—A. Yes, sir ,* he 
asked me for Thomas’s seat. 

Q. And you actually sent him to it?—A. I actually sent one of the 
messengers from my office into the house. That is all I know about 
that case. 

Q. Does he resemble Thomas in any way?—A. He is not quite as 
tall as Thomas. Thomas might be a little bit thinner than him, and 
probably a little bit taller. But he is smart. He graduated in Kew 
Orleans, and he is as smart as a steel-trap. 

Q. Watson is?—A. Watson. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Are both of those men, Thomas and Watson, fully black or 
mullatto?—A. They are what colored people call a brown-skinned man. 
1 think to the best of my knowledge that Thomas was a little bit darker 
than Watson. 

Q. Were they about the same age ?—A. That I could not say. 

Q. About the same size ?—A. No, sirj I explained just now that 
they are not in my opinion of the same size. I think Thomas was a 
thinner man, and a little bit taller than Watson j but his color might 
have been a little bit darker. They shaved pretty much alike. 1 do 
not think Watson is as tall as Thomas was, but he can tell the story a 
good deal better than I could. If you had the other affidavit you would 
see his story. 

Q. I want to ask you about that door and that lock.—A. What door ? 

Q. You spoke about the door where Souer was being locked, and you 
unlocked it with your key. Was it one of those doors that locks itself 
when it is shut by a strong latch ?—A. Yes, sir; I explained that. He 
was locked up in there. 

Q. I want to understand it a little better. Was the door usually 
locked ? —A. You know whenever you pull a door to that has a dead- 
latch it will come shut, and all a man has to do when he wants to go in 
is to turn that latch with a key and he goes in. He was not locked up 
in there. 

Q. He was not locked up ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. I understood you to say before that he was ?—A. I said before he 
was not locked up in there. 

Q. Yes, you did. You said the door was usually locked.—A. It was 
the way the door was, and all the doors, even in my room. If I went 
into my room and shut the door to it was locked, and anybody else to get 
in would have to take a key to turn the latch back. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 143 

Q. What were the names of those two men yon saw get money in 
there?—A. I do not recollect their names right now. 

Q. Please think of their names, for I want them.—A. I cannot think 
of their names to day. 

Q. How long will it take you to recollect them ?—A. I will tell you, £ 
think, by to-morrow; because to day I think I have done remarkably 
well. I think you ought to give me time to study now. 

Q. I think that is quite as easily done as many other things you have 
recollected. They were colored men?—A. Yes, sir; colored men. 

Q. How do you know they were members of the legislature if you do 
not know their names?—A. I say I will think of their names; I have 
tliought of so many things watching two sharp counsels as there are on 
either side. 

Q. Why do you need to watch the counsel so much ?—A. They are 
the men that get you in trouble. 

Q. Let me ask you, can you give their ages? Give a description of 
them, so that we can get at some idea of them in that way ?— A. Yes, I 
will give you the names of them ; that will settle it. 

Q. That will be it.—A. One of them was George Washington. 

Q. Who was the other ?—A. Do you want him ? 

Q. Yes.—A. The other was his colleague. 

Q. What was his name ? 

Senator Kerna.n. What parish was he from ? 

Senator Kellogg. From Concordia, were they not ? 

The Witness. Concordia. 

Senator Kellogg. I think Washington was from Concordia; I am 
not sure; I was looking over the list this morning and I saw there was 
a George Washington from Concordia, I think. 

The Witness. You see you all are getting my brains pretty full; I 
have to study it up. 

By Senator Y^^nce : 

Q. What was the name of the other?—A. Tolliver; mind you, I don’t tell 
you what they were getting this money for; I tell you the warrants had 
been issued at that time, along during that week; they had been issued, 
and Governor Kellogg was not governor. 

By Mr. Siiellabarger : 

Q. What was the first name of the other man ? I believe you said 
his name was Tolliver. What was his first name ?—A. I disremember, 
but he was from the same parish. 

Q. You are sure it was Tolliver ? 

Mr. Merrick. Anderson Tolliver? 

Senator Kellogg. The record will show. 

Mr. Siiellabarger. That is all. 

Mr. Merrick. That is all I have to ask the witness. 

On motion, the committee adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 
o’clock. 


Washington, Saturday, June 7, 1879—10 a. m. 
Present: The members of the committee; also, R. T. Merrick, esq., 
counsel for the memorialist, H. M. Spofford; and the sitting member 
(Senator W. P. Kellogg), with his counsel, Hon. S. Shellabarger. 



144 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


EXAMINATION OF WILLIAM JOHN DE LACY. 

William Jonk De Lacy (colored), a witness called by the memo¬ 
rialist, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. Tell the committee where j^ou reside.—Answer. I reside in 
Rapides Parish, Louisiana. 

Q. Where did you reside in 1876 and 1877 1 —A. In 1876 I resided in 
Rapides Parish; ever since 1850. I was born there. I resided there 
till I was elected to the legislature in 1876. 

Q. You were elected in 1876 to serve in the legislature which was to 
convene in 1877 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were a member of that legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At what time did you go to New Orleans to attend?—A. I went 
to New Orleans on the 6th day of December, 1876. 

Q. At what time did the legislature meet ?—A. The first Monday in 
January, 1877. 

Q. Do you recollect what day of the month that was?— A. 1 thin]v it 
was the first of the month. It was the first Monday in January. 

Q. Which party were you attached to or connected with ?—A. The 
Republican party. 

Q. Was that organization that you speak of as the meeting of the 
legislature a temporary organization, with a temporary chairman ?—A. 
We had a caucus before the organization of the legislature, which 
mapped out our plans for the election of a si)eaker and officers of the 
house. 

Q. When did that caucus convene?—A. It convened some time in 
the latter part of December; after Christmas. 

Q. Just before the time for the meeting of the legislature, I suppose?— 
A. Just before the time of meeting. 

Q. Was there any combination of members of the legislature formed 
prior to the meeting of that caucus that you know of ?—A. I do not 
know of any. 

Q. Did you not belong to a combination of men whose object was the 
election of a certain gentleman as speaker ?—A. No, sir; I did not. 1 
belonged to the administration caucus of the Republican party. 

Q. Is that the caucus that you speak of as the one that met just prior 
to the organization ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did the men in that caucus, or any portion of them, ever have any 
meeting before the meeting of that caucus?—A. No, sir. 

Q. At that caucus was it agreed upon whom to elect speaker and 
whom to elect to the offices of the house ?—A. There were two differ¬ 
ent opinions. Some of us wanted Governor Warmoth for speaker, and 
some Governor Hahn. Of course the majority ruled, and the minority 
submitted to the majority. 

Q. That was in favor of the election of Hahn ?—A. Yes, sir. ' 

Q. At the time that jmu went to New Orleans were you amply pro¬ 
vided with funds?—A. 1 left Rapides Parish with $1,750 in my pocket. 
I had to run away from there; I was bulldozed away from there by 
White Camelias and White Leagues and everything else that was Dem¬ 
ocratic, and I had to go to New Orleans for the protection of my life 
after the election. 

Q. You went down in order to be there at the meeting of the legisla¬ 
ture ?—A. To be at the meeting of the legislature and to save my life. 

Q. With two purposes combined ?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 145 

Q. Who bulldozed you ?—A. The Democratic party of Rapides Parish. 

(J. Who was the man ?—A. The whole community. 

Q. Can you name any individual ? —A. I can, but 1 do not propose to 
do it; I do not thiidi it is necesvsary. 

(^. They did n >t make it necessary that you should leave there until 
you found it necessary to oo down to attend the lej^islature, did they?— 
A. Yes, sir ; they did. I found it necessary to sleep in the woods away 
from my home. 

Q. 1 am not speaking of that. I say they did not make it necessary 
for you to leave, or you did not leave until you left to atteml the lej?is- 
liture?—A. 1 went when I got a chance to get out of the parish. The 
steamboats and lines of road were guarded to keep me from coming. 

Q. To keep you from coming where?—A. To the legislature. 

Q.. Ilow did you go to New Orleans ?—A. I went on horseback part 
of the way and part of the way I was in a boat on Red River. 

Q. You took 81,700 with you to New Orleans?—A. Yes, sir. 

(.}. J)id you not in New Orleans, in the early j)art of January or at 
some time before the end of January and after you arrived there, go to 
Governor Kellogg to borrow money ?—A. I went to Governor Kellogg 
to get some advancements made that 1 wanted for si)eculatious I had 
gone into, but he did not give me any. 

Q. You had 81,700 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you want more than that?—A. Yes, sir. I was in specula¬ 
tions, buying warrants from members of the house and advancing money. 

Q. Did you not go to Governor Kellogg to get money because you 
were in need of money ?—A. 1 did not go to him because I was i)articu- 
larly in need of money. 

Q. Did you not ask him to let you have 801 ) ?—A. I believe I did ask 
Governor Packard for the loan of fifty dollars. That was all I wanted. 

Q. All you wanted was fifty dollars?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Whom did you say you asked to lend you lifty dollars ?—A. I think 
it was Governor Kellogg or Governor Packard. 

Q. Do you not recollect that it was Governor Kellogg ?—A. 1 am not 
certain whether it was Governor Kellogg or Governor Packard. It was 
one of the two. 

Q. Did you not ask Governor Kellogg to let you have fifty dollars with 
the understanding tliat you were to vote for him as United States Sena¬ 
tor ?—A. No, sir. 

Are you sure you did not?—A. I am positive. 

Q. Have you never said that?—A. No, sir; never told that I got 
money fro u/G over nor Kellogg for voting for him. 

Q. ‘Jiave you never stated that you asked Governor Kellogg to let you 
liave lifty dollars in consideration of your voting for him for United 
States Senator ?—A. No, sir. 

Have you ever signed any paper containing that statement ?—A. 
I have not. 

(,>. You are i)ositive about that?—A. T am positive. 

Q. Have you never said that he loaned you fifty dollars with the un¬ 
derstanding that you were to vote for him lor United States Senator?— 
A. No, 1 have not. 

Q. Have you never signed any paper containing that statemeut ?—A. 
1 have signed no statement but what I wrote myself. 

Q. Yk)u signed no ])aper but what you wrote yourself?—A. None. 

Q. Your name is William John De Lacy ?—A. W. John De Lacy is 
the way 1 sign my name. 

10 s K 


146 


SPOFFORD VS. r:ellogg. 


Q. On the day when Kellogg was elected to the Senate did you vote 
when your name was called I —A. On tne day of the election ot Gover¬ 
nor Kellogg to the Senate I was opposed to Governor Kellogg being 
elected; 1 was in favor of Piuckback. I voted first blank j after voting 
blank I changed my vote from blank to Kellogg. 

Q. How did your colleagues, Drew and Smith, vote ?—A. Mr. Drew 
voted for Kellogg. All the members of the legislature voted for Gover¬ 
nor Kellogg. He was the candidate. 

Q. Did Drew and Smith come to you and tell you to stand by Kellogg 
and that you would be taken care of ?—A. Smith told me to stand by 
Kellogg; that it would not do for Republicans to split up among them¬ 
selves and oppose his election. 

Q. What did Drew tell you ?—A. Drew told me nothing, because I 
considered myself my colleague Drew’s superior. 

Q. Your colleague Smith, you mean?—A. Ko, I had no colleague by 
the name of Smith. 

Q. Did you know George L. Smith ?—A. I did. 

Q. What was he?—A. He was a member of Congress. 

Q. Did he say anything to you?—A. He told me to stand bj" Kellogg. 

Q. Was he not collector of customs ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. He was not?—He was not. 

Q. Was he in no way connected with the custom-house ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Senator Cameron. Not at that time. 

Mr. Merrick. I am speaking, of course, of that time. 

Senator Cameron. Subsequently he was. 

Q. (By M. Merrick.) Was he subsequently?—A. Not until after he 
was put out of here by Congress, not being admitted to his seat. Then, 
I believe, he was afterwards appointed collector of the port of New Or¬ 
leans, and was removed last January or February. 

Q. Do you recollect at what time he was appointed collector of the 
port of New Orleans ?—A. I do not. I never took any account of that 
hostorical event. 

Q. Did neither Smith nor Drew tell you to stand by Kellogg, and that 
you would be taken care of, and that you would get what you had been 
promised ?—A. Smith did tell me to stand by Kellogg. 

Q. Smith told you to stand by Kellogg. What else did he tell you?— 
A. He told me to stand by Kellogg; that it did not look well for Repub¬ 
licans to split up among themselves. 

Q. Wbat else did he tell you ?—A. That is all. 

Q. Did he not tell you to stand by Kellogg and you would be taken 
care of, and get what he promised?—A. He did not. 

Q. You are positive he did not tell you that ?—A. I have answered 
the question ; he did not. 

Q. Did not Smith throw an envelope on your desk sealed, and when 
you opened it did you not tind that it contained money ?—A. Before 
you go any further allow me to look at that document. 

Q. No.—A. He did not. 

Mr. Merrick. I have not any objection to your looking at it. First 
and foremost, then, to anticipate a little my examination, answer me, 
without looking at the rest of it, whether that is your signature? (point¬ 
ing). 

The Witness. I want to see the head of the paper. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Wait a moment. Look at the signature and answer if that is your 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 147 

signature.—A. (Examining.) No. That is not my signature j and that 
is not the document that 1 wrote. 

Q. That is not your signature?—A. No, sir; my document is all iu 
my handwriting. 

Q. That is not your signature?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Buisson ?—A. No, sir ; I do not know Mr. Buis- 
son. 

Q. Do you know in whose handwriting the name of the justice is?— 
A. No, sir ; 1 do not. 

Q. And you do not know Mr. Buisson or any person of that name?— 
A. I do not. I never heard the name of Buisson until yesterday or day 
before. 

Q. Do you not recollect signing that paper in Mr. Cavanac’s office 
when he was present, and Mr. Buisson taking your acknowledgment ?— 
A. No, sir; Mr. Buisson was not present. There was nobody present 
when I signed my document, because I wrote it in Algiers and carried 
it to Mr. Cavanac^s office, and he sent it to some magistrate by John 
Fitzpatrick. 

Q. You wrote it in Algiers yourself?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And took it up to Mr. Oavanac’s office?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And sent it by Mr. Buisson ?—A. No; it was sent by Mr. Fitz¬ 
patrick. 

Q. Sent by Mr. Fitzpatrick to whom ?—A. Some magistrate; I do 
not know whom. 

Q. Did you go along with it ?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you go before the magistrate?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever swear to it?—A. No, sir. 1 simply sat in a seat and 
the magistrate signed it and gav^e it back to Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. 
Fitzpatrick carried it to Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Mr. Fitzpatrick carried that same paper to Mr. Cavanac?—A. 
Yes. sir. 

Q. And you say that Mr. Fitzpatrick never wrote any paper for yon 
at your dictation or request ?—A. None. 

Q. Did you not receive $200 for voting for Kellogg?—A. I did not. 

Q. Have you never stated that you did ?—A. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 think, Mr. Chairman, that I should like to have the 
reporter identify this paper as the paper offered to the witness, and 
upon which is a signature which he says is not his—make some mark 
upon it so that the committee may know it when it is again offered in. 
evidence. Of course, it is not in a condition to be offered in evidence 
at present. Or the Chairman may himself put a mark upon it. I only 
want it identiffed as the paper to which this man’s signature is attached 
which he now denies. 

The Chairman. 1 shall leave the counsel to manage that affair. I do 
not propose to take charge of any of these papers. Counsel c/an take 
such steps as he can to identify the paper. I do not propose to be con¬ 
nected with the question of identification of papers. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 have nothing further to ask this witness. 

Cross examined by Senator Kellogg : 

Q. When did you leave New Orleans to come here ?—A. Last Monday 
evening. 

Q. Who came with you ?—A. There were five other witnesses and Mr. 
Cavanac and another gentleman, a passenger. 

Q. Was Mr. Cavanac with you all the w^ay ?—A. Yes, sir; in the same 
car with us. 


148 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Until you landed here?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he carry your tickets?—A. Yes, I suppose he did. 

Q. You did not?—A. No, sir; I did not have the tickets. 

Q. AYhen you landed here where did you go ?—A. To the Philadelphia 
House, on Pennsylvania avenue. 

Q. Did Mr. Cavanac say anything to you at any time about going 
with him to any particular place?—A. No, he did not speak to me about 
going to any particular place. 

Q. Did he to any of the others?—A. I believe he did speak to Mr. 
Murray about our going to the St. James, if we did not have a place. 

Q. When was it and where that you made the affidavit on the paper 
that you wrote out yourself?—A. 1 wrote it myself on the 21st day of 
March, in Algiers, Louisiana. 

Q. State to the committee what was the occasion of your writing it.— 
A. 1 will tell the committee briefly that I was away from home this last 
election; I left on the 7th of November, and 1 was told that by making 
a statement, which would be ex parte evidence, I could pave the way by 
which I could go back to my parish and live with my family ; and, there¬ 
fore, I made the statement on the promise of a consideration of some¬ 
thing in the custom-house. 

Q. How was that to be procured ?—A. I Avas told by Mr. Ward, who 
was Mr. Spoflbrd’s traveling agent, that if 1 made this affidavit or state¬ 
ment Mr. Spofford would be seated, and that I could get a position in 
the custom-house, and I could go home to see my family. 

Q. Was that the inducement held out to you to make the affidavit?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the substance of that affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Please state it to the committee. Was there any allegation in it 
regarding your having received money ?—A. No; no allegation about my 
receiving money. 

Q. Then I do not care about it. Now, Mr. De Lacy, this is a matter 
that is of some importance to me, and I want you to refresh your 
memory ; are you not mistaken about getting $50 from me?—A. I did 
not get it. 

Q. I misunderstood you, then ?—A. I got $50 from Mr. Lane on 
warrants. 

Q. Did you ever receive any money from me ?—A. From you ? No, 
sir; never. 

Q. Did I ever hold out an^'^ inducement to you, in any manner, to vote 
for me for Senator ?—A. Not at all; because we were not very friendly, 
and 1 never had much to say to you. 

Q. You voted blank in the first place?—A. Yes. 

Q. And then, at the solicitation of Republicans- A. At the solicita¬ 

tion of the party, I voted for you. 

Q. Was not Governor Warmoth understood to be a candidate ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Did Governor Warmoth withdraw in myfaA^or, and make a speech 
in my favor ?—A. He did. 

Q. And say we had quarreled for years; but he thought it best for all 
to stand by me ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did not all the other candidates withdraw?—A. Every one. 

Q. Was Governor Packard for me ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was William H. Hunt, attorney-general, for me ?—A. The whole 
administration was for you. 

Q. Both the outgoing and incoming?—A. All the outs and ins. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 149 

Q. All the leaders of the Republican party, from first to last?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Do you know one who did not come into my support some time 
before the election ?—A. Not one. 

Q. Do you know of any person that has ever paid any money to any 
member or any other person for my election to the United States Sen¬ 
ate ?—A. Not one ; I do not know of any. 

Q. Did you see me in any caucus ? Did I make any speech in the 
caucus ?—A. None while 1 was present. 

C^. You were present at the different caucuses?—A. Yes, sir; I be- 
lonjjed to two caucuses. 

Q. You were generally present at the caucuses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And 1 did not come in and make auy speech at all?—A. None 
at all. 

Q. Whatever electioneering was done for me was done by my friends, 
was it not ?—A. By your friends. 

Q. It was generally understood that as I had been in the Senate I 
could do better up here than anybody else; was that argument used?— 
A. Yes, sir; that was the argument, and that you were the only man 
we could get who would get into the Senate and represent us. 

Q. You were opposed to me?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You remember that in the first place?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is to say there was a quarrel ?—A. Quite a squabble. 

Q. A squabble in regard to the speaker?—A. Yes. 

Q. Governor Hahn was the administration candidate and Governor 
Warmoth the other, though we were personally friendly ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many votes did Governor Warmoth get?—A. Fifteen. 

Q. How many votes did Governor Hahn get ?—A. I do not remember. 

Q. The rest?—A. He got the balance, I think. 

Q. Then you went in and declared the election unanimous?—A. Yes, 
sir ; and stood by him. 

Q. And so of the other officers?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Governor Warmoth, notwithstanding his defeat, got up and 
made a speech, and said he was for me for United States Senator ?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. And recommended everybody to bury past differences and go for 
me ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the whole administration ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now do you know ot Mr. Murray’s having made an affiilavit ?—A. 
Yes, sir ; I do. 

Q. When ?—A. I think about the beginning of April. 

Q. What was the inducement for it?--A. I do not know. 

Q. Have you heard?—A. Well, we have been talking hearsay. 

Q. What did he say ?—A. You ask what he told me individually ? 

Q. Certainly.—A. He told me that he was to get something for it. 

Q. What did he say ?—A. He told me if Spoffbrd was successful he 
would be jirovided for. 

Q. Did he speak of the amount of money he would get ?— A. Twenty- 
five hundred dollars. 

The Chairman. Who was that? 

Senator Kellogg. Thomas Murray, who testified yesterday. (To the 
witness.) Was Thomas present in the joint session that elected me ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. By Senator Kellogg. 

Thomas, of Bossier?—A. Yes, sir; because we laid down together 
the night before, below. 1 put my overcoat down and he laid on it. 


150 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Was he brought in sick ?—A. He was brought in sick in a cab. 

Q. Hid he vote f—A. He did. 

Q. Do you know positively that he voted ?—A. I know positively that 
he voted. 

Q. Did you sit by him ?—A. I sat by him myself. 

Q. Were you told by a number of other members who sat by him that 
be was present?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was Seveignes there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he vote ?—A. He did. 

Q. Do you know of any of the members that are claimed to have been 
present that were not present ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Was Governor Hahn there ?—A. He was. 

Q. Explain to the committee the location of the hall; is it a large, 
open hall?—A. A large, open hall, pretty nearly like the Senate here. 

Q. Once i)art of a hotel ?—A. Once part of a hotel; I believe the 
dining-room in a hotel. 

Q. And the speakers chair was in the centre ?—A. In the centre of 
the hall. 

Q. Where was your seat?—A. My seat was right in front, a little to 
the left of the speaker’s stand. 

Q. Was there not a good deal of interest manifested to see if there 
was a quorum ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why was that?—A. There was strong opposition from the 
i^icholls government for to buy members of the Packard legislature 
otf to break a quorum. I myself was at Cassidy’s hotel when the roll 
was called to make a quorum. My colleague, Mr. Drew, and Mr. Bar¬ 
rett, and Mr. Barrington, and Mr. Brown, of Jefferson, were in Cassidy’s 
hotel, room F?o. 4, making arragements with the Nicholls government 
to go over for a certain consideration. 

Q. Were the Nicholls government there, or their agents, trying to get 
you to go over ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Appealing to you to go over?—A. The argument they used was 
that it was necessary for them to have a returuiug-board quorum in 
their house to elect a Senator. 

Q. Thrrefore it was a matter of considerable importance to all to 
know if tliere was a quorum of returning-board members in our legisla¬ 
ture ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And therefore close attention was paid to every vote, was it not 
so?—A. Yes, sir; to every vote. There were spies from both aides, 
from the Eepublican side and the Democratic side, watching the pro¬ 
ceedings to see if there was a legal quorum. 

Q. Have you seen the minute clerk since you have been here ?—A. 
Mr. Eandall ? 

Q. Yes?—A. I have. 

Q. Is he in the city ?—A. He is. 

Q. Did he keep a tally, and check off the members’ names as they 
voted ?—A. He did. 

Q. Eow, to the best of your recollection, was Speaker Hahn in the 
chair?—Eo, sir. 

Q. Who presided?—A. The lieutenant-governor. 

Q. W^here was Governor Hahu ?—A. I think he was upon the floor ; 
l am not certain. 

Q. Do you know that he voted ?—A. 1 do not; I cannot say. 

Q. Did Barrington vote?—A. Yes,sir. 

Q. Did Bird vote ?--A. He did. 

Q. Did Brown, of Caddo, vote?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


151 


Q. ])id Burtou vote A. I am not certain. I think be did. We 
were all in the house excepting three or four who came in the next day, 
and I believe that Colonel Keating made a motion that they be allowed 
to record their votes. 

Q. \ou have stated that IMr. Seveignes was in the house.—A. He was 
in the house. 

Q. Where did Thomas live?—A. I am not certain where he lived ; he 
lived some where in the Third ward. 

Q. Do you know whether he was sick ?—A. lie was a little sick with 
fever. We sent for him ; it was necessary to have him there. Mr. 
Loan, superintendent of the metropolitan police, went for him in a cab. 

Q. Whiit street was it on ?—A. I am not certain whether it was on 
Gravier street or Franklin street 5 I am not certain which. 

Q. What time was it when he was brought in ?—A. About twelve 
o’clock. 

Q. How was he brought in, and by whom ?—A. He was brought in a 
cab to the hoiuse. 

Q. But into the hall ?—xV. Brought in by Colonel Loan, leaning on 
his arm. 

Q. How do you know that?—A. I was present at the time. 

Q. Did you see him coming in ?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you see him go to his seat ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear him vote?—A. I did. 

Q. How far was your seat from his ?—A. About as far as I am from 
you now. 

Q. You were watching him?—A. Yes; I had an interest in it. 

Q. Everybody was watching?—A. Everybody was watching. 

Q. You felt that a good deal depended on the presence of a quorum 
when the White League were in arms in the streets trying to buy them 
out to go to the Nicholls legislature; was that it ?— A. That was it? 

Q. So you are positive ? Now 1 want you to testify deliberately in 
reference to this. You are positive, and swear positively and unquali¬ 
fiedly, that Mr. Thomas was in his seat and voted?—A. I do. 

Q. Was there more than one Thomas in the legislature ?—A. There 
was only one at that time. x\fterwards we seated a contestant from 
Grant Parish by the name of Thomas. 

Q. What is tiie first name of this Thomas?—A. Samuel Thomas, of 
Bossier Parish. 

Q. When did he die ?—xV. About three months afterwards. 

Q. What of?—xV. I cannot state. After we went to the Xicholls 
legislature, all together, after the downfall of the Packard government, 
and after the Nicholls legislature adjourned, he died. 

Q. When did you go to the Nicholls legislature ?—A. On the 19th 
day of x\pril, 1877. 

Q. Do you know of any of the members being paid to go over to the 
Nicholls legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know how much?—xV. Well, ranging from $.j 00 to 82,2 o0. 

Q. xVi)iece ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To go over to the Nicholls legislature to make up a quorum ?—A. 
Yes, sir; 1 got 8o0() myself. 

Q. Whom did you vote for in the Nicholls legislature ?—xV. ]Mr. Spof- 
foril. 

Q. Did you get anything for it ?—A. Well, part of that was a consid¬ 
eration for voting for him. 

Q. Who i)aid you ?—A. Senator Robinson, from Saint Landry. 

(,). Who was he ?—A. A Democrat. 


152 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. A Democratic senator ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A supporter of Mr. Spotford ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you kuow of others receiving money who voted for Mr. Spof- 
ford ? 

Mr. Merrick. He said he received it to go to the legislature. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. AYas it part of the consideration that you should vote for Mr. Spof- 
ford ?—A. YYs, sir; Mr. Demas managed. 

Q. Mr. Demas, of Saint John’s!—A. Mr. Demas, of Saint John’s, man¬ 
aged the financial portion of the caucus. Mr. Demas had, 1 think it 
was, $15,000 or $20,000 in his hands to divide up among members who 
voted for Mr. Spofford in the Kicholls legislature. I came in for my pro 
rataj myself and Mr. Drew; $500 was given to me, and I divided half of 
it with my colleague. Drew, with the understanding that I was to vote 
for Mr. Spofford ; that it was material that Mr. Spofford should receive 
all the Republican vote in the Kicholls legislature. 

Q. For what reason !—A. That he might be seated. 

Q. Because it was a Republican Senate !—A. Because it was a Repub¬ 
lican Senate. 

Q. AVhat was the argument used among your people! That I could 
not be seated any way !—A. The argument was that you could not be 
seated, and we might as well send a conservative man. 

Q. You were assured of that, were you not!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they said Mr. Spofford was a good utau, and born in the 
North!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A Massachusetts man!—A. I do not think there was anything 
about Massachusetts. 

Q. But a Democratic carpet-bagger !—A. A carpet-bagger. 

Q. And he would be apt to get the seat ?—A. We did not know much 
about it, but he was to get the seat. 

Q. They assured you he was to get the seat, and you might as well 
cast your votes for him !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did they not tell you if I should get my seat it would not make any 
difference at all!—A. They said it would not make any difference, if 
you got seated, for they would put you out when the Democrats came 
in. 

Q. Did Mr. Cavanac tell you the Democrats would put me out of here 
now any way !—A. He told me they had the majority and were going 
to put you out. It was so said coming on here. 

Q. He is the man who came after you and induced you to make this 
affidavit!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was at his office that that affidavit was made !—A. No ; I made 
it myself in my room in Algiers. 

Q. Did you go down with it to his office!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who is Mr. Ward !—A. An ex representative from the parish of 
Grant. 

Q. Is there a man by the name of Flowers that you kuow !_A. Y^es 

sir. * ’ 

Q. Do you know a man by the name of Phillips !—A. YYs, sir; all 
agents of Mr. Spofford. 

Q. Have they been working around for weeks to get affidavits!_A. 

They have been working at it for the last four months, holding out ali 
kinds of inducements and promises for men making affidavits. 

I Q. Where did they go to make the affidavits usually !—A. To Mr. 
Cavanac’s office. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 153 

Q Is Mr. Cavanac’s office iu the State-house?—A. Yes, sir; in the 
State-house. He is the State registrar of voters. 

Q. Going back to the election of Mr. Spofford, state to the committee 
the names of those wlio received money lor voting for Mr. Si)offord, to 
your knowledge.—A. To my knowledge, myself, Mr. Frank J. ITAvy, 
ot Saint Landry ; Mr. Dayries, of Point Coupee ; Mr. Romero, of Ibe¬ 
ria; Mr. Barron, of Natchitoches; Mr. Drew, of Rapides; R. J. Walker, 
of Tensas. I believe those are all that I have knowledge of. 

Q. Were there some that refused to vote for Mr. Spofford?—A. 
Twelve, I think. 

Q. On what ground did they refuse?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Did they vote blank?—A. They voted blank some, and others 
mixed up their votes, cast them for different ones. 

Q. Now explain your means of knowing the source from which the 
money came.—A. Well, as I told you, just before your Senatorial elec¬ 
tion, I was iu O.issidv’s Hotel, negotiating there with Mr. P. J. Kennedy, 
of Jefferson, who offered us $100 a day for every day we answered the 
roll-call in the Nicholls legislature, until the Senator was elected, our 
mileage and per diem to be paid us in cash. Besides, we were to have 
patronage from our Senator to be elected for our different parishes. 
There were constant messages of the Nicholls government to members 
of the Packard legislature, from confidential men of the Nicholls legis¬ 
lature to members of the Packard legislature. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What inducements were held out?—A. Moneyed inducements. 
Every man that went to the Nicholls legislature belore the Packard 
legislature fell got money for going. Some of them came back. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Some went, got the money, and then came back?—A. Yes; after 
getting money they came back. Amongst them was Mr. Demas, of Saint 
John; also, George Washington, of Concordia Parish. 

Q. The Packard government was pretty poor about that time, was it 
not ?—A. Yes; they were tolerably i)oor. 

Q. But they had a few men who would put up their little all ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

By Senator Keunan : 

Q. Do I understand that men want back and forth, taking money 
from each side?—A. No, sir; the Packard government had no money 
to put up. 

Q. They went and took money from the other side, and then came 
back to your house?—A. Yes, sir; after the money gave out of the 
Nicholls legislature, they came back to the Packard legislature until it 
got through, and then they went back to the Nicholls legislature to get 
another dab. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. About what time was this?—A. In the early portion of January. 

Senator Kellogg. I want to get a little information in reference to 
the time the J’ackard government broke up. 

Senator Houston. I want to understand the answer. (To the wit¬ 
ness.) Did you say that you got money for going to the Nicholls gov¬ 
ernment ?—A. I got money to support Mr. Spofford in the Nicholls leg¬ 
islature. 


154 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. (By Senator Houston.) Then you did not get any at all for going 
to that legislature/?—A. No, sir; when I went the money had given out. 

Q. Then they did not give you anything excepting for your vote?— 
A. Nothing else. Of course they had to get a returning-board quo¬ 
rum. The Democratic returns showed that the Nicholls legislature had 
fifty seven members. 

Q. After you voted for Spofford did you ever return to the Packard 
legislature?—A. No, sir; because the Packard legislature had gone 
down. It went down before I went to the Nicholls government. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) That was what I was going to ask you 
about; what time was that?—A. The Packard government ceased on 
the 18th of April. I went on the 19th of April to the Nicholls legisla¬ 
ture. 

Q. Was there money paid at that time for members to go over?—A. 
Th(‘re was money paid for the votes, not to go over. 

Q. They went over, and that was the time the money was paid for the 
votes to members of the legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have given us a list of the men who received money; now 
tell the committee what means you have of knowing that those men re¬ 
ceived that money.—A. The means are that we were in a combination 
together; there were twelve of us in the combination. Mr. Robinson 
was the business man for the Nicholls legislature. Mr. Demas was the 
man who used to go around and make the bargains and trades. 

Q. Among the Republicans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tell us who Mr. Demas was.—A. Senator from Saint John the Bap¬ 
tist Parish. 

Q. Did he go over to the Nicholls legislature early ?—A. He did, in 
the beginning. 

Q. Go on now.—A. He went over in the beginning, and after he went 
over Senator Hamlet, of Ouachita- 

Q. Resume where you left otf—where I wanted you to identify De¬ 
mas.—A. When Demas went over money was placed in his hands to 
secure members of the Packard legislature to make a legal quorum of 
the Nicholls legislature. 

Q. Placed in his hands because he was a Republican and had left the 
Packard legislature before ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. How do you know what that money was paid for?—A. From what 
he told me individually. 

Q. You did not see it ])aid ?—A. No; but I handled some of it. I 
knew he was not going to use h‘is own money. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Go on and tell us all about it.—A. I was talking with Mr. Demas 
a few weeks ago. He told me the money was placed in his hands to 
pull down the Packard government, and after the money gave out, after 
he had bought all the members that he could buy with the money, run¬ 
ning up to ten or twelve thousand dollars, the money gave out, the goose 
was picked, and he came back to the Packard legislature himself and 
staid till the break. 

Q. Who was that ?—A. Mr. Demas, of Saint John. 

Q. Did Mr. Demas vote tor me?—A. I am not certain ; I believe he 
did. 

Q. Did he not go over the first week, at the beginning of the ses¬ 
sion ?—A. He had gone over to the Nicholls legislature. 

Q. Do you not remember that he went over the first week, while I was 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 155 

governor ?—A. Yes, sir; I have stated before that he went over in the 
early portion of the session. 

Q. The journals show whether he voted for me or not.—A. I never 
paid much attention to the Senatorial vote, although I was deeply inter¬ 
ested in the house of which I was a member. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What is Demas’s first name ?—A. Etenry Demas. 

By Senator IIouston : 

Q. You first answered that he voted for Governor Kellog" ?—A. J 
did not. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Tell the committee why you say it was a part of the consideration 
of your going over that you should vote for Mr. Spoftbrd. What is your 
reason for that ?—A. When part of the money was given to me, it was 
to be divided up between myself and my colleague, who received part of 
the amount that was given. 

Q. Was it specifically understood ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. That that was paid for a vote for Mr. Spofford ?—A. Yes, sir.* 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. With whom was that understanding made?—A. Between myself 
and Senator Bobiusou, of Saint Landry, and Mr. ELoward. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Who is Mr. Howard ?—A. The Louisiana lottery man who ad¬ 
vanced $43,000 to the KicholPs government. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What is Mr. Robinson^s first name ?—A. I am not certain. 

Is it Robertson or Robinson ?—A. Robinson he is called; he is an 
attorney at law. 

Q. What is the name of the other man ?—A. Charley Howard. I 
suppose you are well acquainted with him. 

AVhy do you suppose that?—A. A man from New Orleans that 
don’t know Lottery Howard ! 

Q. Am I from New Orleans ?—A. I believe you are. 

You do ?—A. I think so. 

Mr. Merrick. Go on. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Who is Charles T. Howard ?—A. He is president of the Louisiana 
Lottery Company. 

(i. He manages the Louisiana lottery ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Was there an effort to repeal the charter of that lottery ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; the Democratic legislature repealed the lottery company charter. 

Q. During the first session was there a bill passed the Democratic 
house repealing it ?—A. In 1877 ? 

Q. Y^es.—A. No, sir ; there was none then. Mr. Howard was furnish¬ 
ing money to run the Nicholls government at that time, and they could 
not afford to do it. 

Q. Was the bill indefinitely postponed in the senate?—A. It was in¬ 
definitely postponed in the house. 

Q. Was it understood what was the reason why it was posti)oned ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. What has that to do, Mr. Chairman, with this case ? 
But 1 do not care. Goon. 



156 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) KowI ask you in regard to your being pres¬ 
ent or not when the Packard legislature met on the 1st of January.— 
A. I \t^as present. 

Q. Was there a quorum in the house ?—A. There was. 

Q. Were you a member of any previous legislature?—A. Ko, sirj I 
was not. 

Q. Were you connected with any committee in any previous legisla¬ 
ture ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who was chairman of the contingent-expenses committee of the 
house ?—A. General Souer. 

Q. Was there an approi)’iation bill passed for the mileage and per 
Mem of members ?—A. We passed an appropriation bill the first week 
after the legislature, before your time expired. 

Q. Was it approved by me?—A. Approved by yon. 

Q. Were members in the habit of going to the chairman of the contin¬ 
gent committee?—A. Yes, sir; much so after the appropriation bill 
passed. We would go down every day getting our vouchers, and go to 
the auditor and get our warrants. 

Q. Was he regarded as an officer of the house designated by the house 
to pay the members ?—A. Y^s, sir. 

Q. To those that were in necessitous circumstances, did he advmnce • 
on their vouchers ?—A. He did advance money upon warrants. 

Q. Were these men behind him, moneyed men, friendly to the Pack¬ 
ard government, who believed it would be maintained, who furnished 
money ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know who they are?—A. Only from what I was told. I 
was told Walsh was furnishing money, and another was Fairbanks. 

Q. Anybody else?—A. Mr. Bray. Isold a good deal of warrants 
myself and bought a good deal, 

Q. Was Mr. Dinkgrave ?—A. Mr. Dinkgrave was buying warrants. 

I bought some for him. 

Q. Was Frank Morey ?—A. Yes, sir; he was buying warrants. A 
good many were speculating and buying up warrants. 

Q. Were these men you speak of old residents, natives of the State?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Moneyed men ?—A. Moneyed men, in business. 

Q. Eepublicans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Not holding office ?—A. JSTot holding office at all to my knowledge. 

Q. What did those warrants rate along about that time?—A. We 
generally got fifty cents. 

Q. That is, men would advance fifty cents ?—A. They would advance 
fifty cents on Packard warrants. Sometimes members of the house got 
sixty-five cents. Porters and messengers’ warrants ranged about twenty- 
five cents. 

Q. Did you understand these men were furnishing money, and when¬ 
ever the chairman of the contingent committee would approve a voucher 
upon which a warrant should be issued, money was fortbcoming in that 
manner upon that ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the manner in which the legislature was sustained?_ 

A. Yes, sir. I know several of them who went and drew the money 
before the warrant was issued, passed the vouchers over to the brokers 
and got the money advanced and let the warrant wait. 

Q. Do you remember any of those members?—A. I was one. Mr. 
Swazie, Mr. Blackstone, and nearly all the members of the house got 
money advanced in the early part of the session on their vouchers. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


157 


By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Who advanced fifty cents?—A. Mr. Laneadv^anced fifty cents on 
a dollar; Mr. Walsh, Mr. Dinkgrav'^e, and any broker would advance. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Was Dinkgrave a resident of New Orleans?—A. No, sir; a resi¬ 
dent of Madison Parish. 

Q. There was a Dinkgrave in Ouachita Parish ?—A. He is a brother 
of that man. The one in Ouachita Pariish was killed. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Was Mr. Walsh an old resident?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. An officer of the Confederate army?—A. 1 do not know. 

Q. A man of wealth?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he a special friend of Mr. Packard ?—A. He was. 

Q. A particular friend of Mr. Packard ?—A. A particular friend. 

Q. Standing by his government and backing him?—A. Furnishing 
all the money that was needed. 

Q. Just as other men were backing the Nicholls government?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. At that time it was generally believed, was it not, that if Mr. 
Hayes became President the government would be maintained?—A. 
Yes, sir; it was believed until about the tenth of April that the Pack¬ 
ard government was to be maintained. 

Q. And this was in January?—A. This was in January. It was be¬ 
lieved until the withdrawal of the troops, which happened some time in 
March. 

Q. Did you as well as others go to Mr. Souer and get your vouchers?— 
A. Yes, sir; 1 got vouchers in j\Ir. BouePs office, and I got money in Mr. 
Bouer’s office on my vouchers from Mr. Dane, who was handling money 
for Mr. Walsh. 

Q. Was there a militia bill passed by the house the first week ?—A. 
Yes, sir; we passed the militia bill, the appropriation bill, the bill re¬ 
pealing the harbor master, a bill abolishing the eighth district court. 

Q. And creating a court ?—A. Yes, sir; creating a court. 

Q. Were any resolutions passed calling on the President?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Do you remember the amount of appropriation made ?—A. No, 
sir ; 1 do not. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Do you remember any members of the house coming in after the 
day Governor Kellogg was elected and asking to record their votes?— 
A. Yes, sir; the next day after he was elected. 1 believe Mr. Keating, 
of Caddo, made a motion that several members coming in—I believe 
Mr. Kern and Mr. Barrett, and 1 do not remember who ehse, came in the 
next day and recorded their votes in favor of Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Kern?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. H. M. Johnson?—A. Yes, sir; from Terre Boinie. 

Q. Barron, Durden, and Brown of Vernon?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the fact of these men coming in?—A. I do. 

Senator Hill. Were these part of the 83? 

Senator Kellogg. No; they came in the next day. The journal 
shows that Mr. Keating, a member of the house, moved that they be 
allowed to record their votes, inasmuch as they could not get m the day 
before, there being armed bodies of men in the streets, and they wished 


158 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


to record their votes for me. By unanimous consent of the general as¬ 
sembly they recorded their votes. They were never counted as part of 
the eiglity-three. 

Mr. Merrick. I think it would be proper to accompany the remark 
just made to the committee by saying that the men inside had the doors 
barricaded. 

The Witness. That was the only way to keep us from being killed. 

Mr. Merrick. I did not ask you the purpose, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Wby were the doors kept closed ?—A. 
To keep us from being killed by the White Leagues. 

Mr. Merrick. To keep you from getting out. 

By Senator Kern an : 

Q. Was that before or after you went over to the other side ?—A. A 
long while before. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. How long before ?—A. I suppose the gentlemen can tell how long 
it is from the early part of January to the 19th of April. 

Q. Were there many armed men in the streets ?—A. Aes, sir ; I sup¬ 
pose five or six thousand. 

Q. Did they take possession of the supreme court by force?—A. Yes, 
sir ; about five or six blocks off. 

Q. Down by Jackson Square?—A. In front of Jackson Square. 

Q. Did they march in the vicinity of the State-house?—A. Surrounded 
it, and would have taken it, only Govwnor Wiltz came down and ad¬ 
dressed them. 

Q. Did not General Augur notify them that the President had directed 
him that they must not attack the State-house?—A. I so understood. 

Q. These men said they were unable to get in before, and asked unan¬ 
imous consent to record their votes?—A. Yes, sir; It was unsafe for 
any Kepublican to be on the street. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. What time was that; what day ?—A. The 9th, the 10th, and 11th 
of January. Every man in the city of New Orleans had a badge on as 
a policeman. 

By Senator Kern an : 

How did they get the sick man in ?—A. Sent for him in a carriage 
and brought him. 

(^. They did not kill him ?—A. They did not kill him, but they killed 
our grub that was coming to us pretty fast. They eat the rations before 
we got them ; we came pretty near starving. 

By Mr. Shellabarger: 

Q. I want to call your attention, in connection with the last question 
asked bv Governor Kellogg, to whether you remember the publication 
of the following document: 

Washington, January 14, 1877. 

General C. C. Augur, 

jVeit; Orleans, Louisiana: 

It has been the policy of the adiuiiiistratiou to take no part in the settlement of the 
question of riohtfiil government in the State of Louisiana—at least not until the Con¬ 
gressional committees now there have made their report; but it is not jiroper to stand 
quietly by and see the State government gradually taken possession of by one of the 
claimants for gubernatorial honors by illegal means. 

The supreme court set up by Mr. Nicholls can receive no more recognition tlian any 
^ther equal number of lawyers convened on the call of any other citizen of the State. 


SPOFFORD VP. KELLOGG. 


169 


A roturuin*'-board existing in accordance with law, and having judicial as well as 
ministerial powers over the count of the votes and in declaring the result of the late 
election, hjvs given certificates of election, to the legislature of the State. A legal 
quorum of each house holding such certificates met aud declared Mr. Packard gover¬ 
nor. 

Should there he a necessity for the recognition of either, it must be Packard. 

You may furnish a copy of this dispatch to Packard aud Xicholls. 

U. S. GRANT. 

Do yon remember that that was promulgated ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hail that anythiug to do with preserving your safety there ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. That was as familiar to us all as the alphabet. 

Mr. Shellabakger. I wanted to call attention to it in that connec¬ 
tion. 

The Chairman. Is there a dispatch from General Augur to the ad¬ 
ministration in Washington asking the interpretation of that paper? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Noj there is no such thing in the document 
before me. 

The Chairman. My impression is—for I was in New Orleans at the 
time—that General Augur, not being able to give a definite interpreta¬ 
tion to tliat order, asked more definite instructions. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) Did Mr. Murray say anything about 
the relations between you in the matter of some affidavit ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Do you remember what he said; and if so, do you want to say 
anything about his testimony regarding you and your vote ?—A. I think 
he stated yesterday that I made an affidavit, and that he was present 
when I made it, or something to that effect. There was none present 
when I made my affidavit? 

Q. Do you mean when you wrote it?—A. When I wrote it there was 
no one present. 

Q. Was there no one present when you took it to the justice of the 
peace ?—A. 1 never took it; Mr. Fitzpatrick took it. 

Q. Y^ou did not go, then ?—A. Yes; 1 went. 

Q. Was Murray along ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he know anything about it, as far as you know ?—A. He did 
not. 

Q. Did you evw tell him about it ?—A. I told him I had made a state¬ 
ment. I never considered it an affidavit. 

Q. It was not an affidavit ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Y'ance : 

Q. Who was the justice of the peace ?—A. I do not know. I do not 
know who the judges and justices are. 

By Mr. Shellabarger: 

Q. Y^ou stated that that paper which Mr. Merrick showed you, with 
what purported to be your signature to it, was not your signature.— A. 
It is not, and it is not the document that I wrote. 

Q. How do you know it is not your signature; did you look at it 
closely ?—A. Yes, sir, I looked at it close. 

Q. is there a resemblance to your signature ?—A. Pretty close, but 
it is not the way I sign my name. 

Q, How is it signed ?—A. It is signed “ W. John De Lacy.” 

Q. How is that paper signed ?—A. “ W. John De Lacey.” 

Q. In that respect it is the way you sign your name ?—A. That is the 
way I sign my name, except as to the spelling; but it is not in my hand- 
write. 


160 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Is tbe ink of the same colors—A. I wrote mine in black ink, but 
this is written in purple. 

Q. Is your name in purple on this ?—A. I^o; my name and everything 
is all in black ink. 

Q. In this one Mr. Merrick showed you ?—A. My name is in black 
ink there. 

Mr. Merrick. I have not contended that the body of that was in his 
handwriting. 

Mr. ShellABA.RGER. I did not so understand. 

Mr. Merrick. This name is not the same handwriting that the name 
of the justice is written in. The body of the paper is in purple ink. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) Are you positive of it?—A. I am posi¬ 
tive of it. My name is not spelled “ De Lacey 

Q. How is it spelled ?—A. De Lacy. 

Q. Did you ever spell it with an “e”?—A. sir; never cey.” 

Q. Do you know whose handwriting that is in ?—A. Xo, sir; I do not. 
I spell my name De Lacy, not De Lace^L 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Please tell the committee where the governor’s office was in the 
State-house when I was governor.—A. The governors office was on 
the second floor, back of the hall of representatives. 

Q. What intermediate rooms were there ?—A. An ante-room ; I think 
there are a couple of ante-rooms before you get into the governor’s 
chamber. 

Q. My telegraph room and my private secretary’s room ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And my private office ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was during the first week ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there a good deal of going and coming to and fro?—A. O, 
yes. 

Q. Was the governer’s office habitually thronged ?—A. Always. 

Q. I had about as much as I could attend to, had I not?—A. Yes, sir.’ 

Q. Was I not in the constant habit when men came to me—members 
of the legislature and others—regarding matters, of sending them with 
an officer to General Badger or General Souer or to Governor Packard, 
who had rooms above ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I made a general practice of turning everything off in that way, 
did I not, by calling officers?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I had any quantity of them at my disposal ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When members of the legislature would come to me and were im¬ 
pecunious, I was in the habit of saying, “ Go to Governor Packard,” or 
“ Go to this man,” or the other, was I not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And speaking of General Souer, he was delegated by the house 
for the purpose of providing for the members?—A. Yes, sir; for the 
purpose of providing ways and means tor members. 

Q. That was always understood, was it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember who were the committee on contiiigent ex¬ 
penses ?—A. I can name one or two of the members. General Souer 
was chairman. There was Governor W^armoth on the committee, and 
Bosley, of Bed Kiver. That is about all I can remember. 

Q. The committee attending to matters?—A. The committee on con¬ 
tingent expenses. 

Q. Had I anything to do with it?—A. Nothing at all. 

Q. Were you around my office a good deal ?—A. Once or twice. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


161 


Q. At that time—the first week ?—A. The first week I was twice in 
your ofiice, aiul once after were elected. 

Q. Was 1 in the habit, wheu members came to me for anythin", of 
sending them to see different parties around the building?—A. Yes, 
sir; you always sent a person with them. 

Q. Sometimes I would send for an officer of either house, and send 
them according as they were members of either lioiuse?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was acting as sergeant-at-arms of the senate ?—General 
Badger. 

Q. Did he have rooms upstairs ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Cfjveruor Packard?—A. Gjvernor Packard had room^ up¬ 
stairs. 

Q. And General Souer ?—A. And General Soner. 

Q. And the sergeant at-arms of the house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All along?—A. All along the hallway upstairs. 

Q. On the third floor ?—A. On the third floor. 

Q. How distant from my office ?—A. A considerable distance. 

Q. Now about the rumors: You were that week and the second week 
all around the State-house, were you not f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear me connected in any manner with the paying 
of money Or the using of consideration for the pur^mse of securing elec¬ 
tion to the U nited States Senate?—A. Nothing, until the Spoftbrd con¬ 
test was over here and you were seated; then we began to hear a little 
talk about it, but nothing definite. 

Q. The first time, was there not some talk of that by our enemies 
when they were trying to get our men to go over to the Nicholls house. 
Then were there some charges made ?—A. Yes, sir ; I believ^e Governor 
Pinchback made some charges against you on the floor of the house of 
representatives in the Nicholls legislature. 

Q. He was dissatisfied f—A. He was dissatisfied. 

Q. Was he about the only Republican that was ?—A. Yes, sir ; at that 
time. 

Q. Then the talk commenced about it?—A. Then the talk commenced. 

Q. Was there an investigation had?—A, There was an investigation. 
I do not remember who was chairman of the committee. 

Q. Do you not know that Mr. McMillen was?—A. Mr. McMillen of¬ 
fered the resolution. 

Q. Who is General McMillen ?—A. He is the postmaster of New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. What position did he occupy before that?—A. He was a member 
of the legislature. 

Q. Before that was he not contesting for a seat in the United States 
Senate?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Elected by the McEnery legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

What parish was he member from ?—A. From Carroll Parish. 

Q. And he and other men took the matter in hand and pushed the in¬ 
vestigation ?—A. Y'es, sir; passed a resolution and had an investiga¬ 
tion ; and I believe the committee reported in three days after, more or 
less. 

Do you know that I was very indignant and insisted that they 
should investigate that matter ?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. How long was it before I left for Washington after my election, 
can yon tell ?—A. No, sir ; I cannot. 

Q. Do you know that it was only a short time, or a long time?—A. 
It was a very short time. 

11 s K 


162 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did they not desire that I should leave immediately to come on to 
represent their interests here?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was not that the desire of all the members?—A. That Avas the de¬ 
sire of the Kepublicans of the house and senate. 

Q. Do you know Kobert Johnson, of Terre Bonne ?—A. I do. 

Q. Do you know Magloire, of Avoyelles ?—Y. 1 have known him about 
eighteen years. 

Q. Do you know Sims, of Saint. James ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know anything about their getting money ?—A. No, sir ; 
Ido not. I am very intimate with them. I never heard them tell any 
one that they got any money. 

Q. Was not Johnson, of Terre Bonne, a Warmoth man ?—A. He was. 

Q. Was he not with you fifteen or thirteen who voted for Warmoth ?— 
A. He was. 

Q. Did he not go over and vote for me at the instance of Governor 
Warmoth ?—A. He did. 

Q. Do you think that if he had received money you would have known 
it?—A. I would have known it. 

Q. Were you in constant communication with him?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kernan. Do you think that is valuable to us ? You might 
as well ask that of me or any other man. 

Senator Kellogg. Perhaps I ought to apologize to the committee j 
but I was sensitive in regard to that, as the matter was brought in. I 
am limited in a case of this kind to eight witnesses. One witness may 
come on the stand and say that fiv^e or seven or eight, the whole num¬ 
ber to which I am limited, haA^e done certain things. If I cannot get 
the men here, and men are named who are away perhaps in the interior 
of the State, what am I to do ? 

Senator Kernan. But you ask whether he thinks he would have 
known a thing. 

Senator Kellogg. I desire to make my case as plain as I can, and 
as favorable to myself. 

Senator Hill. You are limited to the same number as Mr. Spofford. 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir; but Mr. Spofford makes the charge 
against me, and may bring one witness, and that one may name half a 
dozen men in the interior of the State, and I could not get them. 

Senator Cameron. You are only limited for the present. We have 
not limited the ultimate number. 

Senator Kellogg. I am only speaking of the present. 

Mr. Merrick. The indication from the committee I received was that 
I was to be limited, and I stated to the committee that I was perfectly 
willing so far as I was concerned ; and, further, I understood that that 
limit applied to the iiiA^estigatiou here, and it was suggested that I should 
go on and complete my case, when the other side would then begin their 
case. I said I thought I would need about fifteen. I did not under¬ 
stand there was any specific limitation. I understood the other side to 
state that they could not give their points until they knew what points 
were made against them, and they could not indicate the number of 
witnesses they would require exactly until they saw what was proved. 

The Chairman. I think now that I received a letter from Governor 
Kellogg somewhat complaining of the action of the committee, and in 
order to have the committee set right, I propose to put the communica¬ 
tion of Governor Kellogg, and of Mr. Merrick as counsel for Mr. Spof¬ 
ford, upon the record, Avith my letter of reply to Governor Kellogg, in¬ 
forming him that he could have the same number of witnesses produced 
that Mr. Spoftord had. I will state again, as I stated yesterday, that 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


163 


preliminary to the question of whether we would enter into the investi- 
pitiou at all or not, we passed a resolution calling on the respective 
parties, Mr. Spofford and Mr. Kellogg, to indicate the points that they 
would desire to take testimony upon, and to indicate the number of 
witnesses they would require to sustain the respective points. To that 
communication Mr. Merrick replied, specifying the points upon which 
he would desire to take testimony, and stating that at that time he 
thought he should not want exceeding fifteen witnesses. Mr. Kellogg 
replied, saying that acting upon the defensive it would be impossible for 
him to indicate the witnesses he would want until the testimony of Mr. 
Spofford was in. The committee then determined-- 

Mr. Shellabarger. Allow me to remind you, Mr. Chairman, there 
was in addition to that (though I do not think it arises now) a state¬ 
ment that in regard to that ])art of the resolution which was introduced 
by Mr. Hoar in the Senate, we would want, we thought, not exceeding 
twenty witnesses. 

The Chairman. Yes. There being no witnesses therefore Jisked to 
be summoned here except on the part of ]\Ir. Spofford, who had indi¬ 
cated that he would not want exceeding fifteen, and Mr. Kellogg hav¬ 
ing indicated that he would not be able to summon any witnesses until 
the testimony of Mr. Spofford was put in, the committee determined to 
open the investigation. Mr. Spofford and his counsel, however, stated 
that they would limit their witnesses to eight in the examination now; 
whereupon the Sergeant-at-Arms was instructed to summon eight wit¬ 
nesses for Mr. Spofford; and, upon a subsequent application of Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg for witnesses, the committee determined to subpoena for 
him the same number of witnesses that were subpoenaed for Mr. Spof¬ 
ford, with the understanding, as I understood at the time, that after 
the testimony of eight witnesses on the part of Spofford and of the eight 
on the part of Kellogg was in, the committee would then determine if 
other witnesses were wanted, whether they would continue the investi¬ 
gation here, or whether they would continue it in New Orleans; of course 
the matter of expense in the investigation being the question to deter¬ 
mine their action. There has, therefore, been no limitation upon the 
inquiry on the part ot Mr. Spofford nor on the part of Mr. Kellogg, fur¬ 
ther tkan as to the preliminary investigation here, so that we may be 
able to determine whether we shall make further investigation in New 
Orleans or at this point. 

Mr. Shellabarger. That is just as we understand it. 

Mr. Merrick. Then, with the permission of the committee, in view 
of that limitation in reference to this preliminary investigation, in view 
of the fact that Mr. Simff'ord has furnished his i)ointsan(l the other side 
have not furnished theirs, is it proper that points should be made by 
the other side, examinations entered into by the other side, that are in 
no way responsive to the points made by Mr. Spofford or to the exam¬ 
ination entered into by his counsel ? In other words, where a witness, 
such as this witness now before the committee—and 1 need not say more 
at present—testifies to a few questions propounded to him by Mr. Spof- 
ford’s counsel, is it right, in view of the limitations, that the counsel on 
the other side should examine this witness in reference to points not sug¬ 
gested, in response to no matters inquired of from him by me, and thus 
make him their witness, and still count him within the number of ours 
to which we have been limited ? Is it not right that, under such circum¬ 
stances as these, the other side should be confined within the limits of 
a projier cross-examination; and then, it they want the witness, sum¬ 
mon him for themselves? 


164 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I did uot want to interrupt tbe counsel; I never want to stop the ex¬ 
amination on tbe other side, and have not tbe slightest objection to any 
of tbe evidence put in, except in so far as it gives them an advantage 
over and above Mr. S[)offord in regard to tbe number to which we are 
limited in this preliminary investigation. No inquiries were made by 
me in reference to tbe Nicbolls legislature at all. I make no point 
about it. I merely call tbe committee’s attention to it. 

Tbe Chairman. Perhaps the impossibility of limiting this inquiry by 
the rules which govern the examination of witnesses in a court is v^ery 
apparent. It has never been the practice, in the first place, of the com¬ 
mittee to govern its examinations by the rules of the common law in 
reference to the admission of evidence, and when we depart from that, 
counsel on the respective sides may see that it is very difficult to deter¬ 
mine how far the inquiry should go even in cross-examination. If we 
adopt as the rules to govern this examination the rules governing the 
admissibility of evidence in courts of justice, of course the cross-exami¬ 
nation must be confined to matters brought out in the examination-in¬ 
chief; but uutil we adopt those rules, I do not know how we can apply 
a limit. I do not see how we can apply the common-law rules in part 
without aiiplying them in whole, and governing the examination strictly 
by them. So I have felt disposed to let the counsel on each side, who 
are gentlemen not only learned in the law, but of very large experience 
in the practice of their profession, conduct this examination according 
to what their own vievvs of propriety are. If they raise the point, and 
press it upon the committee, then the committee will consult and must 
come to some conclusion in reference to the question raised. But I 
have not felt at liberty as a member of the committee, in the presence of 
counsel conducting this cause, to interpose any objections to the mode 
of examination on the one side or on the other ; but if counsel on either 
side object to the mode of examination and require the committee to pass 
upon it, then we will consult and come to some conclusion in reference 
to it. 

Mr Merrick. I did not mean to raise any objection, Mr. Chairman, 
requiring a decision upon the question referred to in the apparent objec¬ 
tion, but merely meant to make a statement now as the appropriate 
time, which might form the basis for some other action on my part here¬ 
after. That was all I meant. 

Mr. Shellabarger. One word, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, is due from 
our side. In the range we have given to this examination, we, of course, 
have in view, first, the matter tiiat the chairman has just suggested, 
namely, that you do not confine .yourself to the rules of the common law 
in regard to a rigid cross-examination, and, second, and especially, to the 
matter of economy. We apprehended in our reflections that we should 
be admonished it we asked that this witness, after he was discharged, 
should be resubpcenaed and brought back here, that we ought to have 
saved the government the expense, and ought to have finished the ex¬ 
amination when we had an opportunity. All we desire about it is to 
have the committee direct us as to the course we shall pursue. 

The Chairman. The matter expense is a matter which I hope the 
counsel on both sides will consider, because I think myself there have 
been a great many questions asked that might be omitted. Econ¬ 
omy is not only in the number of witnesses, but the length of time wit¬ 
nesses are kept here. It would be exceedingly inconvenient to the mem¬ 
bers of the committee to be compelled to sit longer in the committee-room 
than is absolutely necessary to a proper hearing of the case. Counsel can, 
1 think, limit the examination by asking questions which are pertinent 


SPOFFORD VS.* KELLOGG. 


165 


to the iiKiuiry, as well as promote the comfort of the committee in other 
respects; but. at present, until some objection is raised to the mode of 
examination, requiring the committee to pass u[)on it, the counsel will 
have to gjovern themselves according to their own views of what is 
proper in the examination. 

Senator Kellogg. I will state my object in the last question : Part 
of the resolution of tlie committee adopted at the meeting after I tiled 
my specifications was that Mr. Spofford might summon such witnesses 
as the chairman might direct, not limiting the number, though that was 
dom% I believe, by an understanding—and properly enough ; I am not 
finding fault—but not exceeding such number as the committee could 
conveniently examine at this session of Congress. That would mani¬ 
festly leave me in a condition that I did not anticipate when I wrote my 
first letter. I felt it might be, perhaps, a notice to me that the wit¬ 
nesses of Mr. Si)ofibrd would be examined in such number as the com¬ 
mittee could conveniently examine during this session, leaving his case 
made.out, so far as he might be able to make it out with a limited num¬ 
ber of witnesses, and the adjournment come without au opportunity to 
me to answer, because I should not have had the time. Therefore I 
wrote the letter, saying I would like to have blank siibpienas, and have 
them sent to Xew Orleans so as to telegraph for witnesses to be brought 
here to counteract whatever case ^Ir. Spotford might make against me, 
so that I might be sure of having this portion of the rebutting evidence 
on record at the adjournment of Congress. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 understood counsel on the other side could not offer 
any evidence until I was through. 

Senator Kellogg. But 1 wanted the witnesses in time so as not to 
keep the committee. 

Senator Houston. So far as I am concerned, I was opposed to the 
examination of witnesses here. I wanted the examination to be made 
where the government would be sav^ed the expense of bringing wit¬ 
nesses here. It was as much at my instance as any other’s that the par¬ 
ties were called on to know how many they would want to examine, in¬ 
tending, and so expressing myself in committee, that if there was any 
large number called for I would not send for any of them; but if they 
would i)ut uj) with what we could examine before Congress should ad¬ 
journ, 1 was willing to summon them. If each side had asked for wit¬ 
nesses I would have been for dividing the number. When, however, 
the letters came in Spotford asked for some, and Governor Kellogg said 
he did not want any, and would not know what he wanted or whom he 
wanted until Spotford’s evidence was before the committee. I consented 
for Spotford to have what the chairman allowed him to have. Then it 
was that the call was made upon us, directly in the face and in conflict 
with Governor Kellogg’s letter; so that it forces the committee to have 
a number of witnesses here who in all likelihood cannot be examined 
before Congress adjourns. 

Senator Kellogg. I did - not state that I would not want any wit¬ 
nesses. 

Senator Houston. I remember very well what you stated ; your let¬ 
ter is here. 

Senator Kellogg. Certainly, the letter is there. The reading of it 
will show that I did not state that I wanted no witnesses. 

Senator Hill. I must suggest that if we desire the facts we ought 
not to allow the.se colloquies, which, I respectfully say, are very unne¬ 
cessary and exceed the time devoted to examining tbe witnesses. I 


166 


SrOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


thiuk if we go on with tlie examination without so many unnecessary 
colloquies, we shall make dispatch. 

Senator Ingalls. There is no question pending before the committee, 
I believe. 

Senator Hill. INTone whatever. 

Senator Houston. So far as I was concerned in that colloquy, it was 
very proper, and I would repeat it if it were to occur again. 

Senator Hill. I do not question the propriety of it. 

Senator Houston. I mentioned what I did in vindication of the vote 
I gave in committee. 

Senator Hill. I do not think your vote needs any vindication. 

Senator Kellogg. will go on with the examination of Mr. De 
Lacy. 

Senator Cameron. I should like to ask the witness a question or two. 

Senator Kellogg. Very well. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When and by whom were you first approached with reference to 
making an affidavit in regard to the case of Spolford and Kellogg?—A. 
By Mr. Ward. 

Q. When?—A. In the early portion of March. 

Q. For whom did you understand Ward was acting at that time?—A. 
He was acting in the interest of Mr. Spofford. 

p Q. What did he say to you in regard to it? Tell the whole story.—A. 
He came to me and said, ^‘De Lacy, you are run away from your, 
parish, bulldozed from there; why doffit you fix yourself right so that 
you can go back ? Go down and make out a statement of some kind 
and sign it; they will reopen this Kellogg-Spofford case j we are going 
to put Kellogg out of that Senate anyhow; we have a majority there 
now and we are going to put him out.” I said, “ What can I do ?” He 
told me to make a statement of anything; that it would never be used; 
and Mr. Cavanac pledged me on his word and honor it never would be used 
before the committee when 1 left New Orleans, and when I made it and 
showed it to him, that it would never be used before the committee ; that 
it was only a moral obligation. I made it knowing it was ex parte 
evidence and could not be used, and I made the statement and passed it 
over to Mr. Cavanac and he sent it as I have stated. Mr. Ward told me 
it was a matter of dollars and cents with him working up this case, 
and that I could make myself and pave a way to go back to my family, 
and when Mr. Spofford should be seated, could get something in the 
custom-house; the moment Mr. Spofford was seatM, the present officials 
in the custom-house would be put out and it would be in the hands of 
the Senators from that State. 

Q. Where do you say you wrote the paper ?—A. In the city of Algiers. 

Q. That is opposite New Orleans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. About what time did you write it ?—A. On tbe 21st dav of March, 
1879. 

Q. What did you do with that paper? —A. I gave it to Mr. Cavanac, 
and he gave it to Mr. Fitzpatrick to carry down to the magistrate; I 
went with him; handed it to the magistrate; the magistrate signed the 
document, and Mr. Fitzpatrick brought it back to Mr. Cavanac’s office ; 
I did not go back with him ; I gave it to Mr. Fitzpatrick; we went down 
there and signed it; the magistrate asked me if I was the man, sitting 
down in his seat; I told him “ Yes.” He signed it and handed it back to 
Mr. Fitzpatrick, and I went on to my residence. 

Q. Hid he administer any oath ?—A. He never administered me any 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 167 

oath ; he asked, Is that the man I said “ Yes.’^ He gave it to Mr. 
Fitzpatrick and he carried it back to Mr. Cavanac. 

Q,. Will you write your signature the way you usually write it?—A, 
YYs, sir. (Taking a pen and writing his name.) That is the way I sign 
my name. 

Q. Is that your usual, ordinary signature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. How do you spell your name ?—A. D-e-L a-c-y. 

Q. How is the name spelled that purports to be your signature ?—A. 
D-e-L-a-c-e-y; thec-e-y is put to it for French, I suppose; I never write it, 
because my forefathers are all Irish. Hubert De Lacy was my ancestor. 
We always spell our name D-e-L a-c-y. My father is from Ireland ; my 
foreparents are from Ireland ; my grandfather on my father’s side was 
Sir Hugh De Lacy, of the county of Connaught. 

Q. Do you know the name of the magistrate to whose office you 
went ?—A. No, sir ; I know where the office is. 

Q. Did you see the paper that was taken to the magistrate’s office 
after the magistrate put his name to it?—A. No, sir; after the magis¬ 
trate put his name to the paper he just handed it to Mr. Fitzpatrick, and 
he went down to Mr. Cavanac’s office at the State-house and I went to 
the custom house. 

By Mr. Shell An arger : 

Q. Did you go into the magistrate’s room ?—A. Yes, sir; and sat 
down in the room. 

Q. Were you by when he signed ?—A. I was sitting down, and he was 
sitting on his porch when I signed it. 

Q. How near were you to the magistrate ?—A. As far as from here to 
the back of this room. 

Q. Did you go up to his presence and hold up your hand and kiss the 
Bible?—A. No, sir; he never put any oath to me. 

Q. Did you go through any forms?—A. No forms at all. Mr. Fitz¬ 
patrick went and whisiiered something in his ear. He signed it and 
handed it right back to me. First he asked me if I was the man. There 
was no seal on it at all. 

By Senator Kernan: 

Q. Did he not ask yon if it was your signature that you swore to ?— 
A. He did not ask me questions. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Only were you the man ?—A. If I was the man. 

Q. YMu may state what occurred wlien you were in Cassidy’s Hotel in 
January, 1877 ?—A. I think I have already stated that. 

Q. Co over that and state who were present, and who the alleged 
agent of the Nicholls government was that was negotiating. Tell the 
whole story.—A. Mr. B. J. Kennedy, of Jefferson Parish, was the man 
who was offering money for us to go to the Nicholls legislature. He 
wanted ten to make a returning-board quorum in order to elect a Sen¬ 
ator. There was Mr. Brown of Jefferson, myself, Mr. Drew, Mr. Bar¬ 
rett, and .Mr. Barron. We were in room No. 4. After sitting down and 
talking to ns ho offered us $100 a day for every day we would answer 
roll-call for sixty days in the Nicholls legislature. He pulled the money 
out of his jiocket and counted it out, and said, Here, bo.'^s; heie it is. 
He counted out $0,000 for me; I wanted $10,000. I refused to take it. 
After I refused to take it Mr. Brown, of Jefferson, refused to take it. 
Otf we went into the next room, room No. o, to dinner. Of course they 
filled us iq) with wine and everything to get us intoxicated, so that we 


168 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


could make an agreement. Shortly after we were in there up came 
Senator Eobinson. 

Q. He was a Democratic senator?—A. A Democratic senator from 
Saint Landry. He got up and called Kennedy off. Kennedy came 
back and made us the same offer. The point was to go the next morn¬ 
ing. To complete the bargain he counted the money out on the table 
for eMch one of ns. I am led to believe that two of the gentlemen who 
were present and went to the Kicholls legislature next day accepted. 

Q. VVhich two?—A. I would not like to say here, because it would 
create enemies for me; but the journals of the Nicholls house would 
show that two went next day. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. What day was the next day?—A. The tenth of January, 1877 ; 
directly after the inauguration of Governor Packard. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. You may state the facts in reference to your being bulldozed, as 
you say, from your parish in the fall of 1876.—A. After I was nomi¬ 
nated for the legislature in 1870 I had a very bitter campaign; was 
shot at, run away from my home. I had all the odds against me in 
making my canvass, but I beat the Democratic party there, and after 
their counting and throwing out and stuffing ballot-boxes, and one 
thing and another, I was successful enough to be elected by 450 ma¬ 
jority over my competitor. After 1 was elected I could not stay at 
home. There was a vigilance committee, or red-shirt riders, as they 
are called up there, an armed body that visited my house every night 
to take me out and hang me. They passed resolutions in the committee 
rooms that I should never take my seat in the legislature. To keep me 
from going they had guards to watch all the roads. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. How do you know they passed resolutions ?—A. 1 have them in 
my po>session. 

Q. How do you know they passed them ?—A. I have the copies that 
were stolen from the organization. 

Q. Y^ou still do not answer how you know they passed resolutions.— 
A. The minutes show it. I have a friend who belongs to all the 
rifle companies down there, and he tells me things so that I can be ad¬ 
vised. 

Q. You know by the minutes?—A. By the minutes and by what the 
man told me and what they told me themselves. 

Q. The men who passed the resolutions ?—A. The captain of the 
company told me. 

Q. What is his name?—A. If it is any advantage to the committee 
I will give the name, but 1 do not wish to do it. 

Senator Cameron. You may give it. 

The Witness. Will it be any advantage to the committee to have 
his name. 

Senator Vance. Of that the committee is to judge, not you. You are a 
witness. This is the committee. 

A. J. W. Stafford, James Jeffers—Jeffers is the man who ran against 
me on the Democratic ticket—Doctor Cockerill, and the Democratic 
organ of Kapides parish, “The Louisiana Democrat.” 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Who? Dr. Cockerill is?—A. Ko; the paper, “ The Louisiana Dem> 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 169 

ocrat,^ ill articles advocated the taking of the De Lacys and Kelsos and 
Wellses out and hanging them. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You may give the substance of articles that appeared in that Dem¬ 
ocratic paper ?—A. In that paper an article came out on the 7th of No¬ 
vember, 187G, that stated that the DeLacys, the Kelsos, the Wellses, and 
the Barretts would have to be got rid of, and the only way to get rid 
of them was to apply the hemp, and that the white people of the i>arish 
of Bapides had stood enough of Kepublicanism, and the only way they 
could rid themselves of the Republicans of that parish was to apply 
the hemp and shot-gun; “ and hereby take notice that your bodies will 
be found hanging in the oaks of Rapides.” I did take notice of it, because 
that night there was a crowd came to my house; they came to the front 
door, and I went out at the backj I rattlesnaked it then to a canebrake 
and staid in the cane all night. Mr. Curran was on guard on the river 
to keep me from going on the steamboat. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick). What was his first name ?—A. Samuel Curran. 
Robert B. Hunter, attorney-at-law in Alexandria, guarded the Bayou 
Bceuf; J. G. P. Ilooe guarded the Couteau road; J. W. Stafford the 
Cheneyville road; the river road was guarded by George L. Wilson. 
These were captains of the White-League clubs. There are organizations 
up there now. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Who was captain of the club that told you ?—A. It was a friend 
of mine, who told me in confidence; I do not propose to give his name. 

Q. Did you say that the captain and members of the same club that 
threatened you gave you notice ?—A. It was a iirivate club. 

Q. Did you not say “club”?—A. This captain gave me notice they 
were going to carry into effect that resolution. One of those men shot 
at me in the town of Cheney ville. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Which one ?—A. Stafford. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. When?—A. In 1876, during my canvass. 

Q. About what number of persons came to your house on the night 
or evening of the 7th of November ?—A. About twenty-five. 

Q. Did you recognize any of them?—A. No, sir; I did not take time 
to recognize them. 

Q. What d'd they do or say !—A. They came and made a demand 
for me to come out. My mother got up and asked who they were. 
They said it was nobody’s business who they were; that they wanted me. 
The leader opened the gate and came up to the door; he could not get 
in at the door. Of course they had me overpowered ; it was no use for 
me to stand battle with twenty-five of them. I politely opened my back 
door, went through my garden, and back to the woods. Next morning 
1 came to town and met Dr. Cockerill. He said, “ You damned nigger, 
it is well you did get away last night; we were going to hang you; we 
will hang you anyhow. You shall never take a seat in the legislature 
of this State; you will never represent this parish.” When the votes 
were promulgated on the 6th day of December, 1876, by the returning- 
board I was away at a friend’s of mine in the pine woods. I had taken 
horseback one night, and thus got to the river and took a ffatboat in 


170 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Avoyelles Parish, and came to New Orleans, and remained there until 
the 22d of June, 1877. 

Q. Did you then return to your own parish ?—A. Yes, sir; I re¬ 
turned. 

Q. Have you had any trouble in your parish since?—A. Yes; I had 
trouble in this last campaign. 

Q. State what it was?—A. In the last campaign I w^as renominated 
for the legislature and went to make my canvass. The bulldozers and 
red-shirt riders were more severe this last campaign than in 1876. 

By Mr. Mereick : 

Q. When was the last campaign?—A. In 1878. 

Q. Last fall ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. State what occurred?—A. The day we held our nomination in the 
court-house in Alexandria the armed rifle-clubs of the parish of Eapides 
all congregated and came into the court-house armed, with the purpose 
of breaking up the convention and killing the leading Kepublicans in 
the parish. In fact, the only way they can carry Eapides Parish is by 
killing off leading Eepublicans and intimidating Eepublicans in gen¬ 
eral. I was not able to make speeches or to go around canvassing any¬ 
where in the parish. 

Q. Why not ?—A. From the resistance I met from these armed white- 
leaguers in the parish; they would not let me go anywhere. I was not 
allowed on any man’s plantation. I could not go into the little towns 
or talk to bodies of men. Eegistration opened. I was refused admis¬ 
sion to the registration ofiice; refused to be allowed to register several 
times. Mr. Wise and another man were nominated on the Democratic 
ticket for the legislature as against myself and Mr. Calhoun. I would 
happen in at the time they had a meeting and get away before the 
meeting was over, and I got my talk in in that way. The last meeting 
we had was on the 22d of October, 1878, on Bayou La Fourche, and the 
armed mob came up there to take me off the stand and hang me, and 
they would have done it only I got away in time. They came with the 
intention to take the leading Eepublicans of the parish and hang them. 
So I left Eapides. Captain Paul, who was mayor of the town of Alex¬ 
andria, and always very friendly to me, advised me to get out of the 
way.* 

The Chairman. I call the attention of counsel to this fact. Here are 
interrogatories now in reference to the canvass of 1878. If the inquiry 
is to extend all over the history of Louisiana prior and subsequent to 
this matter, the gentlemen .in charge of this investigation can see an in¬ 
terminable proceeding. I simply call attention to it. 

Mr. ShellabarGtER. This examination is being conducted by a mem¬ 
ber of the committee. 

Senator Cameron. The same matter had been gone into by counsel. 

Mr. Merrick. When counsel on the other side are examining I take 
the liberty under the privilege the committee accords me, representing 
Mr. Spofford, of interposing objection when in my judgment it ought to 
be interposed; but when a member of the committee asks a question I 
think respect for that body requires me to be silent. 

Senator Cameron. I would not have asked the witness any questions 
in regard to these matters were it not that Governor Kellogg himself 
had gone into these matters and no objection was made by counsel on 
the other side nor by any member of the committee. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


171 


Senator Kernan. We liave probably quite enough if we confine our¬ 
selves to the canvass of 1870, which elected this legislature, without 
going into that of 1878. 

Senator Cameron. I will not pursue it any further. 

JNIr. Merrick. I shall of course call witnesses to rebut what he says. 

The Chairman. The witness, for instance, charges that certain per¬ 
sons pursued him with an intention to hang him. As a matter of course 
those parties may demand to be heard in vindication of their character, 
and 1 do not know but that we shall be overwhelmed with avast amount 
of evidence which is not pertinent to the inquiry which we were directed 
to make. 

Senator Cameron. I will ask another question. (To the witness.) 
State what conversation you have had with Thomas Murray in reference 
to your making an affidavit, or his making an affidavit, or generally in 
reference to this Spolford-Kellogg contest.—A. We have not had so 
much conversation. He told me that he had made an affidavit; that it 
was a strong one. I told him I had made a statement also myself. He 
said, “We are going to win this light; they are going to put Kellogg 
out of the Senate any way, and we may as w^ell fix ourselves up, so that 
we can have some show amongst the white people of the State, and 
make ourselves up, so that w^e can show a mark for our color in the 
State of Louisiana.” He then spoke of little private matters, and we 
talked over them, that I would not like to mention to the committee. 

Q. What, if anything, did he say with reference to his obtaining 
money, or your obtaining money, for making an affidavit or state¬ 
ment?—A. He told me himself tliat he expected to make about $2,500 
by it. 

Q. When and where did he tell you that ?—A. In his house on Lib¬ 
erty street, in New Orleans—137 Liberty street. 

Q. When?—A. I cannot exactly remember the day. It has been a 
little over a month ago—during April. 

Q. What did you say Mr. Cavanac said to you would be done, or would 
not be done, with the statement you made?—A. Mr. Cavanac pledged 
me his word and honor as a gentleman that those statements that were 
presented would never be used in Washington or handed to the com¬ 
mittee; that they would be in the possession of Mr. Spoftbrd; and it is 
upon this, and nothing else, the men have made statements ami pre¬ 
sented them. Pledges w'ei e made that they never would be used before 
this committee. 

Q. When and where did Cavanac pledge you his word and honor in 
that connection ?—A. At his office in the ►State-house. 

Q. Do you remember about when?—A. On the 21st day of INfarch, 
and several times since, even to the day that we were leaving New Or¬ 
leans, last Monday, that those affidavits made by the men would never 
be used before the committee. 

Re-examined by Mr. Merrick* 

Q. Where were you last night?—A. Last night 1 was at Willard’s 
Hotel about half an hour. 

Q. Where else w ere you ?—A. At my room. 

Q. Whom did you visit last night?—A. Mr. Clarke. 

Q. Were you not at Mr. Kellogg’s room last night?—A. I was at his 
room. I went to see Mr. Conquest Clarke. 

Q. You went to see Clarke, and by accident got into Mr. Kellogg’s 
room?—A. He stays with Mr. Kellogg; no accident about it. 

Q. You went to see Mr. Clarke?—A. Yes, sir. 


172 


SPOFFOPvD VS, KELLOGG. 


■ Q. But you saw Mr. Kellogg ?—A. I did. 

Q. How long an interview did you have with him ?—A. About half 
an hour. I did not have a private interview with him; there were sev¬ 
eral gentlemen present. 

Q. Who were they?—A. I do not knowj I am not acquainted in 
Washington circles. 

Q. Do you not know who was present?—A. I know one or two who 
were present. 

Q. Who were they?—A. There was Mr. Walsh present. 

Q. What Walsh ?—A. J. A. Walsh, I believe ; I am not certain what' 
his initials are. Mr. Clarke w^as present. 

Q. Is Walsh a colored man ?—A. Ko, sir; I do not presume he is. 

Q. Does he live here ?—A. He used to live in Nevv^ Orleans. 

Q. Was Mr. Clarke present?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is his first name ?—A. Conquest Clarke. 

Q. When did you know xMr. Clarke?—A. I was acquainted with him 
in 1872. 

Q. In Kew Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Lives here now ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had you seen Mr. Clarke before, since you have been in W^ashing- 
ton City?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he ask you to go to his room ?—A. I went there to see him on 
some private affairs. 

Q. Do he and Mr. Kellogg occupy the same room ?—A. I do not know 
whether they occupy the same room and the same bed or not; they are 
at the same hotel; he is Mr. Kellogg’s private secretary, I believe. 

Q. Were you in Mr. Kellogg’s bedroom ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. In his parlor ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The parlor has a bedroom attached ?—A. I do not know which 
way the bedroom isj I did not inquire. I was in the parlor or reception- 
room. 

Q. Do you know \vhere Mr. Clarke boards?—A. I do not know whether 
he boards at Willard’s or not. I met Mr. Cavanac there. 

Q. Where did you meet Mr. Cavanac ?—A. In the hall. 

Q. You did not meet him in Mr. Kellogg’s room ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You met him in the hall?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you tell him you were going to see Mr. Clarke ?—A. Ko, sir ; 
I did not think it was his business to know it. 

Q. Did you tell him you were going to see Mr. Kellogg ?—A. Ko ; I 
did not think that it was his business where I was going. 

Q. You wanted to keep your business to yourself?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did you say wms the substance of the affidavit you say you 
wrote at Algiers?—A. It is not before the committee, and 1 do not pro¬ 
pose to speak of it. 

Q. I want you to state it.—A. The committee will have to go to Lou¬ 
isiana to get a copy of it. 

The Chairman. You are asked a question. Answer it. 

A. The affidavit I made is nothing like the one which has been pre¬ 
sented before the committee. 

Mr. Merrick. That is not my question. 

Senator Hill. You voluntarily stated that you made an affidavit. 

The Witness. I said a statement. 

Senator Hill. You voluntarily stated that. Kow you are asked for the 
contents. 

A. I cannot give you the contents when I have not got it. 




Sl’OFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


173 


Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Come as near as you can.—A. I do not propose 
to do that nidess I had it here to refresh iny ineinory and look over it. 

Q. Could yon not state a thin^j in it ?—A. 1 could state some things, 
hut I do not propose to begin in the middle and try to give a thing here 
and there. 

^Ir. Merrick. I do not ask what you propose. 

]Mr. SuELLABARGER. Comc as near as you can. 

Senator Kernan. State it as near as you can. 

A. As near as I can state it, I made aflidavit that 1 heard talk of men 
getting money for voting for ]Mr. Kellogg—something of that nature, but 
for my self I never was brought in. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) That was not in your affidavit ?—A. Xo ; that 
was not in. 

Q. I asked what you put in that affidavit. 

Senator Kernan. State it as fully as you can. 

A. 1 stated that I had a promise of money for voting for 3Ir. Kellogg 
in my affidavit. 

By Mr. ]\rERRiCK: 

Q. What else ?—A. And that I was promised certain patronage for 
my parish by sticking to Mr. Kellogg in the general assembly. 

Q. What else ?—A. That is about all I can remember. 

Q. IIow much money did you state in that affidavit you were prom¬ 
ised for voting for Mr. Kellogg ?—A. I was promised by a colored man, 
a sideway promise ; none of the ])romises were ever fulfilled. 

(J. I am not asking about whether they were fulfilled.—A. $200. 

Q. A’ou said that you were jmomised $200 for voting for Kellogg?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And said jmu had heard general talk about parties being paid for 
voting for Kellogg ?—A. There was some talk about it. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Did you state in the affidavit who made the offer or promise to 
you f—A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did yon state that you had re -eived money from Kellogg?—A. 
No, sir; 1 did not. I received money, but it was not from Mr. Kellogg. 

From whom did you state that you received the money ?—A. I re¬ 
ceived some money from Mr. Smith down there, but 1 had to pay him 
back. 

Q. One moment. Y"ou did not put that in the affidavit?—A. I said 
that 1 received money from Mr. Smith. 

Q. A^ou stated that you received money from Mr. Smith ?—A. Y^es, 
sir. 

(^. Did you state how you received it?—A. No. 

Q. ])id not you state in that affidavit that it was put on your table? 
—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you state what it was received for?—A. No; I did not. 

Q. Did you simi)ly state that you had received money from Mr. Smith? 
—A. Yes, sir ; stated 1 had re^*eived money from Mr. Smith, lie came 
to me and advised me to vote for ]\Ir. Kellogg. 

C^. lie came to you and advised you to vote for Mr. Kellogg, and gave 
you money a day or so afterwards?—xV. It was the day before. 

Q. Did you state how much mone^’ he gave you?— A. Seventy-five 
dollars. 1 had to give him my paper for it in return. 


174 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you state that in the affidavit?—A. No; 1 did not think it 
necessary. 

Q. I am only asking what was in the affidavit.—A. I am stating what 
was in the affidavit. 

Q. I do not want to go outside of the affidavit.—A. You are. 

Q. No, I am not; you are. I understand you to say that it was in 

the affidavit. You stated in that affidavit that you had heard general- 

—A. I stated in that affidavit that I had heard general talk about mem¬ 
bers of the legislature receiving money for voting for Mr. Kellogg. I 
stated in that affidavit that 1 got $100 from Mr. Smith and gave my 
note for it. 

Q. Did you say you gave your note ?—A. My paper is my note. 

Q. Was that in the affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you say in the affidavit that it was a loan or that that money 
was paid for your vote ?—A. I did not state either of those. I stated 
that I received- 

Q. That you received from Mr. Smith ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Yon also stated that you had the promise of $200 if you would 
vote for Kellogg ?—A. I stated that there were promises of $200 for 
members voting for Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. Did you not say just now that you had stated in the affidavit that 
you had a promise ot $200 if you would vote for Kellogg ?—A. No. 

Mr. Merrick. Let the reporter read back, that we may see what he 
did say. 

The Chairman. If he said it, it is down. Go on with the examina¬ 
tion. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) What else was in that statement ?—A. I can¬ 
not remember now. 

Q. How long was the statement?—A. I suppose about 22 or23 lines. 

Q. Not more than that?—A. No; perhaps half a sheet of foolscap 
paper, beginning with my residence and election to the legislature. 

Q. It was only half a sheet?—A. That is all. 

Q. A single sheet like that [exhibiting] ?—A. A single sheet of fools¬ 
cap. 

Q. A single half sheet, was it not?—A. Half a sheet of foolscap 
paper. 

Q. How much of that side was filled?—A. Let me see; I began it 
about here; about that much [indicating]. 

Q. Your name was on the same side where the writing began ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You say you took that statement to Mr. Cavanac ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you gave it to Mr. Cavanac?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How came you to take that statement to Mr. Cavanac?—A. I was 
sent to him by Mr. Ward, one of Mr. Spofibrd’s agents. 

Q. Where is Mr. Ward now?—A. I suppose he is lying in his bed 
now. I heard he got cut. 

Q. Who cut him ?—A. Ross Stewart. 

Q. AVho is Ross Stewart?—A. Ex-representative from the parish of 
Tensas. 

. Q. What is he engaged in now?—A. Night inspector, or watchman, 
or something in the custom-house. 

Q. Was he in the legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. One of your gang that voted for Mr. Kellogg ?—A. No, sir; I had 
no gang. 

Q. You stated yon had a combination of twelve men.—A. We had 
no combination of twelve men. We had a caucus of fifteen. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


175 


Q. Wbat was tliis l>o(ly that yon spoke of that was dealing with the 
Nicholls legislature when jou had a promise?—A. That was on the 
other side. 

Q. You did not mean to say you had any ?—A. I had not, because it 
was on the other side. 

Q. ]Mr. Stewart was in the legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was in your caucus?—A. No, sir; Mr. Stewart was in no cau¬ 
cus. 

Q. Never attended the caucus that nominated Kellogg ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he attend the joint convention that elected Kellogg ?—A. Y^es, 
sir. 

Q. And voted for Kellogg ?—A. I think he did. 

Q. How long has be been in the custom house?—A. He has been in 
there ever since January or February. 

Q. Was he in there as far back as January !—A. I think he was. I 
think he went in there on the 15th of January. 

Q. Have you understood what that quarrel was between him and 
Ward?—A. Ward came to him to get him to make a statement in the 
Spofford case. That is wbat the New York Herald states. 

Q. Ward went to him to get him to make a statement in the Spof¬ 
ford case, and he stabbed Ward?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I want to put on record an objection to that 
kind of testimony, proving what this quarrel was by a statement that 
the witness catches from the newspapers, the affair having occurred 
since he left home. 

Mr. Merrick. In deference to your objection I will not go any further 
with that. (To the witness.) At Ward^s instance you made that state¬ 
ment and took it to Cavanac ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) This was in wbat mouth ?—A. The 21st day of 
March. 

Q. The 21st day of March, 1879 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You went with Cavanac from bis office?—A. I did not. 

Q. Y'ou went with Cavanac to some other place?—A. 1 never went 
with Mr. Cavanac any place in my life. 

Q. 1 understood you to say you did.—A. No, sir; I came to Wash¬ 
ington with Mr. Cavanac. This is the only place I ever was with him. 

Q. Where did you take that paper from Mr. Cavanac ?—A. I did not 
take it. Mr. Fitzpatrick carried it to the magistrate. 

Q. Did you go with Mr. Fitzpatrick ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You went with Fitzpatrick to the magistrate’s office ?—A. I did. 

Q. The magistrate signed the paper in your presence ?—A. Y^s, sir. 

Q. How far were you standing from him ?—A. About as far as from 
here to the door of this room. 

Q. Did you see him do it?—A. Y'es. 

By Senator Yanoe : 

Q. Did he put a seal on it ?—A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. He did not put any seal on it ?—A. No, sir; he signed it and handed 
it to Mr. Fitzpatrick, who put it in bis pocket. 

Q. Did you see hijn when he banded it back to Fitzpatrick ?—A. Y"es, 
sir. 

Q. Did you see the paper?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How*^ far were you standing from Fitzpatrick ?—A. As far as from 
here to the door. 


17G 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Was Fitzpatrick with the magistrate?—A. Standing up and whis¬ 
pering to him as the magistrate was writing his name. 

Q. And you were standing off at the door ?—A. I was standing in the 
court-room about as far off as from here to the door. 

Q. How large is tliat room ?—A. A little larger than this. 

Q. The room in which that officer did this business?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A little larger than this room?—A: Yes, sir. There are three 
offices attached to that building. 

Q. What did you go up there for ?—A. Mr. Cavanac told me to go up 
there with Mr. Fitzpatrick. 

Q. To do what?—A. He did not tell me what to do; he told me to go 
up with him to that office. 

Q. You did not know what you were goiug there for?—A. No, I did 
not. 

Q. You did not inquire what you were goiug there for?—A. I did not, 
because 1 did not think it was necessary. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. How far from Cavanac’s office was it?—A. Three blocks. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. And you went along up there quietly, under Oavanac’s direction, 
without asking what you were going there for, and without knowing ?— 
A. He told me to go along with Mr. Fitzpatrick, and I went along with 
him. 

Q. And without knowing what you were to do when you got there ?— 
A. That is it exactly. 

Q. And when you got there you did not do anything ?—A. I did not 
do anything. The magistrate asked me if I were the man, and I told 
him yes. 

Q. Did he ask if that was your signature?—A. No, sir; he did not 
ask me anything about the signature; only the one question—if I was 
the man ? 

Q. That was all ?—A, That was all. 

Q. Did you have any suspicion at the time that the paper handed to 
Cavanac was not the paper you had signed?—A. No, sir; suspicion 
is something never rests on my mind. 

Q. Did you not observe the paper ?—A. I paid no attention to it. 

Q. You saw the paper handed back to Fitzpatrick ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did it look like the same paper ?—A. I paid no attention to it after 
he handed it to the magistrate. 

Q. You had nothing further to do with it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You stated that you voted in blank the first time wlien the vote 
was taken for senator, and then changed your vote.—A. I voted blank, 
and changed my vote after the roll was called. 

Q. That was in the joint convention on the day of the election?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you a friend of Warmoth’s?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At what time in that proceeding did Warmoth make his speech ? 
—A. On the day Governor Kellogg was nominated. 

Q. Did he make it before the balloting or after ?—A. Before the bal¬ 
loting, of course. 

Q. You stated that it was under Governor War moth’s suggestion that 
you voted for Kellogg; why did you not vote in the first instance for 
Kellogg ?—A. It was on the suggestion of the Republican party. I 
will tell you my reason I did not vote for him; I was in favor of Mr. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 177 

Pincbback or Mr. James Lewis; I was in favor of a colored man for 
United States Senator. 

Q. ^\ by did not you vote for him ?—A. I wanted to force an issue to 
elect a colored man to tbe United States Senate for tbe short term. 

Q. Did you tbiuk tbe best way to do that was to vote a blank?—A. 
Ko. 

Q. When was it that Murray told j’ou be was to get 82,500?—A. 
During tbe month of April. 

Q. What time in April ?—A. I do not know; I did not keep tbe day. 

(,>. Where was it ?—A. At Mr. Murray’s bouse, on Liberty street. 

Q. In Xew Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you there during tbe whole of tbe month of April ?—A. I 
have been there ever since last December, in New Orleans. 

Q. It was in bis bouse ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Was there any one else present?—A. No, sir; we were sitting 
down talking; bis wife was in the back part of the bouse. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What were you talking about?—A. This Kellogg and Spofford 
case. 

Q. Did you tell him you bad made a statement ?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you tell him what was m your statement?—A. I did not. 

Q. ]Iid you tell him nothing about it?—A. No, sir; I told him I bad 
made a statement. He said be bad made a statement. He did not make 
me any wiser what bis statement w\as nor I him with mine. 

Q. J)id you say anything in that conversation about your knowledge 
in tbe matter?—A. No. 

Q. You have not beard my question.—A. I know what your ques¬ 
tion is. 

Q. Tell me wbat it is ?—A. Go ahead. 

Q. You seem to be very ready. Did you state anything about tbe 
fact that you both knew, according to your statement and bis testimony 
that it was tbe common report that money was paid to members to vote 
for Kellogg?—A. No, sir; tbe question was not raised. 

Q. Was there any question raised about Kellogg’s election at all ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. No question at all ?—A. Only tbe statements. He told me be bad 
made a statement and I told him I bad made one. That was all tbe 
conversation on tbe question. It started on to some further private 
talk. 

Q. I understood you to say you talked about the Kellogg business?— 
A. Y^'es; we did talk about the Kellogg business. 

Q. Wbat was it you said about that?—A. It was private, and not in 
tbe case before tbe committee. 

Q. I prefer you should tell us.—x\. It will not do you any good. 

Q. Never mind ; I will see.—A. We got talking about it, and about 
making a statement. Murray said be bad a cbance to make some money 
by tins oi)eration. I told liim yes, I dared say we could, but I did not 
want any. I wanted a position in tbe custoin bouse; sometbing I could 
make a living at. He said “If Spofford is seated you can get that.” 

Q. Was that all ?—A. That is about tbe substance of tbe conversa¬ 
tion. 

Q. Yon should have told that before. Why did you not tell it when 

12 s K 


178 


SPOFFORD V8. KELLOGG. 


I asked you ?—A. I thought you kuew what it was before, and you could 
refresh your memory since. 

Q. Was that your reason ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You gave your reason that it was private. Y^ou swore you would 
not tell it because it was private.—A. It was private conversation. 

Q. Did you not make it public just now, when Mr. Kellogg was ex¬ 
amining you ?—A. Y"es. 

Q. If your reason for not telling me was because it was private, state 
why you did not recognize it as private and not to be disclosed when he 
was asking you about it ?—A. If you wait till I get through- 

Q. I thought you had got through. I asked if it was all. ITou said it 
was all.—A. It was all about that one subject. 

Q. That is what I was asking you about.—A. I was going on with 
that conversation. 

Q. Complete it.—A. We got to talking about that. We entered into 
a little arrangement with ourselves how we were to conduct this fight, 
and everything, and how we were to talk and manage in general. 

Q. But I thought just now you said that was all that had passed about 
this subject of Kellogg's election.—A. l^ou thought wrong. 

Q. Did I think wrong ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The record will show whether I thought wrong or you said wrong. 
Y^ou said after you told Murray that you had made a statement he said 
he had made one, and then your conversation passed off on to other 
matters, private matters.—A. After we got through talking about the 
case we did talk on private matters. 

Q. Y^ou said just now, as I understood you, that all you said about 
the case was that both of you had made statements ? 

Senator Cameron. All he said about that particular matter. 

Mr. Merrick. Ail he said about the Kellogg case. 

Senator Cameron. That is not my recollection ? 

Mr. Merrick. The record will show. 

Senator Cameron. Then there is no necessity of repeating it. 

Mr. Merrick. I repeat it for the purpose of getting it out of the wit¬ 
ness. (To the witness.) You may fix the date of that.—A. I cannot, 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Was it yo\ir purpose then to go from, what 
you had said in your statement I Was it your intention at that time, or 
in your conversation with him, to carry through to the end as true the 
statement you had written down, that there was common conversation 
among the members about Kellogg^s paying $200 for votes, and that 
you were offered $200 for your vote ?—A. No , it was not my intention. 

Q. It was not your intention f—A. No. 

Q. YMu then wrote down this statement without the intention of ever 
saying it was true, did yon ?—A. I did. 

Q. You wrote down a lie, did you ?—A. I wrote it down to swear to 
just what I wrote, and nothing else. 

Q. Did you recognize it at the time you wrote it to be a lie ?—A. No, 
sir ; I did not. 

Q. Wasittrue, and did you recognize it to be true ?—A. What I wrote 
in my statement was true. 

Q. Then it was true that you were offered $200 to vote for Kellof»'o' ? 
—A. Y"es, sir j it was true. ’ 

Q. Did you not say this morning, in reply to the examination on the 
o^her side, that you had never been offered anything to vote for Mr. 
Kellogg i A. ^ 0 , sir; I did not. I said I did not receive anvthiugfor 
voting for him. . " 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 179 

Q. You have never stated to day that you were not offered money ?— 
A. Not before. 

Q. Then you were in point of fact offered 8200 to vote for Kellogg ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever get the money ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. \Yhat is the reason you did not ?—A. Tuat is a question I am un¬ 
able to answer. 

Q. It is due to you, is it ?—A. No j it is not due to me, because the 
man is gone. 

Q. You did perform your part of the bargain ?—A. It was no bar¬ 
gain. 

Q. Only a bargain to pay you money for giving your vote ?—A. No. 

Q. You gave the vote ?—A. I voted the way the Eepublicans voted. 

Q. I asked did you not give the vote ?—A. I gave the vote, but not 
for consideration. 

Q. You were promised 8200 if you should give that vote, were you 
not ?—A. No, sir ; I was not promised it if I should give that veto. 

Q. What did you say just now ?—A. I stated that a man told me to 
vote for Kellogg and I would get $200. 

Q. Who was the man ?—A. Mr. Smith. 

Q. What is his first name ?—A. G. L. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. The member of Congress ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Not now a member?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He was collector of customs ?—A. Not at that time. He was 
then a member of Congress. 

By .Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What else did Smith tell you you would get besides 8200 or 
$250 ?—A. Smith did not tell me anything else. 

Q. What did Smith say particularly of this business of Kellogg’s 
election ?—A. He had nothing to do with it, more than his own private 
interest was involved. 

Q. What is his first name, George L.!—A. G. L. Smith. 

Q. Now, then, you say that that statement that you wrote down did 
not conform at all to this affidavit ?—A. To which affidavit ? 

Q. The one you read here.—A. No, it did not. I just looked at the 
signature ; not much at the other portion of it. 

Q. You say that statement was not like this?—A. There might be 
some synopsis taken from mine in there. 

Q. Now I will read this to you.—A. Well. 

Q. “Personally appeared before me, this ninth day of April, 1879, W. 
John De Lacy, who, being duly sworn, does depose as follows, to wit: 
I reside in liapides Parish, Louisiana; I represented that parish in the 
legislature in 1877 and 1878; am a Republican, and took my stand with 
the Packard government until its fall.” That you wrote down in the 
other statement ?—A. That is in the other statement. 

Q. “ Believing it to be the lawful government at that time.” Did you 
believe that and write it down ?—A. Yes, sir; 1 have believed it until 
now. 

Q. You wrote that down, too I—A. I wrote that down. 

Q. “ 1 arrived in New Orleans December 9th, 187G, after the promul¬ 
gation of the election by the returning board ; I attended the Repub- 



180 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


lican caucuses before tbe assembling of the legislature.” Did you write 
that down, too?—A. Yes, sir; something of that kind. 

Q. “Col. Keating was chairman of the caucus and A. Dejoi secre¬ 
tary.” Did you write that down, too?—A. Yes. 

Q. “ The caucus was called the administration caucus. The object 
was to elect Michael Hahn speaker and W. P. Kellogg United States 
Senator.” Did you write that down, too ?—A. I did not write that 
portion. I wrote the object of the caucus was to elect Hahn speaker 
aid the officers of the house. 

Q. You did not say, “and to elect Kellogg Senator ” ?—A. Ko, sir ; 
because I did not think Kellogg was going to be elected Senator. I 
thought Pinchback had the inside track. 

Q. The object of the caucus might have been to elect Kellogg, though 
not your object?—A. It was not. 

Q. Had they no caucus about Kellogg?—A. Kot until after the 
speaker was elected. 

Q. The caucus continued, did it not ?—A. It continued until the Pack¬ 
ard government fell. 

Q. That same caucus that nominated the speaker nominated the Sen¬ 
ator, did it not ?—A. The caucus ? Ko. 

Q. The caucus did not ? After nominating the speaker, did not the 
caucus adjourn over to meet again to name the Senator?—A. It met 
every morning. 

Q. Adjourned from day to day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was the same caucus, meeting from day to day ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And that.same caucus nominated Kellogg, did it not?—A. Ko; 
the caucus did not nominate Mr. Kellogg. Prank J. D’Avy nominated 
Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Did not the caucus nominate Senator Kellogg?—A. The Eepubli- 
cans agreed to support him if he was put in nomination. 

Q. Did not the caucus agree to elect Kellogg ?—A. Kot to my knowl¬ 
edge. 

Q. Was there not a gentleman in that caucus who advocated the 
election of Casey, the brother-in-law of President Grant?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. AVas his name not spoken of and discussed ?—A. Kot during my 
presence in the caucus. 

Q. Was not Mr. Warmoth’s name spoken of and discussed in the cau¬ 
cus ?—A. No. 

Q. Never brought forward ?—A. No. 

Q. In caucus v;as there no talk about it ?—A. Not in my presence. 
We talked about him in the house. 

Q. Was there no agreement of some to elect him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. “ I stayed in the caucus eight days.”--A. I stayed in the caucus 
from the beginning of the session until the session went down. 

Q. “I left the caucus, having refused to jdedge myself to support cer¬ 
tain measures, viz, the election of Michael Hahn to'the speakership of 
the house of representativ^es.”—A. I was opposed to Hahn. 

Q. That is true, is it ?—A. It is true that I was opposed to Michael 
Hahn, and I am yet. 

Q. AVas that in your statement that you wrote?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That was not in your statement?—A. No, sir. ’ 

Q. “I was short of money, so I went to Kellogg to borrow some.”— 
A. I was not short of money, because I left home with $1,700 in mv 
pocket. 

Q. Then what were you dickering about your vote for, and dickering 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


181 


to "o into the Nicholls legislature ?—I was not dickering to go into 
the Nicholls legislature. The Nicholls legislature was dickering at me. 

Q. One man cannot dicker much ?—A. I do not kuow. It is a game 
I do not play, dickering. 

Q. Did you not state that you went in for money ?—A. No ; I did not. 

Q. You did not state that you went in for money ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You got money for doing something ?—A. For a good many things. 

Q. For voting for Spoffbrd, you say ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you not dickering about that ?—A. No. 

Q. How did it come ?—A. When the man came up and passed me he 
put the wherewith down, and I voted for him and divided it with my 
colleague. 

Q. What right had you to divide it out unless on a bargain ?—A. 
Well, sir, he told me what to do with it. 

Q. That was your dickering?—A. No, sir; I don’t understand the 
game. Webster has no such word. 

Mr. Merrick. I probably am not up to the descendant of Sir Hugh De 
Lacy in reference to the use of language. (To the witness.) That was 
the bargain, and yet you had plenty of money ?—A. I had money; al¬ 
ways had money. 

Q. xVnd you are fond of making it ?—A. I work. I made my money ; 
made it honestly. 

Q. Y’'ou made that honestly, did you ? Y'ou think that was making 
it honestly ?—A. That is politics, ain’t it ? 

Q. Do you think that was honest ?—A. Yes. 

Q. “He loaned me fifty dollars, with the understanding that I was to 
vote for him for United States Senator.’’ Is that true or not ?—A. It is 
not true. 

Q. You never had any conversation with Kellogg about that ?—A. 
No, sir; because I did not know he was a candidate for United States 
Senator until a few days after Hahn was elected speaker. 

Q. How many days before he was elected actually ?—A. Four or five 
.days. 

Q. A^ou only knew he was a candidate for the Senate four or five days 
before he was actually elected ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I suppose that if he had offered you that money to vote for him 
you would have done it readily enough ?—A. I do not suppose I ^yould. 

Q. I thought you said that was all honest'?—A. I do not think it was 
all honest. You asked me did I think it was honest, and I told you yes. 

Q. If he had offered you fifty dollars with the understanding that in 
consideration you were to vote for him, you would not have been pre¬ 
vented from taking it ?—xV. I would have handed it back to him. 

Q. Why? Because it was too small a sum ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Too little ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You say you refused that sum because it was too small ?— A. I 
told you I would not take it. 

Q. Is not that the reason why you would not take that, because it 
was too small ?—A. I have luade that right plain. The reason why I 
would not take it was because I did not want it. When my party is at 
stake, I do not sell out my vote for money. 

Q. You agreed with Smith to take 8200 ?—A. No; I did not make an 
agreement. 

Q. Did you not leave Smith with the understanding that you would 
vote for Kellogg ?—A. No, sir; I did not leave Smith at all. 

Q. Did Smith leave you?—A. No. 


182 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you stay togetherA. Yes; we staid together and sat 
down and talked. 

Q. Was he not under the impression when he left that you were going 
to vote for Kellogg in consideration of that $200!—A. ISTo; because 
when the vote was announced 1 rose up and changed my vote from blank 
to Kellogg. 

Q. That does not make any odds; you did vote for Kellogg ultimately. 
I asked you about the understanding between you and Smith !—A. We 
had no understanding. 

Q. When Smith left you was it not the understanding you were going 
to vote for Kellogg!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he not so understand !—A. No. 

Q. He told you he would give you $200 for the vote!—A. He did not 
tell me he would give. He said I would get $200. 

Q. You did not say you would not take it!—A. I did not say I would 
not take it nor that I would. 

Q. Silence is generally acquiescence!—A. Not in all cases. 

Q. That matter is not put in the other affidavit about Kellogg!—A. 
No. I think you know more about that affidavit than I do. 

Q. We shall see about that when I come to put one or two other wit¬ 
nesses on the stand how much you know about it further. “ On the day 
Kellogg was elected to the Senate I did not vote when my name was 
called, neither did my colleague Mr. Drew.” Did you put that in the 
other affidavit!—A. No, sir. 

Q. It is true, is it not!—A. No. 

Q. You did not vote !—A. I voted. 

Q. Voted blank!—A. Voted “blank,” and then voted “Kellogg.” 

Q. “ George L. Smith came to me and told me to stand by Kellogg, 
that I would be taken care of, and that I would get what I was prom¬ 
ised.” Did you put that in the other affidavit! (The witness shook his 
head.) “Smith then threw an envelope on my desk sealed. I opened it 
and saw that it contained money. ” Did you put that in the other affi¬ 
davit!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then according to this affidavit it appears that Smith told you that 
you would get what you had been promised and threw an envelope on 
your desk, and according to the other affidavit Smith said you would 
get $200 if you voted for Kellogg. That is the difference between the 
two?—A. That is the difference. 

Q. “I opened it” (the envelope) “and saw that it contained money. 
Mr. S. D. Herbert was present when I received the money.” Who is S. 
D. Herbert!—A. I do not know S. D. Herbert. 

Q. You never heard of such a man !—A. No, sir, 

<^. L. D. Herbert!—A. I know L. D. Herbert. 

Q. Another man!—A. Another man. 

Q. Who is L. D. Herbert!—A. gentleman in New Orleans. 

Q. What does he do!—A. That I am unable to state. 

Q. You do not know what he is doing now !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Is he a white man or black man?—A. A colored man. 

'Q. “ Mr. L. D. Herbert was present when I received the money. Mem¬ 
bers were offered from $200 to $250 for their votes. Several that were 
promised got nothing.” Was that in the other paper !—A. No. 

Q. It was in the other paper, however, that the common rumor was 
that men were paid for their votes!—A. It was in the other paper that 
it was rumored that men were to get paid. 

Q. Was it in the other paper also the anaount that they were to get! 
—A. I think it vas. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 183 

Q. How much was it iu the other paper!—A. Two hundred dollars, I 
think, ’ 

Q. Two hundred to two hundred and fifty dollars!—A. Two hundred 
dollars. 

Q. Did you state iu the other paper also that some of them got nothing ? 
—A. No; I did not. 

Q. Did you state in the other paper that it was the everyday talk that 
they were to get 8200 or 8250 ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How did you express the rumor; what was the language used?— 
A. That it was a general rumor that members were to get 8200 for vot¬ 
ing for Mr. Kellogg. That is about the language that is in the other. 

Q. “ It was the everyday talk among the members of the legislature 
that Kellogg put up the money so as to beat Pinchback.” Was that in 
the other paper ?—A. No; that was not in the other paper. Pinchback 
withdrew in favor of Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Was it the everyday talk that Kellogg put up the money to beat 
Pinchback?—xV. No. 

Q. It was not ?—A. No. 

Q. Now, was it, in point of fact, the everyday talk and common rumor 
that Kellogg was paying men to vote for him ?—A. More or less; you 
could hear now and then a man mention it. 

Q. Was it not common talk?—A. No; it was not common talk, be¬ 
cause everybody did not hear it. 

Q. You said in the other paper it was common rumor?—A. I said it 
was rumor. 

Q. Have you not stated, in reply to the other side in your examina¬ 
tion here, that you never heard of such a thing ?—A. No ; I did not. 

Q. Pinchback and Kellogg were fighting each other for the place, 
contending with each other, were they not?—A. No. 

Q. Was not Pinchback a candidate ?—A. Pinchback was a candidate, 
but the understanding was that he was to run for the short term. 

Q. Was that the understanding between him and Kellogg?—A. I do 
not know what the understanding was between him and Kellogg, but it 
was the understanding of members of the legislature that we were to 
elect Pinchback or James Lewis for the short term. We wanted to have 
one colored man and a white man. 

Q. “ I got 8200 for voting for him myself” ?—A. I never got a cent. 

Q. They never kept the bargain with you ?—A. They never kept the 
bargain, if you call it that; I do not. 

Q. They owe you 8200 yet, do they not ?—A. No. 

Q. You said just now that Thomas was present at the time the vote 
was taken?—A. Yes, sir: Thomas was present. 

Q. What was the matter with him ?—A. He had a fever. 

Q. What sort of fever ?—xV. Not being a physician, I cannot tell—an 
ordinarv malarial fever. 

Q. Did he not have small pox ?—A. He had small pox four months 
afterwards. 

Q. Did he not have small-pox, and did he not have then a temporary 
recovery and relapse ?—A. Not for months afterwards. 

Q. How long was Thomas in the house?—A. He sat there three or 
four sessions. 

Q. I mean at this time; how many days or nights did he stay there ?— 
A. Thomas staid there Monday night, Tuesday night, and Wednesday 
night. 

Q. Thomas staid there Monday night, Tuesday night, and Wednes¬ 
day night, you say ?—A. Yes, sir. 


184 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. What was the day you voted for Kellogg?—A. On Tuesday, I 
think, we first started. 

Q. It was Wednesday he was elected, I think ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then Thomas was in the house Monday, Tuesday, and Wednes¬ 
day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Staid there day and night ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Did you not say he was brought there in a cab ?—A. Yes, sir f 
brought there Monday morning in a cab. 

By Mr. Merrtck : 

Q. Was he not sent for by the sergeant-at-arms on the day of the 
election of Kellogg to make up a quorum ?—A. All absentees were sent 
for to the rooms in the house. 

Q. Was Thomas one of the absentees?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who else was absent ?—A. I was absent. 

Q. Did you come in yourself or were you brought in ?—A. I came in 
myself. I heard the sergeant-at-arms was hunting up absent members 
and I came. 

Q. What day was that?—A. On Monday. 

Q. On Wednesday was there any person sent for ?—A. Ko, sir 5 that 
was the election day. We had all the members present. 

Q. All the members were present before you went into joint conven¬ 
tion ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you positive about that?—A. Y’es, sir; all the members were 
in the 8 tate-house except those who were absent, Mr. Kern and the 
others. 

Q. Except those who voted the next day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have a quorum there on Monday ?—A. Yes, sir ; on Mon¬ 
day we had a quorum. 

Q. A full quorum on Monday?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have a quorum when the house met on Monday ?—A. We 
had a quorum. Sixty-one members was a quorum of the bouse. 

Q. Did you have a quorum of the senate ?—A. I do not know. I can¬ 
not be particular about the senate. 

Q. What day was it you first went into joint convention?—A. I think 
the second week. 

Q. What day ?—A. 1 do not remember the day, whether Monday or 
Tuesday. I think on Tuesday, if I am not mistaken. 

Q. Then you think you went into joint convention on Tuesday ?—A. 
I am not certain. It was Monday or Tuesday. 

Q. On Monday or Tuesday you went into joint convention for the first 
time. Did you have a quorum of the joint convention then?—A. 1 think 
there were. 

Q. Did the house continue its sessions from Monday until Wednes¬ 
day ?—A. Yes, sir; we kept up mock sessions all night. 

Q. You kept up sessions all the time ?—A. A^es, sir. 

Q. In continuous session ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you had a quorum all the time?—A. I think there was; I am 
not certain. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. On Monday of the first week ?—A. Ko. 

Mr. Merrick. I am speaking of the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednes¬ 
day of the second week. lie says there was a quorum of the house on 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 185 

^roudciy and they continued their session on, and there was a quorum 
all the time. 

The Witness. Sixty-one members was a quorum. I think there was a 
quorum all the time. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You think there was. What do you know about it?—A. I was 
there and participated. 

Q. 13o you know there was a quorum there ?—A. I cannot swear posi¬ 
tively there was a quorum until we went into joint session to elect the 
Senator. 

Q. Was there a quorum on Tuesday ?—A. We had a separate meet¬ 
ing that day. 

Senator Hill. The witness stated they went in on Tuesday. 

The Witness. It was the beginning of the week; the day I am not 
certain. 

Q. (By Mr.^lERRiCK.) Did you go into joint session more than once?— 
A. Yes, twice; Tuesday and Wednesday, Itbink, were the days we took 
ballots. 

Q. You say they went into joint session twice ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tuesday and Wednesday ?—A. I am not certain. It was not 
Thursday. 

Q. You are certain it was not Monday ?—A. I am not certain what 
day it was. 

Q. Are you certain it was not Thursday ?—A. I know we had a joint 
session on Thursday. 

Q. You had a joint session on Thursday ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have any on Tuesday?—A. I think we did. I am not 
certain. It^as the day the law commands for a joint session to elect 
a Senator. We met that day. 

Q. And you had two joint sessions ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At which joint session was it, Mr. Kellogg was elected ?—A. The 
first. We met on Thursday, and went to balloting for a short-term Sen¬ 
ator and balloted until the government went down. 

Q. And Thomas was brought in on Monday, was he?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What time on Monday?—A. During the day. 

Q. What hour of the day?—A. I suppose between two and three 
o’clock. 

Q. Who brought him in ?—A. Captain Loan. 

Q. lie was brought, you say, in a carriage ?—A. In a cab. 

Q. How do you know ?—A. I was present in the State-house when he 
was brought. 

Q. The cab was not driven into the State-house ?—A. It was driven 
to the door. 

Q. Where were you when you saw the cab ?—A. Down-stairs, at the 
police station. 

Q. Where you could see the cab ?—A. Yes; I could see the street. 

Q. And he remained there Monday, IMonday night, Tuesday, Tuesday 
night, Wednesday, and AVednesday night ?—A. I do not know whether 
he remained Wednesday night or not. 

Q. He remained Wednesday, during the day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are positive about that ?—A. I am. 

Q. Was Seveignes there ?—A. I think he was. 

Q. Do you recollect the sergeant-at-arms being sent out on Wednes¬ 
day to bring in any men ?—A. Ko; I do not. 


186 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Do you remember whether or not he was sent out any time be¬ 
tween Tuesday evening and your balloting on Wednesday ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. At what time?—A. I think he was sent out Tuesday to bring in 
one or two absentees that were out. I am not certain. 

Q. That is all you know about his being out?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. In the joint session, were any men sent out for ?—A. I do not 
know. 

Q. Were any men sent out for on Wednesday from either house?— 
A. I have just answered the question to the Senator. 

Q. I did not hear it.—A. I do not know. 

Q. But you know there was a quorum ?—A. We had a quorum of the 
house. 

Q. On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday ?—A. On IMonday, Tues¬ 
day, and Wednesday. 

Q. You said in your examination that the ])roceedings in there were 
watched from the Democratic side and from the Eepublican side?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. To see that there was a quorum. Were there any Democrats in 
there?—A. Yes; we had one Democratic member of the house there. 

Q. Was he there with you all the time ?—A. No ; he did not stay there 
all the time. 

Q. Was he there Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday ?—A. Xo, sir ; he 
came there Wednesday ; I think he was one of the men, Mr. Brown from 
Vernon, that came in and was allowed to vote after the ballot was over, 
the next day. 

Q. Was the house barricaded ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were fastened up in there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were fastened up to keep Democrats out ?—A. PAstened up 
to keep the mob out. 

Q. No matter who they might be, but particularly Democrats ?—A. 
Particularly the Democratic mob, yes. 

Q. Did I understand you to state in your examination that you had 
received $500 to go to the Nicholls legislature to vote for Spofford ?— 
A. No, sir; 1 received $500 to be divided up between my colleague in 
the Nicholls legislature and myself. 

Q. To be divided up between you and your colleague?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was that $500 paid to you for ?—A. With the understand¬ 
ing I was to vote for Mr. Spofford. 

Q. Did you not state when I examined you that it was paid to go to 
the Nicholls legislature ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not state that ?—A. No ; I did not. 

Q. At what time did you receive that $500 ?—A. I received that $500 
on the 20th of April. 

Q. What day did you go to the Nicholls legislature ?—A. On the 19th. 

Q. Y^ou went on the 19th and received the $500 on the 20th ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you get any pay from the Nicholls legislature for being in the 
legislature ?—A. 1 drew my mileage and per diem, all that was coming 
to me for 120 days, $1,100. 

Q. Was not this $500 a part of that per diem ?—A. It was not. 

Q. Who paid you the $500 ?—A. Mr. Demas. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 187 

Q. Who was Mr. Denias, and in what capacity was he acting ?—xV. He 
was acting in the capacity of a senator. 

Q. A senator in the Nicholls legislature?—A. In the Nicholls legisla¬ 
ture. 

Q. AVas he a Democrat A. Xo; a Republican. 

Q. For whom was he acting ?—A. He was acting for the Democratic 
party, in the interest of them. 

He was not acting for you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Not at all ?—A. No. 

Q. When did you first have any conversation with Mr. Demas about 
voting for Spofford ?—A. We had a caucus on the morning of the 20th. 

(»). The morning of the 20th of April ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was in that little caiiius ? —A. I gave you the names of them. 

Q. Give them again.—xV. Mr. D’Avy, Mr. Romero, ^Ir. Barron, Mr. 
Drew, myself, Mr. Walker, and one or two others that I cannot remem¬ 
ber now. 

;;^Q. How came this caucus to meet?—A. We met at the instruction of 
one of our friends there. 

Q. Which friend ?—A. Mr. Demas. 

Q. A^ou regarded him as your friend ?—A. A'es, sir. 

Q. He requested you to meet?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A"ou particular persons that did meet f—A. We particular persons, 
and we all met. 

Q. He requCvSted you all to meet, and you met there because he re¬ 
quested you to be there?—A. He told us to organize a caucus. He 
wanted to see us. We met and organized a caucus. 

Q. Did he tell you how many of you were to meet ?—A. Noj he did 
not. 

Q. There were only six or seven, you have named who did meet ?—A. 
Yes j a good many more. 

Q. How many ?—A. Fifteen or twenty. 

Q. Where did you meet ?—A. In the Odd-Fellows’ Hall. 

Q. What was the subject of 3"Our discussion ?—A. Legislation. 

Q. What sort of legislation ?—A. Well, local bills for our parishes. 

Q. Had you then become a member of the Nicholls legislature ?—A. I 
had. 

Q. You had then gone over to the Nicholls legislature?— A. Because 
the Packard legislature was pulled down. 

Q. Were all these other men members of the Nicholls legislature ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had they all been members of the Packard legislature ?—A. Yes, 
sir; a good many of them. 

Q. What did Demas say to that caucus ?—A. He sent for me and stated 
how he was working and what arrangements he had made for the cau¬ 
cus. 

Q. If the Nicholls legislature had a quorum and Spofford was nomi¬ 
nated by the Democratic caucus, did he not have enough votes to elect 
him whether you voted for him or not ?—A. He had enough to elect 
him whether we voted for him or not. 

Q. It did not make any difference ?—A. But he wanted to get the 
Republican votes. He thought it was declimentaP to him unless he 
should get them. 

But you knew the fact that he had votes enough to elect him ?— 
A. Yes, sir ; I am well aware of it. 


Aote .—Supposed to mean detrimental. 



188 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. When you men weut over to the Isicholls legislature and gav^e up 
the Packard government, whom did you intend to support for the Senate 
in the Nicholls legislature anyhow ?—A. I always intended to support 
John McEnery. 

Q. Was he running against Spofford ?—A. There were about thirty 
running. 

Q. If one man was certain of getting enough votes to elect him, I 
cannot imagine why he wanted to give $500 apiece for superfluous and 
unnecessary votes.—A. He never gave $5U0. Mr. Spofford never gave 
me a cent. 

Q. I mean Mr. Demas gave it to you.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he give $500 apiece to the other darkies ?—A. I do not know 
what he gave to darkies. 

Q. They w’ere all with you ; all darkies.—A. No j they were all col¬ 
ored men. 

Q. I mean the same thing. I mean no disrespect to color. Did he 
make the same arrangement as to all ?—A. I know of no arrangement 
but my own. 

Q. Your owm it seems was made in a public caucus of these men ?— 
A. All got the same amount. 

Q. And there were at least twenty of them I—A. Fifteen or twenty. 

Q. And they all got $500 each !—A. No ^ they all did not get $500. 
They got $250. 

Q. $500 for two, $250 apiece, was the rate ?—A. Yes, sir j so I suppose. 
That is what I got. They might have been paid that. 

Q. Was not the arrangement made in the presence of all of them ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. With all ?—A. With all. 

Q. He did not take you aside and make a private contract ?—A. No; 
he said, “This is for you and your colleague.’’ 

Q. Y^ou had not fixed the price, had you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. I suppose it was fixed according to the market price of the Kel¬ 
logg votes, w^as it not ?—A. I do not know. It was not reported in the 
markets. 

Q. It was not on the stock board ?—A. No. 

Q. It was privately knocked off at the exchange in the Packard Cap¬ 
itol, was it ?—A. Well, no. 

Q. What office did Judge Spofford hold at that time in Louisiana, do 
you know ?—A. None that I know of. 

Q. Did I not understand you to say in your examination, in response 
to Mr. Kellogg, that ‘‘there were twelve of us in this combination”?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not say that ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are certain you did not say there were twelve?—A. There 
were fifteen, I said, that belonged to the combination. That was in the 
Packard house. 

Q. What combination was that ?—A. A combination of Republicans 
we had. 

Q. For what ?—A. For nothing; to act as a caucus, the same as you 
have here. You have caucuses here. 

Q. We have different purposes for different caucuses. What was the 
object of this combination of twelve men or fifteen men ?—A. The ob¬ 
ject was to elect Warmoth for speaker, all fifteen of us. After we could 
not elect Warmoth for speaker, we all joined the one caucus. 

Q. Did Demas have money placed in his hands to get men to go over 
to the Nicholls legislature?—A. He said so. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 189 

Q. Do you know whether he paid men to go over to the Nicholls leg¬ 
islature ?—A. lie told me he did. 

Q. 1 understood you to say that they went over to the Nicholls legis¬ 
lature, got their money, and after having got it went back to the Pack¬ 
ard legislature I —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were floating between the two, getting whatever they could 
from each ?—A. That is the way some of them ])layed. 

Q. That was the character of your legislature ?—A. Not the character 
of the legislature, but of a few bad men who were in it. 

Q. How many bad men were in it ?—A. A few. 

Q. How many ?—A. I do not propose to point out all the bad men. 

Q. What arrangement was it that you stated was made with Senator 
Eobiuson, from Saint Landry ?—A. Arrangement f 

Q. What was it you said about Eobiuson ?—A. Eobinson is one of the 
men that were getting men to go to the Nicholls legislature. 

Q. Was he paying them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How much was he giving them ?—A. 1 do not know' what he was 
giving them. 

Q. Was he not telling them if they went over there they would get 
their mileage and per diem A. The mileage and per diem w’as coming 
to them by law any way. 

Q. But if they did not go into the Nicholls legislature they would not 
get it?—A. Y^es, sir; they got it. Every man that was elected got his 
mileage and per diem. 

Q. Every man in the Packard legislature that did not go to the Nich¬ 
olls legislature ?—A. All of them w’ent that w’ere elected after the Pack¬ 
ard government went down. 

Q. But before the Packard government went dow’n, w'as not that the 
consideration, that if they went over they would get their mileage and 
per diem ?—A. Not that I know of. 

Q. What was it that you said in reference to Charles How'ard ?—A. 
Charley Howard was the man who was advancing all the money to run 
the Nicholls government. 

Q. That is all you know about him. Y^ou said that men were in the 
habit of getting money on w arrants from Mr. Souer, did you not ?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. Did you get any money from him on warrants ?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you transfer your warrants to him?—A. I did. 

Q. Were they w arrants or endorsements of his on certificates ?—A. 
Warrants, because 1 had got my voucher and went to the auditor and 
got a warrant. 

Q. Did you assign your w'arrant to him ?—A. Signed on the back ? 

Q. Signed on the back to him.—A. No, sir ; the w'arrants w ere made 
])ayable to some one; and to make them valid he signed his name on 
the back and then they passed. 

Q. They do not say on the back to whom they were payable?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Did you know anything about the affidavit that I showed you this 
morning, before to-day?—A. No; not that one. 

Q. You did not know anything about that?—A. No. 

Q. Did you not tell Murray, and have you not told others, without 
regard to this affidavit, within the last ten days, that the statements 
made in the affidavit or statement you wrote out were true?—A. No, 
sir; I have not told anybody. 

Q. Have you not said you were going to stand by that statement and 
swear to it ?—A. Y"es, sir. 


190 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. To wbom did you tell that 1—A. Mr. Cavauac. I told that to him 
about an hour ago, or a little better. 

Q. You told him an bonr ago that you were going to stand by the 
statement you made and swear to it, without designating the particular 
statement ?—A. I told him that the statement I made I would swear to. 
He came after me a little while before the committee met. He sent for 
me to go down to his room this morning. 

Q. YYs; I wanted to know. I wanted to be informed about what you 
were going to do, and you told him that that statement was true and 
that you were going to stand by it.—A. I told him I was going to stand 
by my statement. 

Q. *l)id you tell him it was true !—A. He did not ask me any question ' 
about its being true. 

Q. YMu told him you were going to swear to it !—A. I told him I was 
going to stand by it. 

Q. By that you meant that you would swear to it !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If you meant that you were going to swear to it, you are willing 
to say now that what is in that statement is true—the statement to which 
you referred !—A. No. 

Q. Y^ou do not mean to say it was true ?—A. I do not mean to say 
that all that is in it is true. 

Q. When you told him you were going to stand by it you meant you 
were going to swear to it, and yet you were going to swear to that which 
you are not willing now to swear is true ?—A. I am on my oath now, , 
and then I was talking. 

Q. Do you feel privileged to tell what is not true when you are not • 
sworn ?—A. I can tell anything I please when I am not on oath. 

Q. Whether it is a lie or the truth ?—A. No; I do not say that. 

Q. It is a question of indifference to you ?—A. When I am talking I 
can say a great many things; when i am on oath it is a different 
thing. 

Q. When talking you have no hesitation in telling a lie ?—A. I like 
to tell a social lie as well as anybody else. 

Q. YMu have no compunctions of conscience about that ?—A. Y^es; I 
have a conscience as Avell as others. 

Q. Have you ? Do you think it is a matter of fair conscience to tell, 
a lie when you are talking to a man about a matter of business ?—A. Of 
course it is not a matter of conscience. 

Q. Still you do it ?—A. I can tell a man what I choose, but when I 
come to swear it is a different thing. 

Q. YMucan tell a man when you are talking to him what you choose, . 
whether a lie or the truth, and when you are swearing it is a different 
thing?—A. Exactly. 

Q. Y"ou told Mr. Cavanac you were going to stand by your statement 
andAvhatyou therein wrote down ?—A. I told him I was going to stand 
by the statement. 

Q. And you meant when you so told him that you were going to 
swear to it. Am I right ?—xY. I told him I was going to stand bv my 
statement. 

Q. Did you not mean when you told him that that you were going to 
swear to it ?—A. That might be inferred. 

Q. Did you no:j mean he should understand it so?—A. I suppose so. 

Q. Do you not know he did ?—A. I know I told him. 

Q. Do you not know that that is Avhat you meant ?—A: I told him I. 
was going to stand by it. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 191 

Q. Did you not meau him to uiiderstaud that you were going to* 
swear to it f—A. Yes. 

(^. Did you not know then as well as you know now whether or not 
that statement was true or false ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it true or is it false, what is in there?—A. That is a question 
for me. 

Q. No, it is not a question for you; I want you to answer me.—A. It 
is not true. 

Q. It is false, then ?—A. Yes; it is false. 

Q. Then you told him you were going to swear to a falsehood ?— 
A. No ; I told him I was going to stand by the affidavit. 

Q. Y"ou say you intended him to understand that you were going to 
sw'ear to it and you meant that you were going to swear to it ?—A. He 
asked me was I going to stand by my statement, and I told him yes. 

Q. Did he say “ affidavit” or “ statement”?—A. “Statement.” 

Q. You said “affidavit”?—A. I do not think I did. 

Q. You said just now you were going to stand by your affidavit.— 
A. I tliink I said “ statement.” 

Q. You think you said “ statement ”?—A. Yes. 

Q. You told him you were going to stand by it; that is, you were 
going to swear to it!—A. I have just answered that question. 

Q. All right; very well. Did not Mr. Cavanc say to you that he 
would like you to let him know whether there was anything in that 
affidavit that was not true, and let him know, so that he might act 
accordingly ?—A. No; I do not think he did. 

Q. Did he say anything of that kind to you ?—A. No. 

Q. Did he not say to you, “Let me know whether there is anything 
in that affidavit that is not true ”? Did he not say that much ?—A. No ; 
he told me he wanted me to stick and be firm. 

Q. Did he say also that he wanted to know if there was anything in 
the affidavit that was not true?—xV. No. 

Q. You swear he did not tell you that?—A. I am under oath already. 

Q. You mean to be positive?—A. I just answered the question, and 
why ask it again. 

Q. Did he not say to you, “I want you to tell me now whether there 
is anything in that affidavit that is not true”?—A. No; not to my 
knowledge, he did not. 

Q. You said that there was an investigation had down in New Orleans 
about this Kellogg business ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was that investigation started ?—A. Some time in January. 

Q. Uow long after his election ?—A. I do not know, as I stated be¬ 
fore. 

(i. Come as near it as you can ? —A. I cannot come near it; it was 
in the month of January. The report of the committee was made in 
the month of January. 

(^. Shortly after the election ?—A. That was the election. 

(>). The election took place on the lUth, I think ?—A. The election 
was the second week in January. 

(*). Was not that investigation in consequence of the universal clamor 
about the bribery business?—A. It was alter Finchback made a speech 
that the committee to investigate was appointed. 

Q. Was there not a universal clamor and talk ?—A. xVfter Piuchback 
made the speech. 

(^. Was it not so before ?—A. No. 

What did Piuchback say in his speech?—.!. I do not know; I 
never read his speech. 


192 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


• Q. Did you hear it?—A. Yes, sir; I heard it. 

Q. What did he say about it? Did he say Kellogg had bought his 
way into the Senate ?—A. He made charges to that effect. 

Q. That he bought his waj’?—A. I do not know about buying his 
way, but there were charges in his speech about the use of money. 

Q. It was in consequence of this universal clamor that the investiga¬ 
tion took place ?—A. Yes. 

So the committee reported three days after they were appointed ?— 
A, The coinmitteo reported a few days after they were appointed. 

Q. You said three days, did you not?—A. 1 said a few days. 

Q. How many days?—A. I cannot tell; it was during the month of 
January. 

Q. They reported within the month of January; the investigation was 
ordered in January, the committee appointed, the investigation took 
place, and the report made in January ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I think Mr. Kellogg asked you something about his being very 
indignant about these things. Do you know anything about his being 
very indignant?—A. Ido. 

Q. What do you know about that ?—A. I have stated before he was 
very indignant about it. 

Q. How did heexhibit bis indignation?—A. Appointing this commit¬ 
tee to examine into the charges shows it. 

Q. How does that show his indignation ?—A. Because it was at his 
instigation that the committee was appointed. 

Q. Was it at his suggestion that the individuals upon it were desig¬ 
nated ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. How do you know ?—A. Because the chair appointed. 

Q. How do you know he did not suggest to the chair ?—A. I cannot 
tell whether he suggested to the chair or not. 

Q. The chair was the administration candidate that was elected ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did Mr. Kellogg exhibit to you his indignation at this busi¬ 
ness ?—A. From talk around. 

Q. Was there any talk to you ?—A. Ko, sir; I never had any talk 
with him. 

Q. You never heard him say anything about it?—A. Ko. 

Q. You never heard him express any indignation ?—A. Yes, I heard 
him telling parties around there that he wanted the case investigated; 
he had no talk with me about it. 

Q. Ward first proposed to you to make the affidavit, did he?—A. He 
did. 

Q. You made the aflidavit in consequence of what Ward proposed?— 
A I did. 

Q. Under the expectation of personal benefits to yourself?—A. I did. 

Q. You were up, then, for either side, were you ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. You stated, I think, that twelve Bepub'licans that went over to 
the Nicholls legislature refused to vote for Spoftbrd.—A. There were 
twelve Kepublicans that did not vote for Spoflbrd. The records of the 
Kicholls legislature show that. 

Q. Do you know whether they refused to vote for him or simply did 
not vote?—A. I do not know what their ideas were. 

Q. Do you know whether they were offered anything or not ?—A. I do 
not. 

Q. Who is Mr. P. J. Kennedy?—A. A gentleman from the parish o 
Jefferson. 

Q. A colored man or a white man ?—A. A white man. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 193 

Q. You say be offered 8100 a day for every day you staid in the 
Nicholls legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he otter that to you !—Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you take it?—A. i^o, sir. 

When did he offer it to you ?—A. The first week in January. 

Did he offer it to you afterwards ?—A. He offered it to me the 
second week, the second Monday in January. 

Q. Did he otter it at the second interview?—A. No, sirj because 1 
never had any talk after that with him. 

Q. Other men took it, you say ?—A. I am led to believe two other men 
took it. 

Q. Went over and came back ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You said there was no seal on the paper that you signed.—A. 
There was not. , 

Q. You are positive there was no seal on it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

You are positive there is no seal on it now ?—A. I do not know 
where it is nbw. 

(). Are you positive there was no seal on it when it was handed to 
Mr. Fitzpatrick ?—A. I am. 

(^. There was no seal on it then ?—A. No.seal on it. 

Q. At that time ?—A. At that time. 

Q. Then you saw the paper sufficiently distinctly to know whether 
there was a seal on it or not ?—A. Because he took the paper on the 
desk, wrote his name, and it was handed right back. 

Q. You were near enough to see that ?—Yes, sir; was as far as from 
here to the door. 

Q. You know there was no seal on it?—Yes, sir. 

Q. You saw it folded up ?—A. No; he opened the paper, took it 
dow n, looked at it, signed the name, and handed it right back. Mr. 
Fitzpatrick put it in his inside pocket. 

Q. There was no seal on it ?—A. He put no seal on it. 

Q. I understood you to say you never signed your name ‘‘ cey ” at the 
close?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You think that was put there for French, and you are Irish ?—A. 
That is the French way of spelling it. I spell my name “ cy ”—De Lacy. 

Q. Do you never write your name “cey ”—De Lacey ?—A. No, sir; I 
always sign my name “C 3 \” 

Q. You never wrote it “cey”?—A. No. 

Q. On no occasion at all ?—A. No. 

Q. How does your father write his name ?—A. “ cy,” De Lacy. 

Q, He never wrote it otherwise as far as you know of?—A. Not as far 
as I know. Here is the way he writes it (exhibiting envelope.) 

Q. Who were the men who wanted to fill you up with wine and get 
you intoxicated?—A. Mr. Kennedy, at the Cassidy Hotel. 

Q. What time was that ?—A. The Oth of January, the second Mon¬ 
day in January; I think it was the Oth. 

Q. Who w'ere the two men that went the next day to the Nicholls leg¬ 
islature, the two men among those who were with you at the time of 
this wine drinking?—A. I cannot state their names here, because it 
would make a personal affair with me when I go back. 

Q. I should like to have their names, for I want them here rs wit¬ 
nesses.—A. I cannot state them, because it would make a personal affair. 

Mr. 3IERRICK. I insist on an answer. 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

A. P. J. Kennedy, of Jefferson, and E. J. Barrett, of Bapides. 

13 SK 


194 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Merrick. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that I am called upon 
to cross-examine this witness about the canvass of 1878. 

The Chairman. That has nothing to do with the inquiry of this com¬ 
mittee at all. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not think it has anything whatever to do with it. 

The Chairman. If a motion is made to strike out that part which re¬ 
lates to the campaign of 1878 from the testimony, I shall vote to strike 
it out, it having no connection with this inquiry. 

Mr. Merrick. I am inclined to think, before I finish the rest of the 
examination, that the subject of inquiry of this committee had better be 
limited to the matters specified in the resolution committing the inves¬ 
tigation to your conduct; and neither have the matters which occurred 
in the canvass of 1878 anything to do with this, nor have the matters 
that occurred in the canvass of 1876 anything to do with this inquiry. 
The matters that have relation to this inquiry transpired in New Or¬ 
leans, or they may have transpired somewhere else, provided they had 
direct connection with the subject of this inquiry. If, however, the par¬ 
ties are disposed to go into that subject, I have no objection j but I say 
to the committee that I shall bring witnesses here to meet the testimony 
that has been given by this witness and the testimony as foreshadowed 
by the other side in that direction. 

Now, the committee can determine for itself whether to strike out all 
the testimony relating to this man’s canvass in 1876 and 1878, or grant 
me the alternative of the privilege of rebutting that testimony, proving 
the truth as against what has been stated here by this witness. 

Senator Cameron. I submit that counsel has no right to assume that 
what this witness has stated in regard to that is not true; at least in 
the country where I come from it is not customary for counsel to de¬ 
nounce their own witnesses as perjurers on the stand. It may be in 
Washington, but so far as investigators before this committee are con¬ 
cerned I shall protest against it. Mr. Merrick inquired of this witness 
on the direct examination when he went to New Orleans. He told him 
the day that he went to New Orleans, and he followed it by stating the 
reason why he went at that time. Mr. Merrick cross examined him. I 
will say cross-examined, because that is what it amounted to, to show 
why he went so early, why he went in December, for the purpose of 
being present at the meeting of the legislature in January. The matter 
of the canvass of 1876 came out upon tbe direct examination, and Mr. 
Kellogg followed it up and so did I, as I had a perfect right to. 

Mr. Merrick. In reference to the manner of treating my own wit¬ 
ness, though I have been practicing law a good while, my experience in 
this kind of case is somewhat novel. I have never had such witnesses, 
and therefore I may be pardoned for not understanding the rules that 
may be applicable in examining them in view of the idiosyncrasies they 
exhibit. 

Mr. Shellabarger. All that I was about to say was really said by 
Senator Cameron in substance. It was that counsel and, so far as I 
know, my client has no disposition to extend this examination into the 
election of 1878 nor beyond the strict limitations of the resolution. Our 
effort has been to confine, rather than to extend it, to the principles ap¬ 
plicable as I deem to a trial proper, as this is. But we were led into it 
just as the Senator has said. There was an attempt, when the witness 
stated why he had to leave his home, to explain why, and then, in order 
to throw discredit and doubt upon his statement in that regard, my 
friend pursued the investigation. Then we took it up, and then, the 
Senator supplemented it. That is all there is of that. AVe have no 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 195 

view at all in regard to this matter, except that it ought to be confined, 
as suggested by the chairman, to the subject-matter of the inquiry. 

The Chairman. The reason why I made the suggestion is this: This 
witness has made a statement in reference to the canvass of 1878. He 
has referred to individuals and the conduct of individuals towards him- 
sell. Xow, for thepurposeof contradicting the witness in that regard, I 
can understand very readily how counsel on the other side may want to 
exatnineinto the matters himself with a view of contradicting this wit¬ 
ness as to things that took place in reference to the canvass of 1878, 
which oi)ens the field very wide and is not covered by the authority we 
have from the Senate. Of course, I do not see how we could limit Mr. 
Mer rick so far as this particular witness is concerned in his inquiry into 
facts in reference to the canvass of 1878 to which he has testified if liis ob¬ 
ject was to impeach the credibility of this witness in regard to his state¬ 
ments, but if we go into that generally we shall - have an interminable 
inquiry on our hands. 

Senator Cameron. The chair will bear with me a moment. Mr. 
Merrick went into it on the dii’ect examination. 

Senator Vance. But the witness volunteered things that were not 
asked. 

Senator CAMERorq. But Mr. Merrick followed it up and wanted to 
know the particulars. 

Senator Hill. 1 propose an easy way to settle this matter with¬ 
out any controversy. I do not suimpose there is a member of the com¬ 
mittee, or counsel engaged in it, or party connected with it, who will 
not admit that the statement of this witness connected with the can¬ 
vass of 1878 ought to be stricken from the record. Mr. Shellabarger 
will certainly agree to it. 

Mr. Merkick. I will limit my motion to that. 

Senator Bill. 1 move, and if it is necessary it can be acted on 
hereafter, that all that has come from this witness in reference to the 
canvass of 1878 be stricken from the record. 

Mr. Merrick. Mr. Shellabarger is agreed to that, I suppose. 

Mr. Shellabarger. 1 really have no objection, if that is the view 
of the gentleman whose questions brought it out. 

Mr. Merrick. My questions did not bring it out. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I think the examination as conducted by us 
and by the Senator was the legitimate sequence of what you had said, 
and that you have no right to limit us as to this witness. It seems to me 
it would hardly be fair to strike out the last end of it and leave his first 
statement standing without stating fully how he was bulldozed, as he 
called it. 

The Chairman. I make this suggestion, inasmuch as the testimony 
has been taken. While I think properly it should not have gone in, I 
never like to mutilate the testimony of a witness after it is given by strik¬ 
ing out. So far as I am concerned, I shall be perfectly willing to have it 
stand, with the privilege to Mr. Merrick to rebut the testimony of this 
witness so far as he has testified to the matters that took place in 1878. 
But 1 want it understood that hereafter no witness ought to be allowed to 
refer to the canvass of 1878, because it certainly can have nothing to do 
with the election of Mr. Kellogg to the Senate in 1877. I hope, there¬ 
fore, that hereafter counsel will theiUvSelves restrain any witness who 
may see i)roper to lead himself in that direction. 

Senator Hill. 1 wish to ask the witness De Lacy a few questions 
myself. 


196 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Merrick. Certainly. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Mr. Witness, I want to nnderstantl you distinctly on a few points. 
I wish you to make yourself clear. You were subpceuaed to come here 
as a witness in behalf of Mr. Spolford, were you not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hid you understand, at the time that subpoena was given to you, 
that you were understood to be a witness in behalf of Mr. Spotford ?— 
A. I did. 

Q. That was all explained to you. Did you understand, at the time 
that subpoena was given to you, that you were to come here to testify to 
the facts that you had stated in that statement to which you referred 
that you wrote out yourself?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You understood that was the purpose of bringing you here ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you intend, with that knowledge on your part that you were 
subpoenaed for that purpose, to come here and testify to those facts ?— 
A. I knew I was subpcenaed to testify to what I had alleged in my 
statement. 

Q. At the time you received your subpoena, did you intend to come 
here and testify that those statements were not true ?—A. I came to 
testify to just the fact of the statement I made in New Orleans. 

Q. You came to testify to the facts and statements you made in New 
Orleans; but did you intend to say those statements were untrue ?—A. 
1 do not think I said so. 

Q. You can state, then, that the facts stated in your statement, and 
many of which you have referred to before the committee, were true.— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were true ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you came here intending to testify that they were true ?—A. 
I came here with the intention of testifying to what I alleged in my 
statement. 

Q. And what you stated in that affidavit, then, is true ?—A. Not that 
one (pointing to the paper read by Mr. Merrick). 

Q. In the affidavit or statement you made, the facts recited in which 
you have rehearsed to the committee, you stated your recollection of 
what had taken place.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, I understand you to say to the committee that those state¬ 
ments are true ?—A. The statements that I made were true. 

Q. I wanted to get that right. I wanted to know whether you came 
here intending to deceive or not.—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you let the parties that subpoenaed you know that when you 
did get here you would testify to other facts inconsistent with the state¬ 
ments in that paper ?—A. No, sir; I had no talk about anything of that 
kind. 

Q. You had no purpose of that kind?—A. No, sir ; no talk of it. 

Q. Did you have any such purpose yourself ?—A. I have answered 
“no.” 

Q. In other words, I want to know whether you yourself, in your own 
mind, knowing that you were subpoenaed as a witness in behalf of Mr. 
Spofford, intended to come here to act the part of a witness in behalf 
of Mr. Kellogg?—A. No. 

Q. You did not intend that ?—A. No. 

Q, Now there is another point. You say, as I understand you, that 
you actually took from a Mr. Demas the sum of $500 for you and your 
colleague Drew to vote for Mr. Spofford ?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


197 


Q. That is what you stated ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. No part of that money was paid to you to go over to the Nicholls 
legislature from the Packard legislature?—A. No, sir. 

Q. This money was paid to you after you got to the Nicholls legisla¬ 
ture ?—A. Yes, sir. The Packard legislature had disbanded. 

Q. Did Mr. Spotford pay you that money ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Mr. Spofford have any connection with it that you know of?— 
A. Only what Demas told me. 

Q. Only what Demas told j^ou when be paid you?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did he tell you it was Spottord’s money f—A. He told me it was 
in the interest of Mr. Spofford. 

Q. Did he pay it on account of Mr. Spofford or on account of the 
Democratic party?—A. I suppose he must hav^e paid it on account of 
the Democratic party or for Mr. Spoftord’s interest. 

Q. The majority of the Nicholls legislature were Democrats, were 
they not?—A. Tlie majority were Democrats. 

Q. Mr. Spofford was the nominee of the Democratic party?—A. Yes, 
«ir; he was the nominee of the party. 

Q. Was this money paid to you or promised to you before his nomi¬ 
nation or after ?—A. After. 

Q. After his nomination ?—A. A'es, sir. His nomination was made 
ill the early portion of April, before the Packard legislature dissolved. 

Q. Then, at the time Mr. Demas paid you $500 for your vote and for 
the vote of your colleague in behalf of Mr. Spofford, you knew that Mr. 
Spofford did not need your vote?—A. I knew in the early portion of 
April the caucus, as I am told, had agreed on Mr. Spofford as the can¬ 
didate. Mr. Jonas stood as the leading candidate in the field. After 
he was got out of the way Mr. Spofford was nominated. 

Q. But the Democratic caucus settled that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you now say that they paid you $500 for the vote of yourself 
and your colleague, knowing at the time that they did not need your 
votes ?—A. A"es, sir. 

Q. They did ?—A. They did not need Republican votes at that time, 
because they had a quorum. They had enough votes otherwise. 

Q. In what way, then, was it to benefit Mr. Spofford or the Demo¬ 
cratic party to get your votes?—A. The argument there used was that 
Mr. Spofford wanted all the Republican votes he could get. 

Q. And he was willing to pay for them?—A. No question about will¬ 
ing to pay. 

Senator Vance. lie has never connected Mr. Spofford with it in any 
wa.y. 

Senator Hill. I know he has not, but Demas. 

Senator Vance. And Demas was a Republican. 

Senator Hill. Demas was a Republican. 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) And Demas paid you and your colleague $500 
to vote for Mr. Spofford when he did not need your votes, but for the 
benefit of the Democratic party?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Because they thought—what did you say—it was “ declimental ” 
to him ?—A. Deciirnental to him not to have the Republican vote. 

Q. It would be “deciirnental” to him here?—A. Yes, sir; that was 
the argument. 

Q. In a Senate that you said was going to turn out Kellogg, as it was 
Democratic?—A. I did not say that. That was hearsay. That was 
told me. 


198 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. The only reason, then, why they could be induced to pay you and 
some others—how many more?—A. Fifteen or twenty. 

Q. The only reason why they should pay you and fifteen or twent}^ 
other Kepublicans $250 each to vote for Mr. Spofford, after he was nom¬ 
inated by the Democratic party, and the Democratic party had a ma¬ 
jority, Avas simply to avoid “declimental ” efiects herej was that it ?— 
A. Please state the question again. 

Q. The only reason why Mr. Demas, a Kepublican, paid you and fif¬ 
teen or twenty other Republicans $250 apiece to vote for Mr. Spofford,. 
after he was nominated by the Democratic caucus and did not need 
your votes, was because, if he did not get your votes, it would be ^‘decli- 
mental” to him here?—A. The question was that he wanted to get all 
the Republican votes. 

Q. What do you mean by the word “ declimeutal ” ?—A. “ Against, 
of course. 

Q. You then admit to this committee that you did actually receive 
$500 in behalf of yourself and your colleague Drew, from Demas, a 
colleague and Republican, for your votes for Spofford ?—A. 1 have al¬ 
ready answered that question. 

Q. You took that money for that purpose ?—A. I took the money. 

Q. And voted accordingly ?—A. I took the money and voted for Mr. 
Spofford. 

Q. And you say you thought that was honest ? Did I understand 
you to say that?—A. I said “in politics.’^ 

Q. You said it was politics and therefore honest ?—A. Well, you may 
construe it either as honest or dishonest. 

Q. What do you think about it ?—A. Well, I think it was legitimate. 

Q. I want to get your moral ideas, because I thiuk it weighs on your 
testimony. You think, theu, it w is legitimate ?—A. Yes, sir j I do. 

Q. Did your colleague and the others who took it think it was legiti¬ 
mate too ? Is that the general idea among you ?—A. I do not know 
what their ideas were. 

Q. But they all did the same things ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there any question of conscience raised among you about it? 
Did you talk about whether it was right or wrong?—A. We did not 
discuss the “ moral.” 

Q. Mr. Witness, did all the members that were in the Packard legis¬ 
lature at the time of the joint convention which elected Mr. Kellogg go 
over to the Nicholls government? You say there were eighty-three 
members in the Packard joint convention of the senate and the house 
on the day Mr. Kellogg w^as elected Senator. Kow, did all those eighty- 
three go over to the Kicholls legislature ?—A. Not all of them. All 
that were returned by the democratic board w ent to the Nicholls legis¬ 
lature, those whose seats were not disputed. 

Q. How many of the eighty-three did not go to the Nicholls legisla¬ 
ture ?—A. I could not say. 

Q. Give some estimate.—A. I cannot give an estimate. 

Q. Were there ten ?—A. As I told you, I cannot give an estimate. I 
might take the journal and sit down and add them up. 

Q. Did Joseph J. Johnson go?—A. No, sir; his seat was occupied 
over there by another man. 

Q. Then you understand there was quite a number in the Nicholls 
legislature who occupied the seats that were also occupied by others in 
the Packard legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you not tell how many there were in that position ?—A. I 
cannot. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 11)9 

. Q. Can you say wbetlier there*were as many as ten or fifteen?—A. I 
cannot. 

Q. What is your best recollection ?—A. I cannot give my best recol¬ 
lection on that question. 

Q. Did not some of those who were members of that Packard joint 
convention or body or legislature, or whatever you call it, admit after 
the Packard legislature was dissolved that they were never elected by 
the people originally ?—A. There were some of them forced to do that, to 
give up their claim. 

Q. I did not ask you how they were forced. They did admit it ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. How many?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Several ?—A. Two or three, or more. 

Q. Several admitted that they were never elected ?—A. I do not know 
Avhether there were seven or not. 

Q. Several. I did not say “seven.’’—A. There were several. 

Q. Who admitted they never had been elected ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You say they were forced to admit that. Who forced them ?—A. 
They could not get their seats in the Nicholls legislature, and they had 
to go up there and give up their claims, resign their claims. 

Q. Did anybody compel them to go up and resign?—A. That was the 
onlj* way they had to do, to give ui) their claims j they were not com¬ 
pelled to go. 

Q. They could have gone home without being compelled to do anj^- 
thing, could they not ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then they were not forced?—A. IN’o; it was not force exactly. 

Q. They stated, then, voluntarily, that they never had been elected ? 
—A. Yes. 

Q. How long did you remain in Xew Orleans in 1877?—A. Until June. 

Q. Where did you go in June ?—A. I went up the river to xVlexandria. 

Q. To your home ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did you remain there?—A. I remained there until 
Christmas, then I came back to the second session of the legislature. 

(}. You remained at your home from June until Christmas, and then 
you came back to the second session of the legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did you remain in New Orleans at that second session? 
—A. I remained there until the 22d day of last May. 

Q. You mean now 1878?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you go then?—A. Back to my parish. 

Q. And how long did you remain in your parish then?—A. 1 remained 
there about two weeks, and I went on a visit to the country. 

Q. How long was that visit ?—A. I staid away a couple of months, and 
came back. 

Q. How long did you stay then ?—A. Until the election was over. 

Q. Then you went where?—A. To !New Orleans. 

Q. And have been in New Orleans ever since ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you been holding any office or position there?—A. No, sir,* 
I have had work in the custom-house about a mouth, 1 suppose. 

Q. When ?—A. The mouth of May. 

Q. What May ?—A. 1879. 

Q. Do you belong to the custom house now ?—A. No, sir j I resigned 
last Saturday. 

Q. You resigned from the custom house last Saturday?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When were you appointed in the custom-house ?—A. I was work¬ 
ing on a weekly roll there from the first of May. 

Q. And you resigned your place last Saturday ?—A. Yes, sir. 


200 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you expect to get your place when you go back ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Has it not been promised you!—A. No, sir; it has not. 

Q. Why did you resign !—A. Because I was summoned in this case, 
and I wanted to come here, and I could not hold the position and come 
up here and be a witness. 

Q. Could not a person come here as a witness and hold his place as 
well as a person who was not an officer come here!—A. I dare say he 
could. 1 did not look at it in that light. 

Q. Are there no officers of the custom-house or employes of the custom¬ 
house here with you !—A. Employes! 

Q. Is not James Lewis here!—A. He is here in the city. 

Q. Is he not an officer in the custom-house!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is not a man named Swazie here!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is he not an officer of the custom-house!—A. I believe he is. 

Q. They did not resign !—A. They are not witnesses. 

Q. I know they are not.—A. Not that 1 know of. 

Q. You resigned because you are a witness simply !—A. I resigned. 
I had an intention of going away. 

Q. Have you been staying with Swazie and Lewis!—A. Here we stop 
in the same house, all of us together. 

Q. Are they staying with the witnesses regularly !—A. The witnesses 
and all of us stop in one house; we eat together. 

Q. Sleep together and talk together!—A. We sit down and have a 
social time occasionally. 

Q. Have they got any business here that you know of?—A. That I 
do not know; I never inquire into a man’s business. 

Q. Are they with you day and night down there ?—A. No, sir; because 
1 am not there always. 

Q. Have they shown that they have any business here except to be 
with the witnesses!—A. I think Mr. Lewis has business here in regard 
to his office, with the Secretary. 

Q. Secretary who!—A.—Secretary Sherman. 

Q. You think he has!—A. I dare say that is what he is here for. 

Q. I did not ask that.—A. That is what I think ; I do not know. 

Q. He left New Orleans with you !—A. He left on the same train. 

Q. He found out that he had business with the Secretary just as you 
started!—A. I do not know when he had business or what is the busi¬ 
ness. 

Q. He started with you !—A. Yes. 

Q. Have not Swazie and this man Lewis been coming up here every 
day to this examination !—A. I dare say they have. 

Q. Have they not been in this room all the time!—A. I dare say they 
have. 

Q. And when the committee adjourns they go back with you !—A. 
We all go back together. 

Q. You all go back together and you all come together !—A. No ; we 
do not all come together. 

Q. But when you all get here you are here together !—A. W^'eall gen¬ 
erally happen in to dinner about the same time. It is no harm for a 
man to go home with a friend. 

Q. Who put you into the custom-house in May !—A. Mr. Heber, the 
warehouse-keeper. 

Q. Did he give you any reason for putting you into the custom-house! 
—A. No, sir. I put an application in to General Badger shortlv after 
he was appointed. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 201 

Q. Did he know anything about the statement you had made?—A. 
Ko, sir. 

Q. You never said anything to him about it?—A. I never said a word 
to him about it. 

Q. You say you made out a statement in your handwriting at your 
home in Algiers?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is a place opposite New Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you sign your name to that statement?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You carried that statement to Mr. Cavanac ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Mr. Cavanac gave it to Mr. Fitzpatrick, and told you to go 
with Mr. Fitzpatrick to the office ?—A. Told me to go with Mr. Fitz¬ 
patrick. 

Q. And Mr. Fitzpatrick took you and the paper to the office?—A. To 
the magistrate. 

Q. And when you got in, the magistrate asked you if you were the- 
man ; he meant, ol course, if you were the man that made that state¬ 
ment 5 was that what be meant ?—A. I suppose so. 

Q. And you understood it so ?—A. I understood him so. 

Q. And you told him that was your statement ?—A. I told him I was 
the man ; he did not ask about the statement. 

Q. Did he not swear you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not understand that he was certifying to it as au affida¬ 
vit?—A. I did not understand what he was doing to it. 

Q. Did you not have intelligence enough to know that if he was a 
magistrate he was certifying to it as an affidavit ?—A. Of course I did. 

Q. Then you, understanding that he was certifying to it in his official 
character as a magistrate as an affidavit, did not correct it in any way?— 
A. No; I thought he knew his business as a magistrate. 

Q. Your signature was to it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now let me ask you this: Was not the statement written out in a 
blank pocket-book?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And was not this statement here dictated by you?—A. No; that 
one was not. 

Q. Y^ou had nothing to do with any statement, and you dictated no 
statement except the one which you yourself wrote out?—xi. Yes, sir; 
that was the only one—the one that I myself wrote out. 

Q. You have stated that some time in the days of Monday, Tuesday, 
and Wednesday of the second week of the legislature, so called, of which 
you were a member, your house sent out the sergeant-at-arms fur ab¬ 
sentees by order of the house ?—A. The sergeant-at-arms was dis¬ 
patched either Monday or Tuesday after absentees. 

Q. Sent out into the city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 1 understood you to say you do not remember that any were sent 
for on W^ednesday ?—A. I do not. 

Q. We are then to understand that some were sent for on ^Monday 
and Tuesday ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then there were some of the members out in the city?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. They were Kepublicans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were not in any danger of being killed by being out in the 
city?—A. No; they were strangers there mostly. 

Q. How do you know that most of the men who were out were 
strangers in the city?—A. The only reason they were not killed was 
that- 

Q. They were not known ? —xV. I do not say they would have been 



202 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


killed, but it would have been very dangerous for a member of the Ee- 
publican legislature to be caught around. 

Q. Still a good many were around, and you had to send for them — 
A. Not a good many; there might have been three or four or five out. 

Q. You do not think there were as many as ten —A. I do not think 
there were. 

Q. Was Thomas, of Bossier, pretty well known?—A. I do not know. 

Q. He was at his home, you say, sick ?—A. He was a little sick with 
fever. 

Q. Was he too sick to walk ?—A. No; he was not too sick to walk. 

Q. Was he not sick at all ?—A. He was sick with fever. 

Q. Why did you bring him in a cab ?—A. It is handier for a man who 
is feeling bad to ride than to walk. 

Q. Was it secretly done, sending the sergeant-at-arms for him ? Mr. 
Murray was the sergeant-at-arms of your house; he was pretty well 
known in New Orleans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He went out in the city pretty freely, did he not, after absentees ?— 
A. As he stated yesterday, he went out very little. 

Q. What do you say, that he did go out ?—A. Yes; he did go out. 

Q. Nobody killed him ?—A. No. 

Q. Hid anybody try to kill him ?—A. I do not believe they did. 

Q. He was a Eepublican, was he not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he went out and hunted for absentees in the city, and nobody 
killed either him or the absentees; and yet you say it was dangerous for 
a Eepublican to go out in the city ?—A. I believe it was dangerous. 

Q. Do you believe in ghosts ?—A. No; I do not believe in ghosts. 

Q. Would you go by a graveyard at twelve o'clock at night ?—A. I 
dare say I would. 

Q. Do you think you would without feeling scared ?—A. Without 
feeling scared. 

Q. Did you ever go by a graveyard at twelve o’clock at night ?—A. I 
have passed b^^ a great many of them. 

Q. And did not think about ghosts ?—A. No ; I am not superstitious. 

Q. But you think it was dangerous for a Eepublican member of the 
legislature to go outside of the building ?—A. It is rather dangerous 
for a man to get among Democratic ghosts that are alive. 

Q. Were there not a great many Eepublicaus in New Orleans?—A. 
A good many. 

Q. They did not all have to go into the State-house to be protected, 
did they ?—A. No, sir ; not all of them. 

Q. Nobody was in the State-house but the members of the Packard 
legislature ?—A. The members of the Packard legislature and a good 
many leading Eepublicans were in the State-house. 

Q. Did they stay in there with you day and night ?—A. Some staid 
there day and night. 

Q. Did you barricade the doors for their protection as well as your 
own ?—A. We barricaded the doors to keep the State-house from being 
taken possession of by the rabble—the mob. 

Q. Did the State government of Mr. Packard, as you call it, and your 
legislature have any jurisdiction at all outside of the building you were 
in ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. All the balance of Louisiana was a mob, was it ?—A. The balance 
was in charge of the Nicholls government. 

Q. All the State of Louisiana was in the charge of the Nicholls gov¬ 
ernment but the house you were in?—A. Yes, sir; a good many of the 
parishes were in charge of the Nicholls ofiflcials. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 203 

Q. What time did you go out of that house ?—A. I think it was Wed¬ 
nesday evening I left. 

Q. Wednesday evening after Kellogg was elected ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You went out in the city?—A. Yes, sir; the evening he was 
elected. 

Q. Did you go freely along the streets ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Y"ou did not go in disguise ?—A. No. 

Q. Did anybody try to kill you ?—A. Nobody tried to kill me, because 
everything had been quieted down ; the militia had been called out, and 
the excitement was over. 

Q. The danger was in voting for Kellogg, then ?—A. No; the danger 
was in the inauguration of Packard. 

Q. Packard was inaugurated on Monday?—A. He was inaugurated 
on the 8th of January. 

Q. Monday was the 8th ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say your name is signed “ W. John De Lacy ”?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that the way you reported it to the Packard legislature ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that the way it is printed in the journals?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Printed‘‘W. John De Lacy”?—A. Yes, sir; printed “ W. John 
De Lacy.” In the first day’s session in the journal yon will find W. 
John De Lacy.” 

Q. Have you examined it ?—A. No, sir; I have not examined it. 

Q. You know it is that way ?—A. I know that is the way 1 put my 
name down always. 

Q. You did not put down “ John W. De Lacy ”?—A. No,sir; I never 
spelled my name that way. 

Q. And it was never put down that way ?—A. It might have been put 
down that way. 

Q. I do not want to mislead you. It is put down in the journal John 
W. De Lacy.” Are you not the man “ John W. De Lacy, of Kapides”?— 
A. I am the man. 

Q. (Somebody else misspelled your name?—A. I do not know how they 
spelled it. 

Q. They have the “ John ” before the W.,” and you say you gave it 
in the other way ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It is in the journal “John W.” ?—A. It means the same man. 

Q. “Lacey” would mean the same man, too, would it not?—A. I dare 
say it could be applied. There is always a particular way of spelling 
proper names. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. I will ask you if there was a majority of returning-board members 
in the Nicholls legislature before the Ifith day of April, 1877?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. How many Republicans who were returning-board members had 
gone into the Nicholls legislature before the 19th of April, the day on 
which you went into it, as near as you can fix the number ?—A. There 
were two classes of returning-board members. There were one class 
counted in by the returnifig-board, and another elected on the face of 
the returns of the different parishes. 

Q. I speak of those w^ho received certificates of election from the re¬ 
turning-board ?—A. I cannot tell you as to that. When I went to the 
Nicholls legislature, I know our whole legislature had gone but seven. 


204 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


We had no quorum in either branch. We had five senators and seven 
members of the house on the 19th day of April. 

Q. Senator Hill has examined you at considerable length in regard to 
the reasons why the $250 were paid to you and to your colleague. Now 
what did Mr. Demas say to you in regard to the cause or reason for pay¬ 
ing you that amount of money and desiring your votes for Spofford f— 
A. He came into the caucus and stated to us that he had made arrange¬ 
ments for us to organize a caucus and for us to get together j that he 
would go around and see what could be done. He said Mr. Spolford 
wanted to get all of the Kepublican vote, and he would like for us all to 
vote for him, so that there would be no question of his title when he went 
to Washington. 

Q. That is what Mr. Demas said to you in regard to it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Spofford wanted all the votes of all the Republican members in 
the Nicholls legislature, so that there would be no question about his 
title when he got to Washington ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You stated that some of the members of the Packard legislature 
had said or admitted that they were not elected. State the facts, so far 
as you know them, in regard to that matter.—A. Many of the members 
of the Packard legislature were counted out by the parish returning- 
boards, but the State returning-board returned them elected. 

Q. Those were the men that went up to the Nicholls legislature and 
resigned their claims as members of the legislature in favor of their con¬ 
testants ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What consideration, if any, did they receive for that ?—A. Their 
mileage and per diem for the sixty days^ session. 

Q. The Nicholls legislature then caused to be paid to them their 
mileage and per diem after they had surrenderd their claim to seats?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did yon, or did you not, understand that they would not receive 
their mileage and per diem unless they surrendered their claims to 
seats?—A. They would not pay any of them their mileage and per diem 
unless they surrendered their claims to the seats. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Would there be a quorum of the returning-board members in the 
Nicholls legislature unless some of them went over from the Packard 
legislature?—A. No, sir j there would not. 

Q. If all in the Democratic legislature voted for Mr. Spofford, he still 
would not have a quorum unless he had the votes of members of the 
Packard legislature?—A. No, sir; he would not. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kellogg, I do not wish to interfere with any ques¬ 
tion you desire to ask the witness; but if we go on with this mode of 
examination—this witness was examined in chief, cross-examined, and 
then there was a recross-exarnination, and he has now been further ex¬ 
amined by Mr. Hill and Mr. Cameron—if we keep this thing up contin¬ 
ually, without observing some regularity about the examination, I can¬ 
not see when this committee is to get through with the investigation. 
We ought to observe some system in the examination of these witnesses. 

Mr. ShellabArger. There were one or two points that were brought 
out by Mr. Merrick as to which we have not yet had an opportunity to 
ask him. 

The Chairman. Of course I do not wish to restrict counsel.* 

Mr. Merrick. I last examined him, with all due respect, unless T am 
gravely in error, upon nothing upon which ho was not examined by the 
other side. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 205 

Mr. SuELLABA-RGER. My dear frieud, you brought out all that about 
Smith and the §liOO. 

Senator Kellogg. And about the quorum; and so did our friend 
Senator Ilill. 

Mr. ShellABARGER. We have never had a chance to get into those 
matters. 

Senator Kellogg. I only want to make it as plain as I can. 

The Chairman. Be as brief as possible. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 will endeavor to do so. (To the witness.) So, 
then, it was necessary that there should be some Republican votes in 
order to give Mr. Spofford a quorum of the returning-board members ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg ) Was not the distinction this, that some of 
the members were returned by both the Democratic committee and the 
returning-board, and some only by the returning board ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they wanted to get a majority of returning-board members f 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it not stated and understood that they would not go into 
an election for Senator until they could get a quorum in both houses of 
returning-board members f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The men who went up there, wlio were not returned by the Demo¬ 
cratic committee, and therefore were not entitled to their seats accord¬ 
ing to their admission, or not elected on the face of the returns as it 
was said, and withdrew their claims; got their mileage for withdraw¬ 
ing.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The others were allowed to take their seats because they were ad¬ 
mitted by both parties to be elected ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You wwe one of that number ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was necesssary to have the votes of the men who were elected 
to help ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were wanted for the purpose of making that quorum in order 
to elect a Senator, and they positively asserted to you that they would 
not go into the election until they had a returning board quorum ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

By Senator IIiLL : 

Q. Right there, were you paid that money to make a quorum !—A. 
No, sir; they had a quorum before I went over, but they were not going 
to elect a Senator until they got all the Republicans of the house. 

Q. But they had a (piorum before ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Then you do not mean to intimate that you were paid that money 
in order to get a quorum f—A. Not to get a quorum. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that if Mr. Spofford received the Dem¬ 
ocratic votes in the Nicholls legislature he would not be elected ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Senator Cameron. That is a question of law. He said he would not 
receive a majority of the returning-board members. 

The Witness. A quorum is a question of law. 

Senator Kellogg. He would not receive a quorum. 

Q. (By Senator Hill). I understand you to say that before you went 
over there was a quorum of the Nicholls legislature ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I understand you to say that if Mr. Spofford received the votes of 
the Democrats of that quorum they would not elect him f—A. He would 
hi*Vv 3 to receive some Republican votes to make it a quorum. 

Q. Would they be obliged to vote for Mr. Spofford to make it a quo- 


206 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


rum ?—A. Not to vote for him, but they would have to vote to make a 
quorum iu the houses. 

Q. After they got a quorum, do you say the Eepublicans were obliged 
to vote for Mr. Spofford to elect him iu that quorum !—A. Noj I do not 
say they were obliged. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. But you mean to say that Mr. Spofford could not have been elected 
by a quorum of returuing-board members unless some of the Packard 
men went over ?—A. He could not. 

Q. And you testify that as early as January, in Cassidy’s H )tel, they 
paid money and negotiated so much per head for them to go over !—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And all through the winter they paid for them to go over ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. As they paid you when you went over for having gone over, 
though there was a quorum of returning-board members, and they paid 
you with the others to vote ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it, or not, urged that this being a Eepublican Senate to which 
he would come accredited, if he got the Republican vote entire, or most 
of it, it would help him to be admitted as representing Republicans “?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the inducement held out for voting ?—A. I believe I 
have answered that once before. 

Senator Hill. I object to going into matters that are not rebuttal, 
and I object to repeating matters that have been before testified to. It 
produces unnecessary delay. 

Senator Kellogg. I will endeavor not do that. [To the witness.] 
You spoke about Mr. Thomas being brought there in a cab. Would it 
be safe to bring a man in a cab when he could not walk on the 
street !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Was not that the way they had, of send¬ 
ing an officer of the police or some one employed" about the building 
with a cab after members !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now I want you to think, Mr. De Lacy, if you please, what day 
was Governor Packard inaugurated.—A. I think it was on the 8th or 
9th of January. 

Q. Was it on Monday?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was not the next day the day the streets were full of armed men ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was not that the day we were unable to get a quorum in either 
house, Tuesday ?—A. I cannot say whether it was Tuesday or what daj’^ 
it was—Tuesday or Wednesday. We had a quorum in the house but 
none in the Senate. 

Q. Was there not a quorum in both houses on Monday when the gov¬ 
ernor was inaugurated ?—A. Yes, sir j we had a quorum when the gov¬ 
ernor was inaugurated. 

Q. Was it not owing to the fact that there were armed men in the 
streets that you could not get a quorum ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On Monday?—A. We had a quorum on Monday. 

Q. Was there a quorum on Tuesday?—A. That 1 cannot say. 

Q. On Wednesday ?—A. There was a quorum on Wednesday. 

Q. Was it not on Wednesday that you went into joint ballot to elect 
a Senator ? 

Senator Hill. That has all been proven fifty times. 

Senator Kellogg. Allow me, Mr. Hill. Mr. Merrick got the witness 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


207 


to state that it was ou Tuesday and be thought that we had a quorum 
on Tuesday. I want to get at the truth and refresh his recollection as 
to the condition of things, and that is that there were armed men on 
the streets on Tuesday, and we did not have a quorum in either bouse 
on Tuesday owing to the fact that they could not get in. There was ou 
Monday. 

Senator Hill. You want the witness to change his testimony ? 

Senator Kellogg. Ko, sir; I want to set the witness right accord¬ 
ing to the journal and the facts. Of course after two years have elapsed 
a man cannot remember all these details. 

Mr. Merrick. A man who was shut up in the place and who was a 
member of the body ought to know and recollect. He says there was 
a quorum that Tuesday. 

Senator Kellogg. He may have said so. 

The Chairman. I do not think it is necessary to prove that. 1 feel 
some delicacy in interrupting Governor Kellogg, because his right is in 
question. I was in the city of Kew Orleans myself; I saw men on the 
streets; I walked on the streets myself. While there were armed men 
in the streets, I saw no disorder. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Well, was Wednesday, or whatever day the 
joint session was, the day that Thomas was brought in in a cab ?—A. 
He was brought iu the day the Senator was to be elected, whatever the 
day was. 

Q. That was the day you mean. You say he was brought in in a 
cab?—A. He was brought in the day before the Senatorial election. 

Q, That is your recollection, is it !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you positive that Mr. Thomas was there ou the day of the 
election of Senator?—A. I am positive he was there ou the day the 
Senator was elected. 

Q. Keferriug to the roll and the journal, by what officer is the roll of 
the house made up ?—A. By the secretary of state, and furnished to 
the house of representatives as the roll of members. 

Q. To the clerk ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is not that why John W. DeLacy’^ is down instead of “W. John 
De Lacy” ? You did not write it I —A. It was so returned b^^ the officer. 

Q. I supposed so. In reference to the statement, as you term it, that 
you made iu Algiers, 1 want to ask you if Mr. Smith or any person 
ever offered or promised under any circumstances that you would have 
any money for voting for me ?—A. No more than what I have already 
stated. 

Q. Did he in any manner speak or profess to speak by authority from 
me ?—A. No, sir ; he did not. 

Q. Did I in any manner approach you regarding the election of Sen¬ 
ator ? 

Senator Hill. You asked him that before. 

The Witness. You did not. 

Senator Kellogg. I will ask him one other question. (To the witness.) 
Did you receive any consideration wliatever in any manner from any¬ 
body for voting for me for United States Senator?—A. No, sir; I did 
uot. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Something was said while I was absent from 
the room about a visit to me last night. Were you at Willard’s Hotel 
last night?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did you happen down there ?—-A. I went down there with 
the intention of seeing Mr. Clarke. When I went there, you were in 


208 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


the room, and Mr. Walsh and others, and I did not say what I had to 
say to him. 

Q. Did you have auy conversation with Mr. Clarke whatever.'—A, 
No, sir. . 

Q. Did you have no conversation?—A. Only “Good evening.” 

Q. You sat down in the room ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were there quite a number of persons there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did I or not express doubt as to the propiiety of your coming 
there ?—A. You did ; you told me it was improper for me to come. 

Q. Did you not say to me, “I don’t see why I cannot call on you j you 
are my governor and my Senator”?—A. I did. 

Q. And did I not say to you, “Mr. De Lacy, I will be very glad to see 
you after the investigation ”?—A. You did. 

Q. Was there any other conversation ?—A. None other. 

Q. Is that the first time you have seen me except in this committee- 
room since you have been in this city ?—A. It is the first time. 

Q. Have I ever approached you through auy person, or sent any per¬ 
son to you, in regard to your testimony, or sought to influence you?— 
A. Not at all. 1 met Mr. Cavanac at the hotel. 

Q. Quite a number of persons came in and out of the room. There 
was a procession in front, and speeches were being made, and my room 
was filled more or less with people?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were going to the windows, passing backwards and for¬ 
wards, and you came up and looked out the window ?—A. Yes; I looked 
out of the window myself. 

EXAMINATION OF CHARLES CAVANAC. 

Charles Cavanac, a witness called on behalf of the memorialist, 
sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. Where do you reside I —Answer. In the city of New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. Do you know the witness that was on the stand just now calling 
himself W. John De Lacy ?—A. I do.. 

Q. Is that the man (pointing to the witness De Lacy)?—A. Yes, sir, 

Q. Did you know him prior to April 1, 1879?—A. Yes, sir; I have 
known him for two or three years. 

Q. Did you see him on or about the 9th of April, 1879 '?—A. I did. 

Q. Where did you see him?—A. In my office in the city of New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. Who was in your office at the time he came there ?—A. When he 
came there there was no person except myself. I will state that on the 
8th of April he came to my office with a man by the name of L. D. Her¬ 
bert. Mr. Herbert stated to him that Mr. Cavanac was in Mr. Spofford’s 
interest, and was getting up testimony on his behalf. He introduced 
Mr. De Lacy as a member of the Kellogg legislature, who knew some 
facts that he desired to disclose to me. I told him to be seated. He 
was seated, and I said to De Lacy, before he went auy further, “Mr. 
De Lacy, before you proceed to make any statement to me, I desire to 
say that I do not want any statement from you except that which is 
true; that I am paying nothing for it, and Judge Spofford desires no 
statement from any person except the perfect truth.” He said, “I do 
not desire to make any statement except that which is true.” “Now,” 
said I, “what statement do you desire to make?” “Well, I have re- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


209 


ceived money for votinj; for Crovernor Kello^^. I know otliers who have 
received money. 1 got fifty dollars from Governor Kellogg.” Conver¬ 
sation of that kind occurred for a little while. Said I, “ Very well; that 
is a very good statement. Xow, you think over it and come back to¬ 
morrow.” That was on the 8th. ' He was to come back on the 9th. 

Q. Now, just pause at that point. You said you cautioned him to 
give you no statement except the truth, and that you were paying 
nothing for it ?—A. Ottering no inducement for it. 

Q. That precaution given in the first instance to an individual would 
sound strange. I want you to state to the committee why you deemed 
it proper to give that precaution to this man, and whether there was not 
such a general habit of misrepresentation among the colored men down 
there as made it expedient for you to do it, looking as you were for the 
truth and the truth alone.—A. There was such a custom among the 
colored people in the legislature that for every act tliey performed they 
wanted pay; it was the general custom, general rumor, that nothing 
would be done by them unless for pay. 

Was that your reason for giving this caution ?—A. That was my 
reason for cautioning him in advance. 

Q. Now please proceed from the point where I interrupted you and 
where you were saying you told him to come back the next day f—A. 
I sat an hour for him the next day. The next day he came in company 
with Thomas ^lurray; I was alone in my private ollice when he came 
there; Colonel Zacharie was in my outside office at the time ; I was in 
my private office alone. I said, “ Colonel, there is a gentleman here who 
is a member of the Kellogg legislature and desires to make a statement; 
can you spare the time to draw it up ? ” He said, “ No, I cannot; I have 
a case in court; I am busy; 1 cannot remain.” Mr. Fitzpatrick, who had 
been a clerk of mine, was in the next office, not accustomed to drawing 
up affidavits in any fortn, but I asked him if he could do it. He said, 
yes, he could. Isaid, “ Well, come into the office.” Mr. De Lacy came 
in, and Mr. Murray came. 1 seated them all, and immediately Mr. Mur¬ 
ray went out. Before De Lacy i)roceeded to make any statement, I 
cautioned him again that I desired him to be careful; that 1 wanted no 
statement from him except the truth; I did not desire, or I would not 
have Judge Sj)offord occupy a seat in the United States Senate on the 
false statements of anybody. Said he, “ I will make no statement ex¬ 
cept that which is true; 1 have got it written out.” He pulled out of 
his pocket a pocket-book. 1 saw it was rather a long pocket-book— 
about eight inches long. 

Q. A memorandum book?—A. A memorandum book, and he dictated 
every word in that document. 

Q. (Exhibiting the affidavit shown to the witness De Lacy.) Look 
at this document; look at the date, and the name of the person be¬ 
fore whom it was executed, and say if you recognize the paper 
from its general appearance, its contents, and its signature ?—A. It is 
the same document, because after it was written I objected; I thought 
there was more; I objected to the word ‘‘Kellogg” appearing so far 
from the body of the writing. 

Q. You thought there was more, and you objected to the word “ Kel¬ 
logg ” ai)pearing so far from the body of the writing ?—A. Yes; there 
was so much vacant space. 

Q. The committee will observe that the word “ Kellogg” appears on 
the third page, and is the only part of the affidavit on that page except 

14 s K 


210 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


the signature and the certificate.—A. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he did not 
think that made any difference. 

Q. De Lacy took out his pocket-book in your presence, dictating that 
statement in your presence, and Fitzpatrick wrote it down in your 
presence?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And when he said it was done you looked at it and saw the word 
“ Kellogg’^ on the third page, the first line of the third page, so far re¬ 
moved from the main body of the i)aper that you objected to it'?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And Mr. Fitzpatrick said it made no difference?—A. Yes. I said, 
“Very well 5 let it go. Now read it, Mr. Fitzpatrick, to Mr. De Lacy.” 

Q. Did he read it ?—A. He read it. 

Q. Take it now and read it to yourself, every word.—A. (Heading the 
paper.) That is the paper. 

Q. Is that the paper you heard read over by Fitzpatrick to De Lacy ? 
—A. It is. 

Q. The identical paper ?—A. The identical paper. 

Q. Do you recollect it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Comparing what you now see in it, having read it, with what you 
recollect of it, having heard it, is it the paper ?—A. The same one. 

Q. In whose, handwriting is the paper?—A. It is in the handwriting of 
John Fitzpatrick. 

Q. After he read it over to De Lacy what then transpired?—A. I 
took it out of his hands and handed it to De Lacy and asked him to 
read it. He read it. I asked him if there was any statement in that 
document that was not true. He said it was correct. “Are you willing 
to sign it and swear to it?” “Yes, sir.’ SaidI “Mr. Fitzpatrick, 
take him up to the justice of the peace, and I will follow you immedi¬ 
ately.” gentleman had called on me to transact some business. He 
started out a short distance and went up to the justice of the peace. I 
followed him. up. I saw De Lacy sign that paper. 

Q. Did you go into the office of the justice of the peace ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Who was the justice of the peace?—A. Buisson. I saw him sign 
it. I saw the justice of the peace swear him. 

Q. Did he swear him by the uplifted hand or by a Bible ?—A. It was 
a Bible. The justice asked him if he knew the contents of it and had 
^ read it. He said he did. Then the justice attached his signature and 
his seal to it. The paper was handed to Mr. Fitzpatrick, as he had 
handed it to the justice, and immediately I took possession of the paper 
and put it in my pocket. 

Q. And did De Lacy sign it ?—A. I saw De Lacy sign that paper. 

Q. Did he sign it at your office or at the justice’s of the peace ?—A. 
At the justice’s of the peace. 

Q. Observe the paper and see whether there is a difference in the 
ink with which the body of the paper is written and the signatures are 
made. Look at it, if you please, and state if there is a difference in the 
color of the ink between the body of the paper and the signatures.—A. 
(Examining.) I had no black ink in my office. The body of the paper is 
in blue ink, and the signature of De Lacy is in black, and the “Sworn to 
and subscribed before me this 9th April, 1879, Th. Buisson, 3rd J. P..’ 
is in black ink. ’ 

Q. The signature of De Lacy and the signature and certificate of the 
justice are apparently written in the same ink, are they ?—A. Y'^es, sir: 
the same ink. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 211 

^Ir. Merrick. That is all I have to ask this witness at present. He 
is not amon" my summoned witnesses. 

The Witness. Mr. Fitzpatrick w^as looking at him when he signed 
it. lie was present. 

Mr. Merrick. Fitzpatrick is now in Xew Orleans 1 

The Witness. Yes. 

Mr. Merrick. Is Buisson there ? 

The Witness. Buisson is there. 

The Chairman. Have the other side any questions to ask the wit¬ 
ness, gentlemen ? 

Senator Kellogg. No. 

EE EXAMINATION OF THOMAS MURRAY. 

Thomas Murray (colored), a witness called bv the memorialist, re¬ 
called. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Question. You were examined yesterday, I believe ?—Answer. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Ho you know He Lacy, who testified here just before Cavanac; 
that man over there (pointing)?—A. Yes, sir; I know him. 

Q. Did you know him prior to the bth day of April, 1870?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you go with him at any time to Mr. Cavanac’s office ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I used to go there every day with him before he went to w’ork in 
the custom-house. 

Q. When did he go to work iu the custom-house ?—A. About the 
first of last month, I think. 

Q. That was about the first of May ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect going with him to Mr. Cavanac’s office on or 
about the 9th day of April, when there was some talk about testimony 
and an affidavit ?—A. 1 recollect going with him; 1 would not say on 
what day of the month, but some time during that month he went there. 

Q. Was there any talk about an affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the talk ?—A. He never told anything about the affi¬ 
davit there ; he told me about the affidavit at my house. 

Q. What was said at Cavanac’s office about his testimony, the facts 
that he had to indicate on an affidavit?—A. I do not know. I went 
out. All 1 know is what Mr. De Lacy told me in my house. 

Q. Did you remain in the office until De Lacy went out of the office ? 
You went into the front office? Did you remain iu the front office?— 
A. I went away. 

Q. You did not stay there ?—A. No, sir. 

C^. Then you do not know anything about what occurred there ?—A. 
I know nothing of it, only what Mr. De Lacy told me. 

Q. AYsterday I asked you some questions in reference to what De 
Lacy had told you at different times about his affidavit, and what he had 
said to you about the matters contained in his affidavit, and if I am not 
mistaken you refused to answer me?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now" 1 want all your knowledge on that subject.—A. I would do 
the same now if ]Mr. De Lacy had not opened the conversation to-daj". 

Q. 1 w ant to know what he said to you about his affidavit.—A. The 
conversation took place at my house in my parlor. That is what I re¬ 
fused to answer yesterday, a iirivate conversation between me and ^Ir. 
De Lacy. About six weeks ago, on a Sunday, he called at my house 
one Sunday evening, I think, or Sunday morning, to talk over this 
matter between Kellogg and Spoftbrd. 


212 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Well ?— A. He asked me bad I made a statement. I told him yes, 
I had made one. I asked him bad be made one. He told me be bad 
made an affidavit. 

Q. Told you be Lad made an affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. I asked him, 
“ Have you sworn to it ?” He says, “ Yes ; I have sworn to it before a 
justice of the peace and signed it.” Says, I “ That’s pretty strong.” I 
asked him what was in it. He says, “ Well, I will tell you just what I 
said.” He took bis book out and read it to me—what he said in his 
affidavit. 

Q. What sort of a book was it ?—A. A pocket book j a side book. He 
read what be bad said to me, and we went on and bad a private con¬ 
versation. 1 told him in my opinion I was in this fight; I thought I 
would stay in it; be bad done making the affidavit, and he was going 
to work in the custom-house at that time, but I thought I would stay 
on this side. He asked me what I thought I could make out of it. 
I said, “ there ain’t a dollar iu sight; Mr. Cavanac is managing the case, 
and there ain’t a dollar iu it. I think I will make about $2,500 before I 
get through with it.” 1 told the truth when I said I thought I would 
make $2,500. I told him that right in my house. I think I will make 
about $2,500 out of it; I think the same thing to-day, that I will make 
about $2,500 out of it. I tell the committee so, and there is not a 
man has said dollar to me yet. I never spoke to Mr. Spoftord until the 
evening I left. I did not know Mr. Spofford. He was down at the train 
last Monday, and I saw him. Mr. Cavanac has told me all along, who 
manages for Mr. Spofford, that there was not a dollar in sight, and Mr. 
Spofford did not want bought evidence, and still I expect to make 
$2,500 out of it yet, bad as it looks. I told Mr. De Lacy that. Well, he 
said he thought he would take a place iu the custom-house; said I, 
“John, if I took a place iu the custom-house, Mr. Cavanac must give 
my statement up to me.” He knows I told him that. Says I, “If I go 
and take a place iu the custom-house, I am going to stand by Mr. Kel¬ 
logg.” I told Governor Warmoth so; I told General Badger so; “ the day 
I take a position I am for Mr. Kellogg.” 

Q. You do not mean to say you would tell a lie for him ?—A. I did 
not say I would tell a lie, but I would not come. There is a way to get 
out of things without lying. I never have taken any position in the 
custom-house. The custom-house sent for me and asked me what I 
did want. I said, “ I think I will make about $2,500,” every time they 
come to me. Mr. Swazie came to me and asked what I wanted; I told 
him I wanted $2,500. 

Q. What else did-A. Wait; this was a private conversation in my 

house. I will tell you all of it. 

Q. Tell us all.—A. Said I, “ John, what sort of affidavit did you 
make ?” He got out the pocket-book and read that he went to Kellogg; 
Kellogg gave him $50, with the understanding that he was to vote for 
him for United States Senator ; George L. Smith, when he voted blank 
in the house of representatives, threw an envelope to him telling him to 
change the vote from blank to Kellogg, and Lawrence Herbert picked 
it up and opened it, and said, “ There’s sugar in this, boys.” He made affi¬ 
davit that he got $150 iu that for voting for Kellogg. Said I, “ John, 
that’s pretty strong ; I hope if you made that kind of affidavit, you’ll stick 
to it or have it withdrawn.” He said he was going to stick to it, and I will 
pledge you my word and honor I thought he was going to stick to it 
until he got on the stand this morning. I don’t know yet. He told me 
fifteen minutes before he came in that he was going to stand right by 
the affidavit. That was the conversation that passed between me and 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


213 


John, J told John if be stuck to me, I thought he would make some 
inouey out of this thing, I told him that in my house. That was all 
the conversation we had, 

Q. You say he told you this morning he was going to stand by his 
affidavit?—A. lie told me just when he opened the door to come in 
here. 

Q. And that affidavit was an affidavit that he had got $200 for voting 
for Kellogg?—A. That is what he told me, for voting, in my bouse. 

Q. In the first instance he told you the affidavit contained a state¬ 
ment that Kellogg had given him $50, with the understanding that he 
would vote for him?—A. I asked him, “John, is that positive, that 
Kellogg gave you $50?’’ lie said, “ He gave me $50.’^ 

Q. Ami this affidavit further stated that he had received $200 for 
voting for him ?—A. That is what he told me. 

Q. And that money was paid—first $50?—A. Yes; and then $150 in 
changing the vote in the house of representatives. Lawrence Herbert 
tore the end of it off, and said, “ There^s sugar in this, boys.” 

Q. Where is Lawrence Herbert?—A. In Kew Orleans. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. You spoke about being sent for to the custom-house. When was 
that ?—A. I go to the custom-house every day nearly, when I am in the 
city. 

Q. Have you any work there ?—A. No; I am not at work there. 

Q. I thought you spoke about your being sent for ? 

Mr. Merrick. You said they did ask you to go there ? 

The Witness. They asked me to take a situation there. 

• By Senator Kernan: 

Q. When was that ?—A. Some time last month; I do not know 
exactly when. 

Q. In May ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who asked you to take a position ?—A. Governor Warmoth ; lots 
of my friends asked me. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What did they indicate was to be the obligation imposed on you 
if you did take a situation?—A. Nothing ; I never went far enough to 
learn that. 

Q. Did Swazie never say anything to you about that?—A. No; 
Swazie never said what would be my obligations; he just told me, 
“Don’t be a fool; go to work,” as he always says. He is a personal 
friend of mine, and he always blackguards me whenever he gets a 
chance. He don’t want to see me make a fool of myself, he says. 

On motion, the committee adjourned until Monday, at 10 o’clock a. m. 


Washington, Monday^ June 9,1879—10 a. m. 

Present, the members of the committee; also K. T. Merrick, esq., coun¬ 
sel for the memorialist, and the sitting member (Senator W. Pitt Kq\- 
logg), with his counsel, Hon. S. Shellabarger. 

EE-EXAMINATION OF THOMxVS MURRAY. 

Thomas Murray (colored), a witness called by tire memorialist, re¬ 
called. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. In your examination on Saturday I understood you to state 



214 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


that jou had Dot been promised any money or anything of the kind in 
this transaction, but that you told De Lacy that you expected to make 
$2,500 out of it, and that you still expected to make it: and I am in¬ 
formed that I omitted to ask you how you expected to realize that 
money.—Answer. I expected to come here and tell the truth and build 
up a reputation with my people down home; and that is worth $2,500. 

Q. That is the way jmu expected to get it ? In no other way?—A. No 
other way. I expect to have the good people of the community with 
me. 

Q. Your people in these investigations have generally got a bad repu¬ 
tation down there, have they not, and you wanted to build up a good 
reputation for yourself?—A." That was just the whole of it. 

Mr. Merrick. That is all I wish to ask you. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Shellabarger ; 

Q. How do you get at the exact amount $2,500 ?—A. Well, that came 
up in a conversation; I just named that amount; that was all of it. 

Q. Whom with?—A. With De Lacy. 

Q. So you ciphered it out that your reputation, when built up, would 
be worth just $2,500?—A. No, I did not. 1 told other people 1 thought 
to make $10,000 out of it, but not in the conversation between me and 
De Lacy. That is what I told him—$2,500. 

EE-EXAMINATION OE WM. JOHN DE LACY. 

William John De Lacy (colored), a witness called by the memorial¬ 
ist, recalled. 

By Mr. Merrick : • 

Question. I understood you to say that one of the reasons why you 
were willing to swear that this (exhibiting paper heretofore shown to 
the witness) was not your affidavit, was that you never signed your 
name‘‘LaceyIs that so?—Answer. It is very rarely. 

Q. Did you not swear that you never did ?—A. No, sir; I do not think 
I did. ’ ’ 

Q. Y^ou did not swear that you never did ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Kern AN: 

Q. What did you swear about it?—A. I said it wms not my name, be¬ 
cause it is not wrote the way I write my name. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you not swear that you never did sign your name that wav ?_ 

A. I do not think I did. 

Q. Do you ever sign your name “cey^’?—A. I might sometimes in a 
hurry. 

Q. Have you heard of your signing it “ cey ” since vou were on the 
stand on Saturday ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you not heard that you have signed it “ cev ” ?—A. No, sir • 
I have not heard it. - ? ? 

A t*'® occasiou may require 

A. Well, as I say, sometimes in a hurry I might sign it “ cey or “ cv ” • 
“cy” is the most way that I sign my name. ’ 

Q. And you now tell the committee that you did not say on Satur¬ 
day that you never signed it “cey”?—A. No, sir; I do not think I 

Q. Did you not say that the “e” was put in there for the purpose of 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 215 

makiii" it French by somebody or other, and that 3^011 were an Irish¬ 
man ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not say anything of that kind ?—A. I did not say anj^- 
thing 5 vbout putting it in there to make it French. 

Q. You did not say that?—A. 1 notice a part of my statement which 
I want to correct; it is not put down as I answered. 

Q. You do not know how it is put down, do you ?—A. I saw something- 
in the Herald. 

Q. That is not the statement put down here by the authority of the 
committee ?—A. Home of the questions which I answered to the re¬ 
verse I see differ in the Herald report yesterday morning. 

• Q. I presume the committee will give you any opportunity that you 
desire to correct your statement if you ask to come back and tell tlieui 
wliat jmu want to correct.—A. I will. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Did you not, when you were sworn before, say that you spelled 
your name “ Lacy ” and not “ Lace}^”^—A. Y^es, sir; I spell my name 

Lacy.” 

Q. And that you wrote it, and that this was not written that way; 
and was not this one of the things you pointed out to us as showing 
that it was not your writing?—A. Yes, sir; I said it was not m 3 ’ writ- 
ing. 

Q. Did 3 ’ou not point out to the committee here that to the affidavit 
produced the name signed was spelled “ ce 3 ’,” and did 3*011 not i)oint 
that out as one of the reasons why it was not yours?—A. No, sir; 1 do 
not think I did. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Do you recollect whether you did or not ?—A. No, sir; I do not 
recollect. 

Q. Do you not recollect that you said so, and then exhibited this card 
(producing a card) to show how your name was always signed ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; I remember showing the card. 

Q. Do you not recollect that you said you never signed your name in 
in ai^v other way than that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are willing to say you did not swear that ? 

Senator Cameron. He has not said that 3 *et. He has said over and 
over again that he did not think so. I submit to the committee that 
that is an answer to the question. 

JMr. Merrick. 1 submit to the committee that it is not. 

Senator Kernan. Flease repeat the question; 1 was not listening. 

IMr. Merrick. 1 want him to say whether he recollects or not dis¬ 
tinctly saying that he never signed liis name “ cey.”—A. Ido not recol¬ 
lect. 

By ]\rr. Merrick : 

Q. Do you know what you did say ?—A. I know a good deal of what 
I said. 

Q. What did you say about that ?—xV. I said it was not my signature; 
it was not the way I wrote my name. 

Q. It was not your signature; it was not the wa 3 * 3 *ou wrote your 
name ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not say that you never did write your name that way, 
and that the “e” was put in to make it French by somebody?—A. No, 
sir; I don’t think I did. 

Q. You don’t think. I want something better than that. It was only 



216 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


on Satnrday that yon testified. Can yon speak of it any more positively 
than that you don’t think you did ?—A. No, sir; no more positively than 
that. 

Q. You cannot be more positive than that!—A. No. 

Q. Look at that and see if that is your signature (handing a paper to 
the witness).—A. (Examining.) Yes, sir; that is my signature. 

Q. Have you not heard of that signature since you testified here on 
Saturday ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are positive about that'?—A. I am. 

Q. Now spell out the letters in that last wordj L-a—what is the next 
letter?—A. ‘‘0.” Lacy is the name. 

Q. You tell the committee L-a c y ; is that it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q, Hand it to the Senator from Wisconsin and let him look at it and 
see what the letters are. 

(The‘witness handed the paper to Senator Cameron.) 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do you mean to say there is no “e” in that signature?—A. No, 
sir j 1 do not think there is any “ e” there. There is hardly a “ y ” in it. 

By Mr. Merriok : 

Q. There is no “ e ” and hardly a “ y,” you say. Then it stops with 
“c,”does it?—A. I remember writing that last Monday before I left 
New Orleans. 

Senator Cameron. It is very evident to me that there is no “ e ” in it. 

Senator Kernan. Let the counsel argue that to us. 

Mr. Merrick. Let the committee inspect it. 

(The paper was inspected by the members of the committee.) 

Senator Vance. It seems to me very much like two e es, as if ‘‘ Lacee.” 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) You say there is no “e” in that signature 
which I last showed you ?—A. No, sir : 1 do not think there is any “ e ” 
in there. 

Q. You signed the paper I first showed this morning on Saturday for 
the committee as the manner in which you usually signed your name ?— 
A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Does that look like the name that I handed you just now to iden¬ 
tify ?—A. The letters are shaped the same. 

Q. The same letters ?—A. That I wrote in a hurry in Mr. Cavanac’s 
ofiice last Monday. 

Q. You did not write it in any more of a hurry than you wrote that 
here on Saturday, did you ?—A. Yes, sir; I did. I did not have time 
to sit down to write it. I had to hasten home to get on my clothes to 
come here. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. You sometimes write your name with an “e”?—A. Sometimes^ 
when I am in a hurry. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q, Then the fact that this is signed “ cey ” here is no indication to 
you that you did not write it so in the affidavit ?—A. State the question 
again. 

Q. The fact that in the affidavit your name is spelled “ cey ” is no 
indication to you that you did not write it ?—A. It is no indication to 
me that 1 did not write it; no. 

Q. Did you not say Saturday that that was one of the reasons why 
you thought you did not write it ?—A. No, sir ; I did not. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


217 


Cross-examined by Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Mr. Merrick asked you whether the fact that there was an “ e’^ in 
your name on that affidavit was any indication to you that you did not 
write that signature. Did you understand his question whether the fact 
that there was an e’^ there was an indication to you that you did not 
sign that signature f How did you mean to answer that question of 
his ? Was it or was it not ?—A. It was not. 

Q. It was not an indication ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So that the presence of an “e” there was no sign that you did not 
write it f—A. None. 

Mr. Shellabarger. That is all. 

Mr. Merrick. I have nothing further to ask this witness. 

The Witness. I should like to ask the indulgence of the committee 
to make a few corrections in the statement of mine on Saturday before 
the committee. 

The Chairman. The witness ought to have that privilege. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not object. 

The Witness. There are one or two answers that are not as I an¬ 
swered. 

The Chairman. What you saw in the Herald was not taken by au¬ 
thority. 

The Witness. I should like to scrutinize my testimony any way. 

Mr. Shellabarger. He w^ants to scrutinize it when it is officially 
prepared and presented, so that he may make corrections. 

Mr. Merrick. I suggest thAt as he asks now to make corrections he 
should say what he wants just at this time so far as he is advised. 

The Witness. There were two answers that I want to correct. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What are they ?—A. One is “ yes” and the other is “ no.” 

Mr. Shellabarger. When you see the paper that contains the offi¬ 
cial report you can see whether it is correct. 

Senator Hill. What he refers to is only what is in the new spaper. 

The Witness. I should like to read it before it is closed. 

By Senator Cameron ; 

Q. Mr. De Lacy, Mr. Merrick asked you over and over again whether 
or not you did not swear positively on Saturday that the presence of 
an “ e ” in the signature attached to the affidavit which he exhibited to 
you was not a reason why you said it was not your genuine signature. 
Now, do you recollect distinctly what you said about that ?—A. I think 
I said to the committee that it was not my genuine signature. 

Q. That it was not your genuine signature f—A. Yes. 

Q. What reasons did you give at that time for stating that it was not 
your genuine signature ? Repeat those reasons if you remember them.— 
A. I do not remember them. They have slipped my uiemory since Sat¬ 
urday. , 

Q. You say you do not remember the reasons that you gave at that 
time ?—A. No, sir; I was bothered and cross examined and my brain 
was much confused, and I do not well remember the answer I gave to 
his questions on that subject. 

Q. Mr. Merrick also asked you if you did not swear on Saturday that 
you never spelt your name with an “ e.” Do you remember whether ho 
asked you that or not?—A. I think he did. I am not certain. 

Q. Are you certain of the answer you made to him ?—A. I think I 


218 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


made an answer that I spelled it with an “ e ” in haste—in a hurry, as I 
have answered this morning. 

Q. Is that all the recollection you have of it f—A. That is all. 

SIGN^ATURE AFFIDAVIT OF W. J. DE LACY. 

Mr. Merrick. I offer in evidence the paper bearing the signature I 
just now exhibited to the witness De Lacy, which he identihes as his own 
signature, and which is spelt, I think, “ ceybut which one member of 
the committee thinks has no “ e ” in it. I offer it as evidence. 

Senator Cameron. You only offer the paper for the purpose of the 
signature. 

Mr. Merrick. Only for the signature. There is nothing in the paper 
that I care about. It had probably better be returned, if the committee 
will allow, to the Secretary of the Senate, from whose oftice it was ob¬ 
tained. 

Senator Kernan. It had better be marked by the chairman's initials. 

(This paper and the signature written by the witness before the com¬ 
mittee on Saturday, June 7, were marked for identification and fi.led 
with the clerk of the committee.) 

Mr. Merrick. I also offer the affidavit of W. John De Lacy, the affi¬ 
davit which I proved by Mr. Oavanac on Saturday was signed ; I offer 
it to abide the fate of other affidavits in reference to which the question 
is now pending before the committee. 

Mr. Shellabarger. To that we of course make the same objection 
made to the other. 

(The question of the admissibility of the affidavit was reserved for 
consideration.) 

SUBPCEA^MNG OF WITNESSES. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the committee ordered subpoenas for 
eight witnesses, each, for Mr. Spofford and Mr. Kellogg. They have all 
been served, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, who has his deputy in New Or¬ 
leans, now asks whether he shall order his deputy home. On Saturday 
something was said both by Mr. Kellogg, I believe, and by Mr. Merrick 
about additional witnesses. I have stated that I did not think the com¬ 
mittee would order any subpoenas for any further evidence to be taken 
at this point. They have gone into the investigation far enough to see 
that there is to be a very considerable amount of testimony taken ; and 
having regard to the expenses that would be incurred, I thought the 
committee, after the examination of the witnesses that had been sub¬ 
poenaed, would close the investigation at this point, and that any further 
evidence would be taken perhaps by a subcommittee in New Orleans. 
Before the Sergeant-at-Arms orders his deputy home, I desire to bring 
the matter to the attention of the committee to know what is their 
judgment in reference to the suggestion which I have made. 

Senator Kellogg. Has the deput}^ served subpoenas on all my wit¬ 
nesses'? 

The Chairman. So he reports. 

Senator Kellogg. Then I have nothing to say. I have no objection 
to make so far as I am concerned to his coming home. It seems he has 
served the subpoenas, the proper number. 

Mr. Shellabarger. There is this about it; it depends on how far 
this investigation is to go before the adjournment of the committee 
what witnesses we shall want. The witnesses who have been ordered, 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


219 


as I iiiiderstand, relate to the matter of bribery,and of course anythin"’ 
else they may know may be bronj^ht out while they are on the stand. If 
the committee is not goinjj to extend the investigation beyond that sub¬ 
ject-matter, then, as we understand the case now, these are the wit¬ 
nesses that are desired on that subject. 

The CHAIU3IAN. I think it would be advisable that the examination 
of a witness, when he is on the stand, should extend to all the matters 
of which he has knowledge, so that he may not be again subixenaed 
here or anywdiero else. 

jNIr. SiiELLAiJATiGEii. That was our understanding. 

Tiie CifAiKMAN. The ])oint with tl)e conunittee is, of course, to limit 
the ex))ense of this investigation as much as possible. 1 thiidv we have 
gone into tl)e investigation sutliciently now to see that it may perhaps be¬ 
come necessary to send a subcommittee to New Orleans, If that is to be 
the case, then it would evidently be improper to multiply expense by 
bringing additional witnesses to this i)oint. It is for tiie purpose of 
limiting the expense rather than for the economy of the time of the com¬ 
mittee that I i)ropose to guide my action. I want the judgment of the 
committee as to what is deemed i)roper. 

Mr. Merrick. I have no objection to having carried out the sugges¬ 
tion indicated by the chairman in reference to bringing the deputy ser¬ 
geant-at-arms home and not summoning more witnesses here; but I 
desire to make an inquiry of the committee in view of a remark that 
tell from the chairman just now in the course of announcing his opinion 
or giving his suggestion in response to ]Mr. Shellabarger. Mr. Shella- 
barger said that when a witness is put upon the stand he may be ex¬ 
amined in reference to everything that he knows, and the chairman 
suggested that that prol)ably would be right in order to save the expense 
of summoning liim again. That may be true, as a general rule, but I 
submit that that rule is not justly applicable in view of the limitation 
imposed upon us in respect to the number of witnesses to wdiich we are 
each entitled. The rule of cross-examination extends only to the matters 
inquired of in chief; and if the witness put upon the stand by one party 
has within his knowledge other matters than those in regard to which 
he is examined by the party jiutting him upon the stand to hell) to make 
out the case in chief of the other side, and the other side with that wit¬ 
ness then enters into new and distinct matter, that witness ought to be 
regarded as the witness of the other side as much as of.the side that put 
him originally upon the stand. Not that I have any objection to having 
these other matters brought out, but I do not want them brought out to 
my detriment in reference to the relative number of witnesses to which 
1 am entitled. When I put De Lacy on the stand and examined him in 
relation to the question of bribery in the Ihickard legislature and mat¬ 
ters immediately germane thereto, the other side (after cross examining 
him in reference to those matters) opened up their case by him as though 
lie had been their witness in respect of other and independent matters. 
Now while, as I said, I should not object to that generally, yet, in view 
of this limitation, J do object to it. If they want to iirove by one of my 
witnesses their case independent of that ])art of the general case to 
which I call upon him to testify, they must summon him as their wit¬ 
ness. 

1 think that the committee will probably agree with me that that 
would be the correct rule in view of this limitation, for the committee 
will readily peicei\^ that I have not the opportunity of so clear a vision 
into the hearts and minds of these men as possibly tlie other side may 
have. 


220 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Now, in respect of another inquiry: Whilst I do not want to limit the 
number of witnesses of the other side at all when I am left unlimited, 
it is my duty to restrict them as long as I am restricted; and I there¬ 
fore ask, Mr. Chairman, whether the deputy sergeaut-at-arms, in saying 
that he has summoned Mr. Kellogg’s witnesses, means to indicate that 
he has served eight subpoenas for Mr. Kellogg in Louisiana. 

The Chairman. I understood he was to summon seven there, as Mr. 
Kellogg had taken out a subpoena for Johnson here, which was to be 
deducted from the eight to which he was entitled. 

Mr. Merriok. That is all I wanted to learn. 

Senator Kellogg. I should have the benefit, then, of but seven wit¬ 
nesses from New Orleans. 

Mr. Merrick. Johnson is from New Orleans. 

Senator Kellogg. He was brought here by you. 

Mr. Merrick. But he was used by you. 

The Chairman. When you applied for a subpoena for Johnson, Mr. 
Kellogg, I stated that it would be deducted out of your number. That 
was the perfect understanding at the time. 

Senator Kellogg. Very well; the witness was here, and I supposed 
we could call him and put upon the stand irrespective of the number 
limited. 

Senator Cameron. Mr. Chairman, I supposed the object of the limita¬ 
tion was to limit the expense. 

Senator Kellogg. That is what I supposed. 

Senator Cameron. For instance, Mr. Cavanac was sworn here the 
other day. Does the Chairman mean to be understood that Mr. Cava¬ 
nac is one of the eight witnesses to which Mr. Spofibrd is entitled ? 

Mr. Merrick. Mr. Cavanac was never summoned at all. 

Senator Cameron. It is not material whether he was summoned or 
not. 

The Chairman. I said to Mr. Kellogg personally that I supposed 
the committee, if either side thought proper to bring witnesses here in 
addition to the eight at its own expense, might do so. He asked me 
that question, if they brought witnesses here at their own expense would 
they be examined. I said to him that I supposed the committee would 
examine them under those circumstances; but where a subpoena is 
issued, the rule being that an equal number of subpoenas should issue 
for each side, 1 knew no other construction than to deduct Johnson 
from the number Mr. Kellogg was entitled to, and I so stated to Mr. 
Kellogg before he had Johnson summoned. He will remember that con¬ 
versation. 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir. Would it be fair to deduct Johnson’s 
pay, allowing me just as much expense for my witnesses from New Or¬ 
leans as Mr. Spofitbrd ? 

The Chairman. We could not deduct it. W^e have to pay him on 
the subpoena that brought him here. I know no other rule of justice to 
both parties where an equal number of witnesses is awarded. That was 
all that could be demanded on either side. Before Mr. Kellogg ordered 
a subpoena for Mr. Johnson, I told him that if he ordered a subpoena 
for him he would be deducted out of his number. 

Senator Cameron. Then I understand that either party may offer 
witnesses who have not been subpoenaed ? 

The Chairman. The committee has not acted upon that, but I gave 
that as my opinion to Mr. Kellogg. I do not know what the committee 
will do, of course. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I wish to make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, so 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


221 


as to reach a more exact understanding’. A witness is put on the stand 
by Mr. Merrick. If it is the pleasure of the committee that we should 
limit our examination of his witness to a strict common-law cross- 
examination, and the committee will so indicate in advance, of course we 
shall abide by their order. But, as stated on Saturday, I have supposed 
that in the interest of economy, and because it was right, the committee 
was not limited by those rules that apply at common law in that regard, 
and we can examine the witness while he is here as to all the subjects- 
inatter that he knows about. And unless we are instructed to the con¬ 
trary, we shall continue to do so for the reasons indicat d. 

Now, in regard to the effect of that, I think brother IMerrick is right. 
If we examine a witness as to matters he did not call him about and did 
not examine him about, and we thereby, as a matter of law, make him 
our witness for the purpose of that i)art of the examination, it cannot be 
said that as to that subject-matter he is Mr. Merrick’s witness. 1 think 
that is right. We accept that view of it. But in regard to the other 
and principal practical question now before the committee, our view 
has been that which I understood to be indicated by the Chairman here¬ 
tofore, that this limitation to eight witnesses on each side only applied 
to witnesses brought herefrom New Orleans by process; that if per¬ 
sons are here (as in the case of Mr. Cavanac), they may be examined 
notwithstanding they are in excess of the eight. 

One more remark. 1 do not understand the committee to rule—in¬ 
deed it would be a most unusual and I think most extraordinary thing 
to rule—that the limitation of witnesses on a matter of this great im¬ 
portance shall be absolutely eight before the investigation is ended, 
that we shall not go beyond that. I only understood that eight was a 
limitation applicable to this session in subpoenaing them here from New 
Orleans. 

The Chairman and members. Certainly, that is all. 

Senator Kernan. I nevw understood there was any limitation as to 
calling more; but only that we would bring eight here now by sub¬ 
poena on eacli side. 

Mr. Shellabarger. We have so understood it from the first. 

Senator Kernan. 1 have so understood. 

Senator Cameron. Then there is no misunderstanding! 

The Chairman. As to the question liow far the committee will go at 
this extra session in examining witnesses who are not subp(enaed, that 
will be a question which the committee when the matter comes up fully 
will pass upon. Do I understand that both sides consent that the dep¬ 
uty sergeant-at-arms may be called back from New Orleans ! 

Mr. Merrick. 1 have no objection. Has he summoned eight or 
seven ? 

The Chairman. Seven there and one here on the part of Mr. Kel¬ 
logg. 

Mr. Merrick. I have no objection to his coming back. 

Senator Kellogg. Nor I. 

The Chairman. The order will be made. 

Mr. Merrick. I deem it proper to remark, as there seems to be a 
comparisou of benefits in this business, that the rulings of the com¬ 
mittee have been to 1113 ^ detriment in reference to these witnesses, and 
have invaded the ordinar^^ rules of investigation at common law for the 
benefit of the other side. The committee called upon me to specify 
what particular subject-matter I wanted to inquire into here and the 
number of witnesses. 1 did so; and in my letter stated, I think (at least 
it was understood by me), that my investigation was to end before the 


222 


SPOFFORD VS- KELLOGG. 


defense began. TLie other side declined to specify tbeir points, declined to 
name their witnesses, and gave as a reason that they could neither specify 
the matters they desired to inquire into nor limit the number of w itnesses 
until I was through, for the reason that their case was one of rebuttal. 
Therefore, in view of what I said and in view of what they said, I 
think it was to the detriment of my case that they should be allowed 
to interpose any witness at all until I was through my case here and 
in New Orleans; but the committee, in their very scrupulous desire to 
do exact justice, have done more than justice to the other side. My 
case ought not to have been interfered with until I had got through, 
according to the rule they themselves laid down in their communication 
to the committee; and although they have now summoned eight wit¬ 
nesses, they have not yet complied with the resolution of the committee 
by informing the committee of what were the points they desired to 
make through those witnesses when they put them on the stand. 

Senator Kebnan. Suppose these questions, as you w^ant to raise 
them, are raised when they arise, because we spend nearly all our time 
about what we shall do in the future. Here is a witness, and I want to 
go to the Senate in a few minutes, and so it is with others. I do not 
want to interrupt discussion ; but I do not think we gain by anticipat¬ 
ing questions. VVe have decided that each side might bring here eight 
witnesses, and we would hear them. That, I suppose, is settled. 

Mr. Shellabargeb. All I desire to say, Mr. Chairman and Senators, 
in reply to brother Merrick, is that we did not mean—for I prepared the 
letter that was sent by IMr. Kellogg—nor do we admit that the letter is 
susceptible of the interpretation that m 3 ^ brother gives it, that we would 
subi)cena no witnesses until they were through. We meant to act in 
the utmost good faith, and as fully as possible comply with the reso¬ 
lution of the committee. In the very nature of the case we could not 
tell what witnesses we would want, nor the subjects-matter w^e would 
investigate them about, until we saw what we hab to meet. We did not 
say—and there is the lault I find with my friend’s statement—that w^e 
would wait until they w^ere through with their entire case, butVe would 
wait until their case should develop our necessities, and we wanted the 
subpoenas sent toNew Orleans in advance just to meet the ver 3 ^contingenc.y 
that has happened ; that as fast as they disclosed what we had to meet 
we might be ready with a subpoena on the ground to have the names 
tilled up to meet them promptly before you adjourn. The mistake in 
the statement was that we did not say that we would wait until you 
were through, but wait until we saw enough of the development to en¬ 
able us to go forward. 

Mr. Merrick. The points filed will develop that. 

Senator Kernan. There is no question before the committee, and I 
submit that we go on. 

The Chairman. The examination will proceed. 

EXAMINATION OF JULES SEVEIGNES. 

Jules Seyeignes, a witness called bj^ the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Mr. Merrick; 

Question. (Handing a paper to witness.) Look at that paper and say 
whether that is your signature or not.—Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you write the body of the paper ?—A. 1 did. 

Q. Where do you reside ?■—A. 138 Saint Peter’s street. New Orleans, 
at present j that is, when 1 am in New Orleans. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


22 ^ 


Q. Wliere were yon residing in 1877 ? 

The Witness. During the session of the legislature ? 

^Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

A. I was residing at 45 Saint Philip street. 

(^>. In New Orleans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you.a member of the Packard legislature, as it is called ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What house were you in ?—A. I was in the Packard legislature— 
in the State-house. 

Q. Which body, the senate or house ?—A. In the house. 

Q. Were you present at the joint convention which declared Mr. Kel¬ 
logg elected to the Senate of the United States?—A. I was. 

Did you vote ?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you vote that day or the next day ?—A. I voted that day. 

Mr. Merrick. This paper reads as follows : 

State of Louisiana, 

J*arish of Orleans, CUy of Xew Orleans : 

Before me, tlie nudersijjned authority, personally came and appeared Jules Seveignea, 
who, being duly sworn, says: I was not present at the session of the general assembly 
of Louisiana, in January, 1877, when Win. P. Kellogg was declared elected U. S. Sena- 
for the long term, but recorded my vote for him on the following day. 

JULES SEVETGNE, 
Ex-Mem. H. JR. from Lafourche. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me at the city of New Orleans this 30 day of May, 

A. 1). l!s7S». 

[SEAL.] OSCAR ARROYO, 

Assi. Secretary of State. 

Q. You wrote the body of that paper ?—A. I did. 

Q. And swore to it before Arroyo ?—A. 1 did. 

Q. Is it true ?—A. It is not true. The paper is not true. 

Q. Tell us why you lied when you wrote that paper.—A. Because the 
very parties that induced me to write that paper knew themselves that 
it was a lie. 

Q. Wlio was it ?—A. I will not mention their names- 

Mr. Merrick. 1 insist on knowing. 

The Witness. I will not mention their names - 

Mr. ]\Ierkick. I ask the committee to require him to tell. 

The Witness (continuing). Because it is a matter of notoriety and of 
record that it was not so. 

Mr. Merrick. No matter about that. 

The Chairman. Answer tlie question. 

Senator Kern an. My individual opinion is that you ought to answer 
the question. The committee ought to require you to do so. The other 
members of the committee can speak for themselves. 

■ The Chairman. Answer the question, if you can. 

The Witness. I cannot answer the question, for this reason, that it 
will implicate others that are not interested at all in this case. 

Mr. Merrick. That is none of your business. 

Senator Kernan. I think you should answer. You must let the con¬ 
sequences be what they will. 

Mr. Shellabargek. I think it would be fair to the witness to inform 
him of the consequences of not answering a legitimate question, and to 
tell him that he is liable to be indicted for the refusal. 

Senator Kernan. It would be proper to tell him so. He should 
answer the question. There is no reason why he should be subjected to 
punishment. 




224 


SPOFFORIy VS. KELLOGG. 


The Witness. I don’t think it right to bring in i^arties that are 
not- 

The Chairman. That is not a matter which you are to discuss. You 
are brought here to tell the truth. 

The Witness. That is the very reason—that I am telling the truth. 

The Chairman. You are bound to answer the question j you had 
better save yourself trouble by answering. 

Senator Kernan. There is no reason why you should be subjected to 
punishment. You should tell what you know.—A. Mr. Cavanac, I sup¬ 
pose, is well posted in regard to the proceedings of the legislature. 

Senator Kernan. Then it is not a secret, it seems, and you can go 
on and tell. You are on the stand now.—A. My uncle knew that that 
affidavit is not true. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Just name him. 

Senator Vance. Who is your uncle.? 

Senator Kernan. What is his name?—A. Mr. T. Drouett. 

Q. Where does he live ?—A. In New Orleans. 

Q. Whereabouts ?—A. On Bourbon street. 

Q. What number ?—A. I don’t know the exact number. 

Q. Between what streets?—A. Between Saint Ann andDumaine street. 

Q. Who else ? You said “ the parties.” 

Senator Cameron. I think it would be proper for the chairman to 
state to the witness what the consequences will be of his refusal to an¬ 
swer a legitimate question. Then, if he chooses to take those conse¬ 
quences, he is at liberty to do so. 

Senator Kernan. I think we should say to him that it is our duty 
to advise him to answer, and endeavor to make him answer. 

The Chairman. It is the duty of the witness to answer the question. 
I have said to him that it will give him trouble if he does not. He 
started to answer the question, and I suppose he is going to do so. 

Senator Cameron. I think it is proper to state to him what the con¬ 
sequences may be. 

Senator Kernan. It is enough for me to say it will be very severe. 
It is not our duty to advise him not to answer. 

Senator Cameron. No ; it is not our duty to advise him not to an¬ 
swer or to advise him to answer. 

Senator Kernan. It is his duty to answer, and it is our duty to make 
him answer if he can. 

The Witness. It is a matter of such public notoriety that I was not 
bribed- 

Mr. Merrick. Wait a moment. 

Senator Kernan. You said “ certain parties,” and Mr. Merrick asks 
you to name them. 

Mr. Merrick. I ask you the names of the parties who induced you 
to swear to that, and who themselves knew it was a lie, as you say. 

The Witness. Well, ain’t one sufficient? 

Mr. Merrick. No; I want them all. 

The Witness. I don’t like to implicate these men. 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Senator Kernan. You had better tell the names. 

A. Well, I cannot tell the names of those parties—that is, I will not. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. There were other parties besides your uncle ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There were others besides your uncle?—A. Yes, sir; and I am 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 225 

sorry that I gave that name now, because I should not have mentioned 
the names of any of them. 

Q. And you refuse to state the others?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. I will leave iato the committee to deal with him. 

By Senator Kern AN: 

Q. Do you mean to say that you refuse to name the men who, know¬ 
ing this was a falsehood, got . 5*011 to sign it and swear to it?—A. O, 
they didn’t know that I was signing that; but they knew it was a false¬ 
hood when they induced me to make an affidavit. 

Q. That is what I want to know—whether persons who induced you 
to make this affidavit knew it to be false. Are there such persons?— 
A. They knew it to be false. 

Q. Who were they?—A. That is just what I have declined to answer. 

Q. Why do you refuse to name the men who got you to do such a 
wicked act? Why do you want to protect them?—A. I don’t want to 
protect them, but I don’t want to bring them into the slums- 

Q. Why should we not know who they are ? Do they live in Yew 
Orleans?—A. O, yes. 

Q. What reason is there why you should not tell the names of the 
men who got you to swear to a lie ?—A. Mr. Cavauac is another one. 

Q. Who else?—A. That is parties, ain’t it? 

Mr. Merrick. That is not all. 

Senator Kernan. If you can tell one, you can tell all, I am sure; and 
you ought to, it seems to me. If they did that thing the world should 
know it. 

The Witness. I said parties, and I have named two; that is sufficient. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You say there are others?—A. I didn’t say there were others. 

Q. Do you say there are others who induced you to make this affi¬ 
davit or not?—A. Kot exactly induced; others didn’t exactly induce, 
but wanted me to. 

Q. Who were the others that wanted you to swear to this lie ? Just 
name them. 

The Witness. Is it absolutely necessary ? 

Senator Kernan. O, yes. Why should you want to screen men who 
got you to do this wrong thing? You admit you did it, and you say 
others induced you to do it. Let the world know who they are.—A. 
The reason— 

By Senator Kernan; 

Q. Ko matter about the reason. We will have to try to investigate 
this, and the better way is to tell us who these other men are w ho aided 
you to do this wrong thing. You say that others inducr‘d you to do it, 
and you have named two. Who were the others w ho wanted jmu to do 
it ?—A. 3Ir. Murray was one—Thomas Murray. 

Q. The witness wiio has been here?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the others?—A. Mr. Elder. 

What is his first man ?—A. I forget his first man now. 

Q. Is he a Yew Orleans man ? 

Senator Kellogg. J. W. Elder. 

^Ir. Merrick. lie seems^to know who it is. 

Q. (By Senator Kernan.) Is that the man?—A. That is the man. 

Q. Where does he live ?—A. I believe he lives in Washington, but 
he was in Kew Orleans. 

Q. Is he colored or white?—A. He is a white man. 

15 s K 


226 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Has he ever lived in New Orleans ^—A. No, sir^ not to my knowl¬ 
edge. 

Q. Who else !—A. That is all. 

Q. Those are all who aided in getting you to doit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Witness, whenever you are asked any question 
and you have any knowledge about the matter, answer the question 
without any further trouble. 

Q. (By Senator Kernan.) Is that written by yourself [showing the 
affidavit to the witness]?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The body of the affidavit ?—A. The whole of it. 

Q. It is all in your handwriting ?—A. Except the jurat. 

Senator Kernan. I asked because I thought it looked as if it was. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. W^ho were present when you wrote that ?—A. Mr. Cavanac was 
jiresent. 

Q. You wrote it in his presence ?—A. Yes, sir ; in his office. 

Q. Did he tell you what to write down ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He did not tell you what to write ?—A. No, sir } I wrote it all by 
myself. 

Q. The whole dictation was your own?—A. The whole of it. 

Q. The facts then were not suggested to you by anybody ?—A. He 
didn’t suggest a fact that day—no. 

Q. You wrote it all yourself?—A. Yes, sir; all of it except the jurat. 

Q. Was anybody else present besides Mr. Cavanac when you wrote 
it out?—A. I do not recollect whether Mr. Murray was present or not. 
I am not certain. 

Q. Was any money offered to you to write it?—A. No,sir. 

Q. No money was offered to you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What was the inducement then ? You say they induced you to 
write it, and yet you say no money was offered.—A. Not when I wrote 
that; but previous to writing the inducements were offered. 

Q. Who offered you the inducements previously ?—A. Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. What inducements?—A. He said that I would have everything 
that I wanted; that Mr. Kellogg was to be put out of the Senate now, 
and that I could command anything I wanted afterwards. 

Q. And did he tell you you could command anything by stating what 
was not true?—A. No, sir; he didn’t tell me that. 

Q. Did he not tell you that you must state the truth?—A. No; he 
did not tell me that I must tell the truth. 

Q. He did not ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you you must tell what was untrue ?—A. No, sir; he 
did not. 

Q. What did he tell you that you must tell ?—A. He said I must tes¬ 
tify that I was not present. 

Q. I thought I understood you to say just now vou put that in your¬ 
self ?—A. I did. 

Senator Cameron, I think it would be well, inasmuch as this witness 
has given the names of the persons who, he says, induced or tried to in¬ 
duce him to make this or some affidavit, tliat he should be asked to 
state, in his own way, the conversation between him and each one of 
these parties. I think that is the fair way. ^ 

Senator Hill. I believe I have the examination of the witness. 

Senator Kernan. Do you not think that if a man goes on the stand 
and admits that he swore to an affidavit which was untrue, the court 
would let either party put the questions rather than have him tell his 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


227 


owu story ? If he admitted, I mean, that he swore to that a few days 
ago. The date of it you say is what: 

Senator Hill. I am trying to get at what occurred. 

Senator Kernan. I think a <;;ourt would allow either party to put fair 
questions. 

Senator Hill. He does not wish to tell anything but what is brought 
out by questions. 

Seuator Cameron. I do not*think that appears. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Was Murray present when you signed that ?— 
A. I am not certain whether he was or not. 

Q. You said just now that nobody was present but Mr. Cavanac ?— 
A. I don’t think I said that. 

Q. What did Mr. Murray say that induced you to do it ?—A. He told 
me that there was “ sugar” in it. 

Q. You did it for “ sugar,” did you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that all ?—A. He said I could get everything I wanted. 

Q. By swearing to a lie ?—A. Y^es, sir. And he said he knew I was 
not there. He said he knew I was not present at the joint convention, 
when he sent a deputy sergeant-at-arms after me at quarter after eleven. 

Q. What else did he say you could get ?—A. That there was “ sugar” 
in it, and that I could get anything I wanted afterwards. 

Q. By swearing falsely?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you to swear falsely?—A. He did not j but he was 
aware that the affidavit was not true. 

Q. He did not tell you to swear to anything falsely ?—A. No, sir ; he 
did not tell me to swear falsely, 

Q. He did not tell you to state anything falsely '?—A. No, sir; that 
is the reason I am telling you the truth. 

Q. He did not tell j’ou you would get “ sugar” by swearing falsely ?— 
A. Not by swearing falsely. He said that there was “ sugar ” in it. 

Q. “Sugar” in the truth or in the falsehood ?—A. No ; in testifying in 
favor of Mr. Spofford. 

Q. Who was the other man ? Drouett, your uncle, you said.—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Was he present when you made it ?—xV. No, sir. 

Q. What did he say ?—A. He says—he told me to stand by my affida¬ 
vit; to stand by my affidavit. 

Q. And did you state that he was one of the men who induced you 
to make the affidavit ?—A. Well, yes; but 1 do not believe he has seen 
the affidavit. 

Q. Y^ou told him you had made one ?—A. No. 

Q. Did he advise you to make an affidavit ?—A. No; I don’t believe 
I told him I had made an affidavit. 

Q. How did he induce you to make a false affidavit if he did not 
know you had made one ?—A. They have been working this thing 
around for about two months. 

Q. What work has he been doing ?—A. He has been after me, saying 
my testimony would be more important and was more reliable than any 
other. 

Q. Did he advise you to tell a falsehood ?—A. O, no, sir. 

Q. None of them advised you to tell a falsehood, did they?—A. They 
advised me to testify in favor of Mr. Spofford. 

Q. But they did not advise you to tell a falsehood ?—A. No, sir; they 
didn’t advise me, but they were perfectly aware of the fact. 

Q. You were willing to tell a falsehood to get the “sugar”?—A. No, 
sir; that is the very reason I made that affidavit. 


228 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. It was to get the sugar”!—A. No, sir. 

Q. What!—A. It was to explain how all these affidavits are manu¬ 
factured. 

Senator Hill. O ! ■ 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) You did not do it because of anything they 
said to you, then!—A. No, sir ; because as far as the affidavit was con¬ 
cerned they said this- 

Q. You were not induced to sign that affidavit by anything Mr. Cav- 
anac said, or anything Mr. Murray said, or anything Mr. Hrouett said! 
—A. I was induced long before I signed the affidavit. 

Q. I understand you to say now that your object in making that affi¬ 
davit was to show him how the other affidavits were made !—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. It was not then for the “ sugar” or for any benefit to you!—A. 
No; because I didn’t expect to reap any benefit from them. 

Q. Y^ou did not expect, when you made that affidavit, to reap any 
benefit!—A. No, sir. 

Q. You were not induced to make it by reason of any benefit?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. And the statement to you by Mr. Cavanac and Mr. Murray was that 
there was “sugar” in it, and that jou could get anything you wanted, 
and that Mr. Kellogg was going to be turned out anyhow; was not that 
the reason! You made it to show how the affidavits were given !—A. 
That is the reason I made it. I didn’t believe in what they said. 

Q. That had no influence in getting the affidavit!—A. Not at all. 

Q. You made the affidavit voluntarily !—A. Voluntarily. 

Q. And of your own motion !—A. I made three—two more like that. 

Q. You have made three !—A. Yes, sir; and I didn’t consider my¬ 
self morally bound by those affidavits. 

Q. Y^ou did not!—A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not think that a man is morally bound to tell the truth, do 
you !—A. Yes, I do. 

Q. Do you think it is immoral to go before a magistrate and swear to 
a lie !—A. I do think so; but it depends- 

Q. Why did you do it three times, then !—A. It depends upon the 
construction that a man is placed in to bring about these affidavits. 

Q. 1 understand you to say that after all you made this affidavit of 
your own motion !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And voluntarily!—A. Yes, sir; voluntarily. 

Q. And nobody induced you to do it!—A. Not at the time I made it. 

Q. You did not believe any inducement held out by anybody, or any¬ 
thing said by anybody !—A. No, sir ; I did not believe it. 

Q. And therefore it did not influence you at all !—A. No, sir. 

Q. When you were served with a subpoena in New Orleans to come 
here as a witness in behalf of Mr. Spofford, you knew you were served 
with a subpoena to testify in behalf of Mr. S])ofi‘ord!—A. O, yes; I 
knew that. 

Q. Did you not understand that the giving these affidavits was the 
reason why you were subpoenaed ?—A. No, sir ; on the contrary, I under^ 
stood that the affidavits did not amount to any thing, and that they 
would not be used. 

Q. Did you not know that it was on account of the facts stated in the 
affidavit that you were subpoenaed, and that you would be a witness for 
Mr. Spofford!—A. I supposed so. 

Q. When you took that subpoena to come here to testify to the fact 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 229 

that you were not. in that joint convention, you took it knowing that 
that was the object of bringing you here ?—A. Yes ; I kuew that. 

Q. And you knew at the time that you did not intend to swear to 
that ?—A. I did. I kuew at ttie time, from the time I started. 1 knew 
that 1 would not stick by that affidavit. 

Q. Did you fell the gentleman who served you with the subpoena that 
you would not stick by it ?—A. No, sir; 1 did not tell him. 

Q. You deliberately and intentionally deceived them as to that 
thing ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. I uuderstand you to say that you came here knowing that you 
were brought by these gentlemen as a witness in behalf of Mr. Spofford ?— 
A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. That they expected from your statement that they would testify 
that you were not a member of the joint convention at the time Mr. Kel¬ 
logg was elected ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that you deliberately and intentionally intended to testify 
that you were a member ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that you deceived them in coming here as a witness ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. Before any payment is made to this witness I hope 
the question of making it will be submitted to this committee. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. You say that your purpose in making that affidavit was to expose 
the methods by which such affidavits were procured in Louisiana ?—A. 
Y"es, sir. 

Q. "Who suggested to you that you should in that way become the 
vindicator to the public ?—A. Nobody but myself. 

Q. Nobody but yourself ?—A. Nobody but myself. 

Q. No one suggested it to you?—A. No one suggested it; in fact, they 
were astonished. 

Q. They were astonished, or you were astonished ?—A. My friends 
were astonished that I had been subpa3naed. 

Q. Was it generally known that you had made that affidavit in New 
Orleans ?—A. Well, I don’t think it would vary- 

Q. Did anybody know it outside of the parties immediately interested, 
Mr. Cavanac and yourself ?—A. Well, I don't know that there were 
many. 

Q. Have you talked about it at all or spoken to any one about it ?— 
A. 1 may have mentioned the fact to one or two parties. 

Q. You may have done so ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you mention your purpose in making these affidavits to these 
parties ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Y"ou never did ?—A. I never did. 

Q. And 3 ’our friends were surprised when you were subpceuaed '?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. When you were subpceuaed who came to see you about it; did 
you see Mr. Lewis soon after you were subpceuaed ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,). How long after you were subpceuaed before you saw Mr. Lewis ?— 
A. I saw him that same night, I believe. 

i}. Mr. Lewis is naval officer there A. Yes, sir. 

(»). You saw him the sanle night ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Did you and he have any conversation upon the subject of this 
affiilavit ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. None whatever !—A. No, sir. 


230 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did he come to see you or did you go to see him?—A. We met ou 
the cars. 

Q. You had not seen him before leaving New Orleans, then, after you 
were subpoenaed —A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any conversation on the cars about it?—A. Not about 
the affidavit. 

Q. What is Mr. Lewis’s business here j ,^ffiat brought him here to the 
city of Washington?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Uis duties require his presence in Louisiana, do they not?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know that he had contemplated this visit to Washington 
before the day that you started?—A. I did not know anything about it 
until I met him on the train. 

Q. Has he any business here outside of attending the investigation by 
this committee ?—A. Not that I know of. 

Q. Do you not see him every day?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Paying an interest to these proceedings ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. With the witnesses outside ? 

Senator Bailey. Yes, sir. (To the witness). Do you not see him as¬ 
sociated daily with the witnesses outside and talking with them ?—A. 
At meal-times. 

Q. (By Senator Bailey). Has he not talked with you upon the subject 
of your testimony here?—A. Not at all. 

Q. You say he has never mentioned it ?—A. Never mentioned it. 

Q. What is his business here in the city of Washington to-day?—A. 
I don’t know. 

Q. Has he any business?—A. I don’t know. I never asked him. He 
never told me. 

Q. And he has never told you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did it not excite some surprise in your mind and in the minds of 
the other witnesses who were subpoenaed that Mr. Lewis should leave 
his business in New Orleans to follow you here or to come with you 
here?—A. No, never. I never gave the matter a thought. 

Q. You have never given it a thought?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Not at all?—No, sir. 

Q. Have not you and the other witnesses talked that matter over of 
Mr. Lewis being here?— A. No, sir; I have never mentioned it. 

Q. Has not some suggestion been made that it was singular that he 
should come here at this time?—A. No, sir; I have never, in fact, as I 
said before, gave the matter a thought. 

Q. Is there any other person here from New Orleans now who is em¬ 
ployed in the custom-house besides Mr. Lewis ?—A. Yes, sir; I believe 
Mr. Swazie is here. 

Q. Do you know that he has any business here ?—A. No, I do not. 

Q. What is his position in the custom-house ?—A. I really don’t know. 
He is working down-stairs in the building the last I saw of him. 

Q. Where is he stopping?—A. He is stopping at the Philadelphia 
House. 

Q. Where did you stop?—A. At the Philadelphia House, 

Q. Where does Mr. Lewis stop?—A. At the Philadelphia House. 

Q. You all stop at the Philadelphia House.’/—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you find Mr. Swazie at the Philkdelphia House when you 
reached Washington ?—A. I saw him at the depot. 

Q. He got here in advance of you, did he ?—A. Yes; we met him 
here. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 231 

Q. He disembarked from another train at the same time you did ?— 
A. I don’t know. I met him here. 

Q. You are all stopping at the same hotel A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He met you at the depot 1—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And went with you to the same hotel ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You do not know what is his position in the custom house ?—A. 
No, sir ; I do not. 

Q. AYhen did you last see Mr. Swazie in the city of New Orleans ?— 
A. I believe it was about two weeks ago, the last time 1 saw him. I 
think so, I am not certain. 

Q. Have you held any position under the government ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What ?—A. I have held a position at the marine desk. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Are you not in the custom-house?—A. No, sir; I resigned my 
position. 

Q. You were in the custom-house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Bailey : 

C^. When did you resign?—A. I resigned on the second. 

Q. Second of what ?—A. June. 

Q. The very day you signed this affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. No; the day he left. 

Q. (By Senator Bailey.) The day you left New Orleans?—A. Yes, 
sir. This affidavit is signed on the 30th of May. 

Q. You resigned on the very day you left New Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Resigned your position in the custom-house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Upon whose suggestion did you resign ?—A. Nobody’s suggestion. 

Q. Why did you resign ?—A. To come on as a witness. 

Q. Was it necessary that you should resign in order that you might 
obey the mandate of the committee?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Did you give a written resignation ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it accepted ?—A. I never went and seen whether it was ac¬ 
cepted or not. 

Q. You do not know whether it was accepted or not ?—A. I know it 
was received. I suppose it was accepted; 1 don’t know. 

Q. Have you not seen Mr. Lewis and Mr. Swazie both in consnltatiou 
with Mr. Kellogg since you have been here?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you not seen them in his company?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You have not?—A. No, sir; I have seen Mr. Lewis and myself. 
We called on Senator Kellogg on the night of our arrival, and we had a 
very short conversation in relation to the constitutional convention be¬ 
ing held in New Orleans now. 

Q. Can you tell me the name of that man who stands between you 
and the door—that tall yellow man?—A. That is George Swazie. 

Q. He spends his time here in the committee-room while it is in ses¬ 
sion, I believe, does he not ?—A. That I don’t know. 

Q. You have seen him every day, have you not ?—A. I have seen him 
here every time I have beeh here. 

Q. You don’t know whether he has any business with the departments 
of the government here, do you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You spoke a while a^o of Mr. Murray knowing the fact that you 
were present?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At the time this joint convention chose Mr. Kellogg to the Sen¬ 
ate ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did he know that you were present ?—A. Because he sent 
the deputy sergeant-at-arms after me. 


232 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. He sent him for you?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On tbe day of the election ! —A. Yes, sir; on the day. 

Q. Where did he send ?—A. He sent for me—down within one block 
and a half from the State-house. . 

Q. Why were you not present at the time the convention assembled ? 
—A. Because I did not suppose the election would take place that day. 

I did not suppose they would elect that day. 

Q. Did you not know that under the l^tw the election must come off ? 
—A. I supposed they would take a ballot j but I did not suppose they 
would elect. 

Q. Did you not know that Mr. Kellogg was going to get all the votes ? 
—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. He did get them all, did he not ?—A. Yes, sirj he got them all. 

Q. Was not that matter generally discussed among the members of 
the legislature ?—A. It was discussed in caucus, so 1 understand. I was 
not in caucus. 

Q. So they sent the sergeant-at-arms for you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Mr. Murray see you that day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He saw you in the legislative chamber ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You knew that he saw you there ?—A. I know it. Well, I don’t 
know that he saw me, but I was there; I know he sent for me. 

Q. You were there?—A. I was there. 

Q. And you did vote on that day ?—A. Yes, sir ; 1 did. 

Q. Notwithstanding you swore that you were not there, and did not ' 
vote on that day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you made that affidavit for the benefit of the public, to ex¬ 
pose the manner in which these frauds are gotten up in the State of 
Louisiana t—A. That was my purpose. 

By Senator Hill ; 

Q. There is one point, or two, about this gentleman talking with you 
and telling you there was “sugar” in it, that 1 wish to inquire about. 
Did you ap[)roach Mr. Oavanac, or did he approach you first ?—The 
first time that he sent for me- 

Q. Whom did he send ?—A. He sent Mr. Murray for me. 

Q. Did he send Murray ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Murray hunt you up ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did he find you ?—A. 1 believe it was near the State-house 
the first time. 

Q. Was that where you worked ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That is where Murray worked ?—A. I don’t know that he wa& 
working there at all. 

Q. How came you up there ? How came he to find you at the State- 
house ?—A. That is on the way—I am not certain. 1 believe it was go¬ 
ing to dinner, or it was during the session. 

Q. Did you not hunt up Mr. Murray and ask him to take you to Cav- 
anac’s office?—A. No; I didn’t know that he was in that business. 

Q. You didn’t know that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You didn’t ask Mr. Murray to take yott to Cavanac’s office ?—A. 
No, sir ; on both occasions he came to me. j 

Q. What did Murray say to you when he first approached you ?—A. 
He first said to me to come into Cavanac’s office. 

Q. Did he tell you for what ? Where did he ask you that ?—A. I 
think it was either in or about the State-house. 1 am not certain, the 
first time. The second time I was in the State-house. 

Q. Did he tell you why he wanted you to go to Cavanac’s office ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 233 

Q. What was it ?—A. He told me he wanted me to testify in behalf 
of Kellogg. 

In behalf of Kellogg ?—A. Of Spofford. 

Q. Did ho tell you what fact he wanted you to testify in behalf ot 
Spofford ?—A. Yes, sir. 

What was it ?—A. To testify that I was not present in the joint 
convention. 

Q. How came he to tell you that, if he didn’t know it ?—A. He knew 
it because Mr. Elder had a similar affidavit. 

Q. How did he know that you could testify to that ?—A. Because he 
had some conversation with Mr. Elder himself. 

Q. And he told you that you would testify that ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(c>. Did he know before he approached you that you would testify to 
a falsehood 1 —A. I don’t know whether he did or not; that is, I don’t 
know that he saw the other affidavit; but I know that he had seen Mr. 
Elder and knew that I had made an affidavit. 

Q. That you had made an affidavit already ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(»>. Why did he want you to make another?—A. Because, he said, it 
was better to give it to Mr. Cavanac than to Mr. Elder, because Mr. 
Elder would use it to blackmail Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. Was it understood that you would give a false affidavit to every¬ 
body who wanted it ?—A. I don’t know that it was understood that 
way. 

Q. What idea could have possessed Murray, of himself, to suggest to 
you that you would make a false affidavit ?—A. Because he knew 1 had 
made another one. 

(*). And he thought you would make any amount of them ?—A. I 
suppose he thought so. 

Q. And you obliged him ?—A. I didn’t know that I was obliging 
him. 

Q. Did not Murray tell you that he thought you were in the house on 
that day, and that he did not know anj’ better until you told him ? Did 
you not voluntarily tell Murray that you were not there?—A. I don’t 
remember whether I did or not. 

Q. Just answer that question. Did not Murray tell you that he did 
not know you were not there; that he thought you w ere in the house 
that day ?—A. I really don’t remember. 

Q. Do you not remember telling him yourself that you were not in that 
house ?—A. Yes, sir; I believe I did tell him that, because 1 knew that 
he had been to Mr. Elder’s. 

Q. Did not Murray tell you that he was sergeant at-arins of the 
house ?—A. He never told me that. 

Q. He was sergeant-at arms of the house, was he not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he not tell you in that conversation wffien you told him you 
were not in the house that day that he thought he had compelled you 
to come in that day ?—A. I don’t remember whether I had any such 
conversation. 

Q. Now think; did he not seem to be surprised when you told him 
you were not there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Think again. Did he not say that he thought he had compelled 
you to go into the house that day ?—A. No, sir ; he didn’t tell me that 
at all. 

Q. But you admit that you told him yourself?—A. That I was not 
there. 

Q. You communicated the fact to him that you were not there?—A. 
Yes, sir. 


234 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. And you intended when you told him that to tell a lie?—A. I did 
not look upon it as a lie at all j and I don’t look upon it as, in a moral 
sense, at all- 

Q. It was not true, was iti—A. Because, as I said, I did it on pur¬ 
pose. 

Q. You think that it was not a lie because j^ou did it on purpose ?— 
A. I told it on purpose to show how all these things are manufactured. 

Q. You think a lie is accidental, do you ?—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. A false statement that is made on purpose is not a lie?—A. That 
is, on purpose to prove lies, I don’t think is. 

Q. A statement made on purpose to deceive. You admit that you 
told Murray yourself that you were not there that day?—A. Yes, sir; I 
did tell him that. 

Q. And you told him that intending to deceive him ?—A. Yes, sir; 
the whole thing was done on i^urpose. 

Q. And yet you say you do not consider that a lie ?—A. I did not con¬ 
sider that a lie, because I knew just what he was working at. 

Q. How did you know ? Had he ever talked to you before about 
that ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did not Mr. Murray tell you that he was acting in good faith ?— 
A. Yes, sir; I believe he told me that. 

Q. Did he not tell you that he did not want any falsehood, or anything 
that was untrue?—A. No, sir; he told me that he was acting in good 
faith. 

Q. Did not that mean that he wanted the truth? Did you not under¬ 
stand that as meaning that he wanted the truth only?—A. Well, I had 
a different interpretation of the meaning that he was driving at. 

Q. I would like to know one thing. You were at this time in the cus¬ 
tom-house when these things were occurring?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. How long had you been in the custom-house, I will ask you first?— 
A. 1 had been two weeks. 

Q. At whose instance or for whose benefit was it that you were getting 
up these false affidavits, to come here on a false pretense ?—A. At whose 
authority? 

Q. Whom w’ere you seeking to benefit when you made these false 
statements?—A. I was seeking to benefit nobody, because I had no 
conversation with anybody about it. 

Q. Had nobody in the custom-house, and nobody in Mr. Kellogg’s 
behalf, got you to act as a sort of detective or spy ?—A. No, sir; in fact 
it was not known that I knew anything at all about it, in the custom¬ 
house. . 

Q. You voluntarily, then, made this statement that you were not 
there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you made it intending to mislead and deceive ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. And then you went and swore to it, intending to mislead and de¬ 
ceive?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they did not give you a cent to do it ?—A. Not a cent. 

Q. Did you not hunt up Mr. Murray to make this affidavit?—A. I 
never hunted him up in my life. 

Senator Hill. If there is any lower depth than that I do not know 
where to find it. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Wbat time did you go to work in the custom-house ?—A. I believe 
it was the 15th or 16th of last month. 

Q. Of May?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 235 

Q. Alter you made that affidavit?—A. I made this afterwards; I 
made a similar oue to that on the loth or 14th; I forget which, 

(^. And on the loth or IGth you went into the custom-house?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

i\Ir. Merrick. Are you through with him, xMr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. You say you made a similar affidavit on the 14th of May, and on 
the 15th or 16th yon went into the custom-house?—A. Yes, sir. I am 
not certain about the date; it is either on the— Well, it may have 
been the loth; I don't know; I do not remember the exact date." 

Q. Who did you make that other affidavit for on the 14th ?—A. For 
Mr. Elder. 

Q. You said you had made two other affidavits. Where is the third 
affidavit ?—A. He has got two, and this was the third oue. 

Q. You made one for IMr. Elder on the 14th. AYheu did you make 
the other affidavit that Mr. Elder has?—A. I beliove it was either the 
next day or the day after; the next day, or two days after. 

Q. At the time you made those affidavits had you and Cavanac had 
any conversation about the matter?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You and Cavanac had never had any conversation when you made 
the affidavit on the 14th of May?—A. I don’t remember whether 1 had 
or not; I am not certain. 

Q. Hid you ever see Cavanac before the day upon which yon made 
this affidavit which is shown to you—the 30th of Ma}’?—A. I don’t re¬ 
member that I have. 

Q. Do you not know that you never had ?—A. O, well, I have seen 
Mr. Cavanac often. 

Q. Did you ever say a word to him before that day ?—A. No. 

Q. You never said a word to him before that day ?—A. No. 

Q. The affidavit that yon say you made for Mr. Elder on the 14th of 
May was the same as this, was it ?—A. It is alike in substance. 

Q. That is, you swear that you were not present at the joint conven¬ 
tion which declared Mr. Kellogg elected, and that you voted the next 
day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was the Elder affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did not Mr. Cavanac say to yon, when you went to him to make 
this affidavit, that he wanted you to understand that before you made 
that statement he did not want anything except what was true ?—A. 1 
don’t remember any such conversation. 

Q. Do you not recollect that he said he did not want anything except 
what was true, and that he was not paying anything for these affidavits, 
or for your affidavit ?—A. At that time, on the day that 1 made the affi¬ 
davit, he said that he was not paying anything for the affidavits. 

Q. That is what I mean ; on that day.—A. Yes, sir; he did not say 
he was paying anything on that day. 

Q. Did he not say on that day that he was not paying anything?—A. 
Yes, sir; on that day. 

Q. Did he not say he did not want you to put anything in the affida¬ 
vit that was not true?—A. He did not say that. 

(,). Did he not say he wanted nothing but the truth ?—A. He did not 
say anything about'the truth, not that I can remember; I do not be¬ 
lieve he said that. 

Q. Did you write this affidavit at his office or at your own house ?— 
A. At his office. 


236 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You wrote it after you got there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the justice of the peace there wheu you swore to it, or did 
you go to his office ?—A. The assistant secretary of state was there. 

Q. What is his name!—A. Arroyo. 

Q. He came down to take the acknowledgment ?—A. That is so. 

Q. On what day was it that the joint convention met which declared 
Mr. Kellogg elected to the Senate?—A. I think it was the second Tues¬ 
day in January. 

Q. On the second Tuesday in January ?—A. I think soj I am notcer* 
tain. 

Q. Which one of Murray’sdeputy sergeants-at-arms brought you in ? 
—A. I don’t know their names. I don’t know the names of the depu¬ 
ties and the porters there in the houses 1 think, though, that his name 
w^as Carter. I am not certain. 

Q. Was anybody else in company with you when you went in!—A. 
Ko. 

Q. You went in alone !—A. I went in alone. 

Q. What hour of the day was it!—A. I think it was between eleven 
and half past eleven. 

Q. Was the balloting going on !—A. No, sir ; not yet. 

Q. It had not commenced !—A. No, sir; it did not commence until 
somewhere about half past twelve, I think ; I am not certain as to the 
precise time. 

Q. When did you leave the State-house ?— A . I had not been to the 
State-house until the deputy sergeant-at-arms took me over there. I 
had not been there since the previous evening. 

Q. You had not slept there the night before!—A. No, sir; I never 
slept in the State-house. 

Q. You never did !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not tell Cavanac that you were locked up in a room on 
Eoyal street on that day, and that they could not find you !—A. Yes, 
sir ; I told him that. 

Q. Y^ou told him that you were not present at the time of the election! 
—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And that you were locked up in a room on Eoyal street, and that 
the sergeant-at-arms could not find you ?—A. Yes, sir. I did not tell him 
that the sergeant-at-arms could not find me. I told him that I was 
locked up. ^ 

Q. And that they did not find you!—A. They did not find me. 

Q. And that was a lie, was it !—A. Yes, sir, 

Q. A plain, straightforward lie !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You never had spoken a word to Cavanac before you introduced 
yourself to him through these lies; is that so ! That was your first con¬ 
versation with him !—A. Y^es, sir ; I believe it was; I am not certain. 
1 believe that was the first conversation. 

Q. Have you seen this gentleman, to whom you gave that first affi¬ 
davit, since you reached Washington !—A. No, sir; I have not. 

Q. I mean Mr. Elder.—A. No, sir; I have not seen him. 

Q. Tell the committee this; Did you ever communicate to anybody 
these various devices of yours for deceiving Cavanac and others, and 
exposing the way in which these affidavits were gotten up !—A. Have 
I what! 

Q. Did you ever tell anybody of the manner in which you had de¬ 
ceived Cavanac and others, and exposed the way in which these affidavits 
were got up !—A. No, sir; I don’t believe I have; I know I have not. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


237 


Q. You were engaged in this business, tlien, for the purpose of show¬ 
ing the manner in which these affidavits were got up ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(i. And you never told anybody about it!—A. ^^o, sir. 

Q, Neither before you came here nor since ?—A. Before nor since. 

(). Nobody ever knew of it!—A. Of course not, since 1 didn’t commu¬ 
nicate it to anybo<ly. 

Q. Nobody ever knew of it ?—A. I don’t suppose anybody knew of it, 
unless they guessed it. 

Q. It was a private, moral, and patriotic enterprise of your own ?— 
A. I do not know that there is much j)atriotism in all this. 

(^. What did you do it for !—A. I did it, as I said, to expose how 
these affidavits are gotten up. 

Q. What impelled you to do it? Was it the love of justice, or the 
love of truth, or the love of patriotism, or sugar ?—A. I did it for this 
veiy reason ; that 1 never was bribed, and the parties themselves knew 
I never was bribed. 

Q. How did they know it ?—A. They had offered me bribes them¬ 
selves, and I had refused to take it. 

Who offered it!—A. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Merrick. I want to know. 

The Witness. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Merrick. Very well; I ask the committee to make him answer. 

Senator Hill. You have voluntarily stated, without anybody asking 
you, that persons offered you bribes. Now, it is your own fault that 
you have stated it, and you must answer it.—A. Mr. Drouett came to 
mein m3" bed, and told me that if I went and recorded my vote in the 
Nicholls legislature, that I could get what I wanted—as much money as 
I wanted—and I answered him that 1 would not. “ Well,” says he, 
“ will 3'ou go as a favor for me ! ” I said, “ No.” He says, “ Why! ” 
I said, ‘‘Because 1 don’t think that it is consistent to vote for two men 
for the same office j ” and I didn’’t go and vote. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You wanted to be consistent in all things !—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Drouett is your uncle, is he ?—A. Yes, sir. He didn’t offer me 
any money right there, but he said I could get it. 

Q. He said you could get it ?—A. Get it up at the- 

Q. Is he your uncle by your father’s side or by your mother’s side !— 
A. He is an uncle b3" marriage. 

Q. I was asking you, at the time of that reply, what motive you had, 
w hether it was the desire to accomplish the naked ends of Justice, or 
the love of truth, or the love of country?—A. It was of the truth, 
to show" that they desired me to tell lies for them, because I had already 
suffered so much, and had derived no benefit from the Bepublicau 
party. 

Q. I thought 3"OU told Mr. Hill that they did not suggest the lie to 
3’ou, but you suggested the lie to them. Did you not answ er in reply to 
Mr. Hill’s question that you had told Murray that you were not in the 
house that day ?—A. Yes; I told MuiTa3^ that. 

Q. Then Murray didn’t suggest the lie to you, but you suggested the 
lie to him ?—A. Yes, sir ; that is what I said. 

Q. Gavanac did not not suggest the lie to you, but you suggested the 
lie to him ?—A. Yes, sir; but they knew —what I mean is that they 
knew" it w-as not true. 

Q. How could they know that w hen you told them it was so ?—A. 


238 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Because it was a matter of public notoriety that I was there j it was a 
matter of record. 

Q. Theu you did not expect them to believe you when you told them 
that ?—A. i didn’t suppose that they believed one word of the affidavit. 
I didu’t suppose, at the time, they believed one word of the affidavit. 

Q. You did not think they believed it ?—A. Yo, sir; I didn’t suppose 
they believed the affidavit. 

Q. You did not suppose that Elder believed it either ? You were just 
indiscrimately lying around, supposing that nobody believed it, were 
you ?—A. As I said before, it was a matter of record. The thing can¬ 
not be contradicted. 

Q. You volunteered to say what you supposed ; you say you supposed 
they did not believe it, although you told them it was so. Now you 
swore to it three different times, and yet you supposed they did not be¬ 
lieve it ?—A. Yes, sir; because they knew very well I was there. 

Q. How do they know it f—A. It was a matter of record. 

Q. Suppose it is a matter of record, might not the record be mis¬ 
taken !—A. All the newspapers were not mistaken; all the Democratic 
newspapers were not mistaken. 

Q. Which can beat at lying, you or the newspapers ?—A. I don’t 
know. 

Mr. Merrick. You don’t know. 

Senator Hill. I think he can beat the newspapers. 

Senator Cameron. I do not think he can beat Democratic news¬ 
papers. 

Mr. Merrick. I did not refer to the Democratic papers when I asked 
the question. 

Senator Cameron. The witness did. 

Senator Hill. If anybody can beat him I will give it up. 

Senator Cameron. If you will examine the Democratic newspapers 
published in New Orleans, you will. 

Senator Hill. I would not belong to a party that can beat him. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you not take the record and point out to him the name of 
Brooks, and say that he was not present; and did you not point out to 
him the men who voted the next day, and show where you voted right 
after a certain man?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Y"ou took the record and told him the record lied ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And yet you were lying, and expected him to believe the record 
against your sworn testimony?—A. Because it is a known fact. It 
would have been known the very day, or the following day. 

Q. If you really believed that they did not believe what you were 
saying at all, how were you going to manage to expose this business of 
getting up affidavits? Did you think they would use it if the^^ knew it 
was not so?—A. Yes, sir; they knew it was not so. 

Q. They would use it any how ?—A. They expected I would stick to 
it; that is what they expected. 

Q. That was a very unreasonable expectation, was it not—that you 
should stick to what you swore to ?—A. I don’t know; they are not 
always very reasonable in everything. 

Q. That was a very unreasonable expectation, was it not, in reference 
to a New Orleans statesman ?—A. I never pretended to be a statesman, 
by any means. 

Q. Y^ou were in the legislature. I think you are a pretty fair speci¬ 
men.—A. I don’t pretend to be a statesman, though. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


239 


Mr. Merrick. I dou’t want to ask you anything more. I ofter this 
affidavit in evidence, in connection with this testimony, (The affidavit 
is marked Exhibit No. 2, June 9, 1879.) 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. You said a while ago that the Kepublican party had treated you 
badly. How did it treat you badly ? 

Senator Ca:meron. Wait a moment. He did not say that. 

The Witness. That is what the others said. 

Senator Bailey (to Senator Cameron). Do you say he did not say 
that ? 

Senator Cameron. Yes, I do say so. 

Mr. Merrick. Senator, will you allow me to put a question ? 

The Witness. 1 think they said they did not treat me kindly or justly, 
but that was not a reason for selling out. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you not tell Cavanac th^t the reason why you wanted to make 
an affidavit was that they did not treat you justly, for the reason that 
they were putting negroes over you in the custom-house ?—A. No, sir ; 
I did not say that. 

Q. Did you say nothing like that ?—A. He asked me if I was in the 
custom-house. I told him I was. He asked me how long I had been 
there. I told him I had been there- 

Q. A week or two ?—A. Yes, sir; a few days. 

Q. What else ?—A. He asked me how much I was getting. I told 
him I was only getting a mouth. 

Q. Did you not say they were treating you badly by putting negroes 
over you ?—A. I did not mention one word about the negroes. 

Q. Did you not say they were treating you badly 1 —A. No, sir; I did 
not say they were treating me badl}'. 

Q. bid you say anything like it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you say anything about their treatment ?—A. No, sir. I be¬ 
lieve there was a conversation to the effect—asking me. I am not cer¬ 
tain that Mr. Cavanac did not ask me a question something like that. 

Senator Bailey. 1 do not remember distinctly what you said. The 
Senator from Wisconsin says very positively that you did not say it. 
I understood you to say that the Bepublicau party had treated you 
badly. What did you say about that in j’our testimony awhile ago ? 

The Witness. I do not remember the exact words. 

Senator Hill. Your remark w as that you had suffered a good deal 
for the Kepublican party and had got nothing for it. 

The Witness. Yes, sir; no benefit. 

Senator Cameron. That was it. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Did they never give you anything?—A. Yes, sir; I had an ap¬ 
pointment in the latter part of October. 

Q. Of last year ?—A. Of last year. 

Q. What appointment was that ?—A. That was on clerical duty at 
tw’o dollars a day. 

Q. In what department of the government ?—A. In the weighers’ de¬ 
partment. 

In the custom-house ?—A. In the custom-house. 

(^. How long did you have that place ?—A. Fifteen days. 

And then you had nothing until this investigation was moved here 
in the Senate ?—A. No, sir. 



240 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Aud just two weeks before you were subpoenaed you were ap- 
l)oiuted to a place in the custom-house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many members of the Packard legislature were in the custom¬ 
house?—A. 1 do not remember how many. I can^t tell how many. I 
don’t know. In the department where I was I was very busy from 0 
until 4 o’clock. 

Q. You say you resigned and you left Xew Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You expect to go back there when you return to New Orleans, do 
you not? You expect to go back into the custom-house when you re¬ 
turn ?—A. I don’t know whether I will or not. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you not tell Oavanac that they promised to keep your place 
open for you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you sure you did not ?—A. No, sir j I resigned. 

Q. Did you not tell Cavanac you were going back into the custom 
house when you returned to New Orleans?—A. I didn’t say that. 

Senator Cameron. Suppose only one should examine him at a time. 

Senator Hill. I understand they need a quorum in the Senate, and I 
move that we suspend the examination for the day. 

The Chairman. O, no j not for the day. Some of the members can 
go down and answer. 

Senator Hill. This witness is nearly through, and there is no other 
witness subpceiiaed for to-day, as I understand it. There is a matter of 
importance before the Senate, and I think that we ought to give the 
Senate i^reference over this. I would like to adjourn for the day. 

Senator Cameron. We had better get through with this witness, I 
think. 

Senater Keilogg. I should like to ask the witness a few questions 
before you adjourn, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hill. Are you through with this witness ? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Was there any understanding between you and any other person, 
at the time you offered your resignation, that you should be restored to 
this place when you returned from Washington?—A. No, sir; nothing 
at all. 

Q. There was nothing said by anyone to you on the subject, and 
nothing said by you to any other person on the subject?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you do not expect to go back into the custom-house ?—A. I 
don’t know whether I will or not. 

Q. Have you any reason for believing that you will?—A. I don’t 
know. 

Q. Do you not expect to get back ?—A. No, sir; I do not; I do not for 
this reason : that I don’t believe that there is any room now for any¬ 
body; nothing doing. 

Q. Was there any necessity for your resigning in order that you might 
obey the subpcenaof this committee?—A. 1 doh’t know that there was 
any absolute necessity. 

Q, But still you did resign ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the resignation was not suggested to you by a third person ? 
— A. No, sir, 

Q. Did not Mr, Swazie make that suggestion to you, or did not Mr, 
Lewis?—A. I hadn’t seen Mr. Swazie or Mr. Lewis for at least fifteen 
days. 

Q. Did the custom-house officers desire you to resign ?—A. No, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 241 

Q. Did they suggest to you that you should resigu ?—A. No, sir; they 
were astonished that I had resigned. 

Q. Tliey were astonished f—A. A^es, sir. 

Q„ Was your resignation a part of that grand scheme you spoke of; 
a work for vindicating the public morals by showing the frauds that 
were being practised through affidavits ? Was that a part of your 
scheme, or did you think that it was a necessary part ?—A. I don’t know 
that it was absolutely necessary. 

Q. What did you resign for f—A. Because I could not be working iu 
the custom-house and be up here. 

Q. Then you do not expect to get back into the custom-house, or into 
any other government employment when you return ?—A. I don’t ex¬ 
pect anything until I get through here. 

Q. Until you get it f —A. I generally am always at work at some¬ 
thing. 

Senator Bailey. I do not care to ask anything more. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you not tell Mr. Cavanac that you resigned because you did 
not want to testify against them, while you were working under them?— 
A. No, sir ; I never said that. 

Q. You never said that?—A. No, sir. 

IVlr. Merrick. That is all I will ask him, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions from the other side? 

Cross-examined by Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Were you born in Louisiana?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How old are you?—A. I am nearly thirty-four. 

Q. And your family is an old family in the State ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are a white man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Before 1 ask you some questions that are perhaps more important, 
I desire to ask you two or three measureably trifling questions—with me 
important, however. You said in the course of your examination that 
you called at my rooms the night that you arrived ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Did you simply come in and shake hands with me ?—A. That is 
all. 

Q. We had a conversation about the constitution?—A. About the 
constitution. 

Q. A few moments’conversation ?—A. Y'es, sir; about ten minutes. 

Q. You were in the room about ten minutes; was there a number of 
other parties in the room ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who were with you ?—A. Colonel Lewis was with me. 

Q. Were there not two or three other parties with him ?—A. Colonel 
Lewis, and 1 believe two other parties. 

Q. Did I ask you at all about the case ?—A. Not at all; never men 
tinned the case. 

Q. Did I not remark when you went out that I doubted whether you 
ought to come there, but that after you had testified, I would be glad 
to see you ?—A. That is what you said. 

Q. That is all with reference to that. How long had you been iden¬ 
tified with the Kepublican party in Louisiana?—A. In Louisiana, only 
since 1875. 

Q. Were you in the legislature in 1875 ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Y^ou were residing in La Fourche, were you not, in 1876 ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 


16 S K 


242 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. In Thibodeaux?—Ko, sir; below Thibodeaux; forty-odd miles be¬ 
low Thibodeaux. 

Q. Below the county seat ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is there where you family resides ?—A. Ko, sir; I have got a good 
many relations that live all along the bayou. 

Q. When did you first see Mr. Elder?—A. I don’t remember the date; 
I think it was the second week- 

Senator Kellogg. Take your time; go slow. 

The Witness. I think it was the second week in May; I am not cer¬ 
tain, though; yes, I think it was the second week. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Had you ever before seen him?—A. No, 
sir; I bad never seen him. 

Q. Did he tell you where he was from ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where ?—A. He told me he was from Washington. 

Q. Did he tell you why he went to New Orleans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why ?—A. He told me he was getting up testimony for Mr. Spot- 
ford. 

Q. Did he tell you where he resided ?—A. Yes, sir; he gave me his 
address. 

Q. Where ?—A. I forget now; I have it. 

Q. If you have it, name it; state to the committee what his address 
was.—A. (Referring to a memorandum.) H street, number OIL, cor¬ 
ner lOth northwest. 

Q. Who wrote that memorandum ?—A. I wrote it myself. 

Q. AVho did you get it from ?—A. From Mr. Elder. 

Q. Himself?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the occasion of your taking it? How did you happen 
to take his address down ?—A. I was asking him where he lived. 

Q. Where did he have his headquarters in New Orleans ?—A. He had 
a room on Custom House street. 

Q. What did he do when he was there ? Just tell the committee your 
intercourse w ith him. Please state the first time you saw him and your 
intercourse with him.—A. He said he was hunting up testimony for Mr. 
Spofford. 

Q. Did you make an affidavit?—A. A^es, sir. 

Q. First for him ?—A. AYs, sir. 

Q. Tell the committee how you came to make it; tell tl)e whole story 
in your own way.—A. I came to make the first affidavit to this Mr. 
Elder, because I did not believe that he was hunting up affidavits for 
Mr. Spoftbrd ; I did not believe that at first; by that means I got posted 
as to how they were trying to get the affidavits. 

Q. Whom do you mean by “ they ”?—A That is, those who were hunt¬ 
ing up affidavits; I only knew him at that time. 

Q. Who were they ?—A. I only knew him ; he said that there was a good 
many; he didn’t tell me; he didn’t specify any names; he said that 
there were a good many that were looking up for affidavits. 

Q. You made an affidavit for him, didn’t you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the date of that affidavit?—A. 1 think it w^as 
something on the lltli or 15th, or somewhere along there. I am not 
certain about the date. 

Q. Did he tell you w hy he wated you to make the affidavit ? I will pass 
that question. I will ask you when you first saw Mr. Murray in regard 
to this matter?—A. I don’t remember the first time I saw him. It was 
somewhere about the State-house; but the second time was in the State- 
house. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 243 

Q. About what time ; was it before or after you saw Mr. Elder?—A. 
It was after. 

Senator Bailey. Does he fix the time when he first saw Mr. Elder? 
My attention was diverted. 

The Witness. I am not certain as to dates. 

Senator Kellogg. He said he thought it was the second week in 
May. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) So you saw Mr. Murray after that, did 
you ?—A. I believe it was after. 

Q. Tell the conversation that took place between you and Mr.Murray. 
I suppose that is proper. Mr. Elder has not been on the stand.—A. He 
told me that Mr. Cavanac was getting up affidavits for Mr. Spofford, and 
that they wanted my affidavit. 

Q. For what purpose ?—A. For the purpose of testifying for Mr. Spof- 
fgrd. 

Q. What did they want to show ?—A. They wanted to show that there 
was no quorum, and bribery. 

Q. How many did you say he wanted to make out were absent?—A. 
He said he only wanted five to break the quorum. 

Q. Do you know how many votes there were cast on that day ? Did 
he tell you ?—A. There were—no ; 1 had a conversation with Mr. Elder 
about that. 

Q. He said fiv^e would do to break up the quorum ?—A. Five would 
do. 

Q. Did he tell you that that was the plan ?—A. That was the plan. 

Q. Did he tell you how they were going to t)roceed ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How?—A. He says “ If we succeed in breaking the quorum the 
investigation will be over right away, and they can unseat Mr. Kellogg 
before the session is over.’’ 

Q. Now tell what Mr. Murray told you in regard to the object he had. 
Tell what benefit he expected to derive from it.—A. He said that by 
testifying for Mr. Spofford we would bo all right. 

Q. What next ?—A. That there was no use to stand by the Republican 
party because it was breaking up in the State. 

Q. Anything else ?—A. I don’t remember. The conversation was 
longer than that, but that is about all I can recollect. 

Q. Did he at that time, or at any other time, hold out to you, or to 

others in your presence, as an inducement-. A. (Interrupting.) Ho 

said we could get all we wanted when we got here. 

Q. Did he say anything about Mr. Spofford being willing to divide 
whatever salary ho got?—A. No; that was mentioned to me on the 
road. 

Q. Who told you that ?—A. Mr. Cavanac told me that. 

Q. What did Mr. Cavanac tell you then ? Tell it right out.—A. He 
told me that he could not hold out any inducement because, himself, he 
liad no money, but that as soon as Mr. Kellogg would be unseated that 
Mr. Spofford would not care so much about his salary, and that he would 
divide it among every one of thoseThat had stuck to him. 

Q. That is what Mr. Cavanac said to you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he say it to others on the cars ?—A. I don’t know that he said 
it to others. 

Q. That was the first time you saw Mr. Murray ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you see him the second time ?—A. The second time was, 
I believe, on the 30th of Mi\y. He came up after me in the State-house. 

Q. What did he do?—A. He called me down-stairs and said I was 



244 


SPOFFOED YB, KELLOGG. 


wanted ; and then I had another conversation with Mr. Cavanac, and he 
asked me if 1 could locate bribery. I told him that I could. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick). You told him that you could? — A. I told him 
I could. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Go on.—A. And he then asked me to 
make the affidavit. He said that the affidavit was immaterial, but just 
to make it as a matter of form; that it would not be used. 

Q. You are a Frenchman, are you not—of French extraction ?—A. I 
am of French descent; yes, sir. 

Q. And you often confound English words. Yous peak French with 
greater ease than you do English, do you not?—A. A"es, sir. 

Q. It is your native tongue?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you are speaking of locating bribery, do you speak of that 
or of this affidavit of yours to break a quoruui ? Were you speaking of 
the affidavit to break the quorum?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Go on and tell about the affidavit that you made before in the 
office of Mr. Cavanac. Go right along and tell all about it.—A. The rea¬ 
son that Mr. Cavanac said that he wanted to have the same affidavit that 
Mr. Elder had is because Mr. Elder’s would not be used, because he was 
getting those affidavits up on purpose to blackmail Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. On his owu individual account. Is that it?—A. That is what I 
understood. 

Q. And Mr. Cavanac wanted one to use in this case?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the day you made this affidavit ? (iieferring to Exhibit 
Ko. 2 of this date.)—A. Yes, sir; that is the day. 

Q. Kow there was a third affidavit which you spoke of. When did 
you make that third affidavit?—A. That was somewhere about the 13ch 
or 14th of May. 

Q. Who was thaf affidavit given to?—A. That was given to Mr. El¬ 
der. 

Senator Cameron. He stated before that two affidavits were giveu 
to Mr. Elder. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Now I wish you would tell the committee if 
there is anything else in respect to your conversation with Mr. Murray. 
What other men were they depending upon besides you to show that 
there were five members that were not present ?—A. They were depend¬ 
ing upon Mr. He Lacy, Mr. Jones, Mr. Murray, and myself. 

Q. Was there not another man ?—A. Yes, sir; but they didn’t have 
so much confidence in him. They didn’t think he would stick. 

Q. They didn’t think he would stick. Well, to make sure, was there 
not another man that they intended to bring forward as not there—a 
dead man—Thomas, of Bossier ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they sort of threw him in, as you French people say, for 
lanipe f That was another one they would have to play on ?—A. No, 
the onlv party I understand they were waiting for was Mr. Geary, at 
Saint Mary’s. 

A. They were playing upon all those men ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did they not depend upon the alleged fact that Thomas was not 
present?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He being dead, they thought they had a sure thing there ?—A. 
Certainly. 

Q. Who were they going to have personate Thomas, and swear that 
he was not there?—A. I don’t know the name. 

Q. Was it a man named Watson ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Why did they pick him out?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Was it because he looked like Thomas?—A. I don’t know him. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


245 


Q. You (lid not bear bim say. Now I will ask you, was Thomas 
present at that joint session ?—A. That I don’t know. 1 think be was, 
but then I do not know; 1 can’t recollect. 

I understood you to say in your direct examination that you told 
^Ir. Murray that you were not present?—A. A^es, sir. 

(,>. Did not Mr. Murray know that you were present?—A. Yes, sir; 
I sui)pose be knew that. 

Why do you suppose be knew you were present?—A. Because be 
sent after me on that day; be sent a deputy sergeant-at-arms. 

Did you see him on that date and didi be see you?—A. Who ? 

Q. Mr. Murray ?—A. Why, certainly. 

(,J. Did you speak to bim on the day that the vote was taken ?—A. I 
don’t remember that I bad any conversation with him on that day, but 
I saw bim. 

Q. And you say be saw you ?—A. O, yes; be was bound to see me, 
because I ])assed right by bim. 

Q. I want to put this matter right, and I want you to tell the com¬ 
mittee on careful consideration whether you did, when you were asked 
to make that affidavit for Murray, believ^e that you were there? 

IMr. Merrick. One moment. Do you not think you bad better ask 
what transjured ? 

Senator Kellogg. He has already stated that, I believe, and I am 
upon the cross-examination. 

Mr. Merrick. Is bis ot)inion good, anyway? Well, it is as good as 
bis word, (to on ; I take it back. 

Senator (Jameron. Ilis opinion was brought out by you. 

Mr. Merrick. Sometimes I may drift, by old recollections, into the 
habits of common law, and with ordinary witnesses. 

Senator Kellogg. It may be tnat be does not know, and I want to 
know it. I think it is right. 

Mr. Merhk'K. I take it back. 

Senator Kellogg. I will say to you frankly that I am doing it just 
as much in the interest of Mr. Murray as in my own interest. (To the 
witness.) What reason have you for believing that be knew that you 
were present when you made that affidavit?—A. Because be sent a 
dejuity sergeant-at arms for me himself. 

Q. Is there anything else ? He might have sent the deputy sergeant- 

at-arms and not know it-A. (Interposing.) He saw me when I came 

up stairs. 

(^. [Continuing.] And be might not have known when you came back 
witli bim.—A. He saw me when I went ut) in the ball. 

Q. ^Ir. Murray did ?—A. Certainly; be saw me and be wouldn’t let 
me out. 

Q. Did Mr. Murray in the course of this conversation, at the time 
that affidavit was made in Cavaiuufs office or previous to that time 
when you were talking about it, in conversation admit to you that be 
knew you were there and voted for me, but that be wantiMl you to estab¬ 
lish the fact that you were not there ?—A. No, be didn’t tell me that. 

Q. He never toid you that?—A. No, sir. 

(2, He simply told you that be wanted to establish the fact that five 
were absent?—A. That five men were neiiessary to break the (piorum. 

Did h(i tell you that?—A. That is what Isay. 

Q. That he was trying to establish the fact that there were five men 
not there, to break the quorum ? 

Senator Hill. He has stated that very distinctly. 



246 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. I am doing that in tlie cause of justice and right 
1 want to get the record straight 5 I just want the facts . 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Do you know of any other one who made 
affidavits in substance the same as yours—that they were not there ?— 
A. I don’t kuowj they said they had one from Brooks, but 1 have not 
seen it. 

Q. Was Brooks there?—A. lam satisfied he was there. 

Q. Why do you think he was there?—A. Because if he hadn’t been 
there he would have mentioned the fact long ago. 

Q. Is that the only reason you have for thinking so ?—A. The records 
show that he was there. 

Q. That is the reason, is it ?—A. Certainly. 

Q. Do you remember seeing him there?—A. I can’t remember see¬ 
ing many—there are so many—I cannot remember distinctly now, and 
say who were there and who were not there 5 but I think every member 
of the house was present on that day. 

Q. I wish you would be a little more explicit, and tell the committee 
the reason that you gave for signing that affidavit, as well as you can. 
I will trouble you to repeat it. 

Senator Hill. He has repeated it two or three times. 

Senator Kellogg. I would like to know his reasons. 

Senator Hill. I would not care, but I want to get through with this 
committee. You certainly cannot suppose that anybody on this com¬ 
mittee will believe anything this witness states. Under the rules of 
law we could not believe it. Why take up the time of the committee? 

Senator Cameron. I want to dissent from Senator Hill’s statement; 
1 suppose there are a great many in this country who would believe 
somethings he says. 

Senator Hill. Under the rules of law and the rules of evidence ? 

Senator Cameron. Yes; just as a detective is believed. 

Senator Vance. A detective is sometimes believed; but when he is 
detected, never. 

Senator Bailey. Go on, Mr. Kellogg. 

Senator Kellogg. I would like to state this : That this is all new to 
me, believe it or not, and I want to know the bottom facts of this scheme, 
if there is a scheme, to show that there were five men not in that leg¬ 
islature. 

Senator Cameron. Go on. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Kow tell me why you signed that affi¬ 
davit?—A. I signed the affidavit just merely to show how easy it was 
to get affidavits, knowing at the same time that they were not true. 

Q, I will ask you this (piestion: Did you just take it into your head ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q, That you would get at the bottom of this thing, and see if you 
could not burrow into it and find out what was at the bottom and what 
was actuating them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you a family?—A, I have a mother and sister, 

Q. You have no wile, have you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you not one of those kind of men in Louisiana who think, as 
you luobably do, that you have been a consistent Eepublican, and when 
you find anything against the Republican party and .you get a point, 
men like you quietly and secretly, like a detective, run it out?— A. I 
always do so. 

Q. And has your class done it repeatedly in parishes and in the city? 
— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now^, 1 want to know, did you take it into your head, seeing that 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


247 


that scheme was on foot, that yon would follow it and fjo to the bottom, 
of it and ^et the details of it?—A. Yes, sir; that was why I wanted to 
be examined on j\Ir. SpoffonPs side. 

Q. Is that the reason why yon went to Mr. Elder and made that ath- 
davit—to get his secret—knowing that he was on Mr. Spofiord’s side?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you go with Murray into Cav^anac’s office for the purpose of 
getting out the secret there ?—A. For the purpose of making another one 
there; the very identical one. 

Q. Did you swear that that was your motive?—A. That was my mo¬ 
tive and nothing else. 

Q. Have you been offered any inducements by anybody?—A. I was 
on the cars and was offered inducements there, that if 1 testified in be¬ 
half of Mr. Spofford that I would be taken care of. 

Q. You are a Catholic, are you not?—A. Yes, sir. 

{Senator Hill. He is what? 

Senator Kellogg. 1 have a reason for asking it. (To the witness.) 
Now, I w^ant to know if that was your motive in running this thing 
down ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kellogg. I may get at some other difficulties in this matter 
(To the witness.) Did you come here for the same purpose- 

Mr. Merrick. To run this thing down? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. What inducements were you offered on the cars ?—A. The induce¬ 
ments on the cars were that the salary—what was coming of Mr. Spof- 
ford’s salary'—would be divided. 

Q. Tliat was what Cavanac said?—A. Yes, sir; I have not seen Mr. 
Spofford, as tar as he is concerned. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. You spoke of Colonel Lewis; I want to ask you a question or two 
in regard to that. J)oes Colonel Lewis board at the Philadelphia House? 
—A. Yes, sir; I believe he does. In fact, I know he does. 

Q. Does he not stop there because all the colored people stop there ?— 
A. I suppose that is the reason. They are all there together. 

Q. It is a hotel where all colored ])eople stop ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I understood you to say he had not approached you to offer you 
inducements in regard to the matter?—A. Not even mentioned the 
case. 

Q. He would be more apt to offer it to colored people?—A. I suppose 
so; but he has not mentioned the case to me. That is, we had some 
general conversation about the testimony which was published in the 
j)apers. 

Q. You stated that these people knew you were present at the con¬ 
vention, but induced you to swear otherwise. Why do you say that?— 
A. Because it is a matter of fact that 1 voted for you on that day. They 
knew it, and they knew it on that day. Then they said, “Being that 
you have voted”—the inducements that were then offered when the 
Republicans went over to the Nicholls legislature, to go and record the 
vote for Mr. Spofford. 

Q. No; I am speaking of the joint convention, when I was voted 
for.—A. I say they knew of it on the very day ; they knew it on the 
very dav I voted for you. 

Q. In’your conversation with Mr. Cavanac did you state to him, or, 


248 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


in the course of the conversation, did the statement occur between you 
that you were really present at that convention ?—A. That what ? 

Q. That you were really present?—A. Did I state so ? 

Q. Yes.—A. To him? 

Q. Yes.—A. That I w^as really present? 

Q. Yes.—A. No; I did not. 

Q. I will try to be as fair for one as another. That is all I want. I 
am requested to ask you how much you were offered to go over to the 
Nicholls legislature.—A. I was offered at the time—that is, before the 
election, some time before—it may have been three weeks before- 

Q. Before wbat election? 

Senator Cameron. The election of Spofford. 

Tiie Witness. The election of Mr. Spofford. I was offered $1,500. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. How much?—A. Fifteen hundred dollars; that is, they said I 
would get $1,500. They said 1 would get it, but I didn't see it. I re¬ 
fused. Nobody offered it to me; but said I would get it if I went over 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Who said that ?—A. That was my uncle. 

Q. Is he a Democrat or Kepublican?—A. He is a Democrat. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did you vote for Mr. Spofford ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Did you go into the Nicholls legislature ?—A. I went in on the last 
day ; that is, after Governor Packard had given up everything. He told 
me himself to go. 

By Mr. MifRRicK: 

Q. He told you himself to go?—A. Yes, sir; because they were all 
gone—nearly all gone. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Is that the time he published his address withdrawing?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And advised you all to take care of yourselves ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then it was that you went over ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When it came to voting for Senator, you voted blank ?—A. For 
Mr. Spofford ? 

Q. Did you not vote blank ?—A. No, sir ; I didn’t vote at all. 

Q. That is what 1 mean. You did not respond to your name?—A. 
No, sir. 

Senator Kellogg. I knew there were ten or twelve. I supposed you 
were one of the number. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. What office does Mr. Cavanac hold in New Orleans?—A. Eegis* 
trar of voters. 

Q. How long has he held that office?—A. I don’t know exactly. 

Senator Vance. We cannot hear one-half he says. 

Senator Hill. It is not of any importance. 

The Witness. I don’t know how long he has had the office. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you mean to say, in reply to the questions on the other side* 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 249 

that you had a conversation with Murray in which the subject of break 
iiif? up tlie quorum was discussed ? 

The Witness. What is that ? 

Mr. Merrick. Did you state in reply to Mr. Kellogg’s questions that 
you had had a conversation with Mr. Murray, in which the subject of 
the quorum came up, whether it could be broken ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And how many men were needed to break it was discussed?—A. 
Y'es, sir. 

Q. Was that conversation with Murray or Elder?—A. With Murray 
and Elder both. 

Q. Are you positive that you had such a conversation with Murray ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where was the conversation with Mr. Murray?—A. That was 
down stairs, next to Mr. Oavanac’s office. 

Q. And on the day you signed the affidavit?—A. Yes, sirj the very 
day. 

Q. Is it not true that he met you on the gallery on that day and walked 
down to Cavanac’s office, and he did not say a word to you ?—A. Well, 
I don’t suppose you would call that not telling a word—telling me what 
I have told you. 

Mr. Merrick. Answer my question yes or no. 

The Witness. What was it? 

Q. Is it not true that he met you on the gallery and walked down to 
Cavanac’s office with you on that day, without saying a single word to 
you ?—A. lie didn’t speak to me as we were going down, but he spoke 
to me w^hen we were in the office. 

Q. Was there anything else said to you thereby Murray in that walk, 
or whilst you were at Cavauac’s office, except that you asked him what 
Cavanac wanted, and Murray said he didn’t know, and you would have 
to attend to your own business?—A. Murray didn’t speak to me while 
we were going down-stairs, but he spoke with me when we were in Mr. 
Cavanac’s office, before Mr. Cavanac came in.. 

Q. About the short quorum?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. I have nothing further to ask this witness. 

discharge of witness. 

The Chairman. Are you done with the witness on all sides ? Do you 
desire the witness discharged? 

Mr. Merrick. I am perfectly willing he should be discharged. 

Senator Hill. I object to any payment being made to this witness 
until the question is submitted to the committee. I do not propose to 
pay any w itness w^ho admits that he came here upon false testimony, 
aiul who came here intending to deceive the men who brought him. I 
think it should be settled by the committee first. 

Senator Cameron. We can settle that afterwards. 

Mr. Merrick. I ask the committee at the same time to consider how 
far the limitation imposed upon me with regard to the subpteuas ap- 
jdies to any w itness under the circumstances exhibited here by this 
witness. I say that for the purpose of having the committee consider 
it with the suggestion of Senator Hill. 

Senator Cameron. I suppose when he is subpoenaed, and wdien he 
comes here in obedience to that subpoena, that under the law he is en¬ 
titled to the fee. 

Senator Hill. Wo will debate that question. But I say that a man 
who obtains a subpoena by a false statement ought not to be paid. 


250 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The Chairman. We will settle that afterwards. Is there any other 
witness to be produced here to-day ? 

Mr. Merrick. Not on ray side. 

The Chairman. When will you be ready ? 

Mr. Merrick. I presume to morrow morning. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kellogg, have you any other witness here to-day ? 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir. If I could call a witness and examine him 
in a few moments I would do so; but I would not like to call one of my 
eight. 

On motion, the committee adjourned until to-morrow at ten o’clock. 


Washington, Tuesday^ June 10, 1879—10 a. ra. 

Present, the members of the committee j also the memorialist, H. M. 
Spofford, with his counsel, R. T. Merrick, esq., and the sitting member 
(Senator William P. Kellogg), with his counsel, Hon. S. Shellabarger. 

ORDER OF PROCEEDING. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. Merrick. I have no witnesses here that I propose to examine at 
present, Mr. Chairman. There are two that I am entitled to who I ex¬ 
pect will be here in the course of time. They are not here now. 

Senator Kernan. How soon do you expect them? 

Mr. Merrick. I should rather not let it be known when they will be 
here, as they will be taken charge of. I prefer to have them in my own 
custody. I have some documentary evidence that I propose to intro¬ 
duce, but that I have not prepared yet. 

The Chairman. I will say to gentlemen on the respectiv^e sides that 
the prospect looks now as if Congress will adjourn at the last of this 
week or the first of the next; and I exceedingly doubt whether you 
will be able to hold this committee here after the adjournment of Con¬ 
gress, and, therefore, whatever testimony is to go into this case had 
better go in this week. The memoralist has no witnesses here. Mr. 
Shellabarger, have you any witnesses here? The subpoenas have been 
returned for fiv^e of your witnesses. Are they present ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. They are not present. They have not arrived. 
We have information that the probabilities are that if they come through 
in the regular time they will be here to-morrow morning. 

ADMISSIBILITY OF AFFIDAVITS. 

The Chairman. If there are any other preliminary matters, as the 
introduction of documentary evidence, or any argument to be submitted 
in reference to affidavits which have been offered, they may as well be 
proceeded with this morning. We shall not have time to close this in¬ 
vestigation, so far as witnesses are concerned, unless we utilize all the 
time w’e have got. There is a motion pending for the admission of tes¬ 
timony upon affidavits. If there are no witnesses subpoenaed present 
I presume we can hear argument on that point. 

Senator Hill. I do not want any argument. 

The Chairman. I understood the counsel wanted to argue it. 

Mr. Merrick. Noj I do not. 

Senator Cameron. The other affidavits are all in, I think, similar to 
the one that was offered at the time the objection was reserved. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


251 


Senator TTill. We had just as well admit that. 

Senator Cameron. I see no object in keeping it out. 

Senator Hill. Then let us consider it admitted for what it is worth. 

Senator Kernan. I think that is the better way, and whatever the 
legal effect of it is can be considered in tlie summing up. 

Senator Cameron. I think the other aflidavits have been admitted. 

Senator Hill. 1 move, then, formally that all the affidavits be consid¬ 
ered admitted. 

The Chairman. There have been no affidavits formally admitted. 
They have been offered in evidence, but the chair understood objection 
was made to tlieir admission. 

Senator Cameron. I understood they were all in except this one. 

Senator Hill. I will make a formal motion that the affidavits of the 
witnesses that have been examined, which have been tendered by Mr. 
Merrick, be considered in evidence. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shellabarger, you interposed an objection to the 
admissibility of the affidavits. A motion is now submitted by Senator 
Hill that these affidavits which have been offered in evidence be ad¬ 
mitted for what they are worth. Have you anything to say on the sub¬ 
ject ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. I do not wish to repeat or renew the argument 
that was made in regard to that question. 1 can simply .say that, upon 
an examination of tlie authorities, I find that, upon the j)oiut that an 
affidavit of a witness called by a party, who has surprised the iiarty 
calling him, contradictory of the facts sworn to on the stand, they are 
contiicting; but they are not confiicting in regard to the main proposi¬ 
tion upon which I rely, to wit, the proposition that the contents of the 
affidavit or the contradictory statement are never admivssible for the 
l)urpose of establishing affirmatively the facts contained in the contra¬ 
dictory statement; and that i)roposition I submit to this committee. 
The other is a ])roposition on which the authorities are not in accord. 

Senator Hill. You admit that if they are admissible at all, so far as 
this motion is concerned they should be admitted, and the effect to be 
given to them would then be with the committee? . 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes. If they are admissible at all, it is only 
under the tirst head, to wit, as generally impeaching evidence. I will 
state, in addition, that the distinguished lawyers of this committee will 
find, if it is not already in their memory, that, in regard to the matter 
of the evidence contradictory of the testimony delivered on the stand, 
it does stand in the category of generally impeaching evidence. You 
will find a case in 12th Wendell, also cited with approbation in Phillips, 
where he says that such evidence, its tendency, its office, is confessedly 
by all the authorities generally impeaching in its nature, if permissible at 
ail; and the conffict and struggle of the authorities, English and Ameri¬ 
can, has been in regard to wliether ever in any case a party shall bo 
permitted generally to impeach the man whose credit he has indorsed 
by calling him. Home of the authorities say that it would enable a bad 
inan to set a trap for the man who calls him, and therefore it would not 
do to preclude him from delivering that kind of, and to that extent, 
generally impeaching evidence; whilst the other authorities say that 
the rule is the otlier way. 

1 reiieat, then, as to my main proposition, to wit, that the affidavits 
cannot be consiilered for the purpose affirmatively of establishing the 
facts which they set forth. 1 find no conffict of authority in my search, 
and 1 have lodked through the leading works upon the subject, and 
some of the leading cases. 1 find it laid down, to use the very words 


252 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


of Mr. Phillips, that it is clear that the contents of the contradictory 
statement can never be received for the purpose of performiiLi^’ the func¬ 
tions of direct testimony, to establish the fact contained in the contra¬ 
dictory statement. 

Senator Cameron. Judge Shellabarger, if the committee will allow 
me a remark, I think the committee will not feel now like deciding that 
question. The only question now is, whether the affidavits shall come 
in at all; the effect of the affidavits is to be considered afterwards. 

Mr. Shellabarger. 1 understood it that way. 

Senator Kernan. I think we all admit that they are competent for 
some purpose, more or less; and that would make us take them in. 
Then, when the case is submitted, we can examine as to the other ques¬ 
tion, whether they are evidence or not of the affirmative propositions 
they are said to establish. 

Senator Cameron. I have no doubt counsel will desire to be heard 
on that question. There is no benefit in arguing it now. 

Senator Kernan. They can argue that in the summing up. My 
view was to admit them now, the committee to decide on the final hear¬ 
ing the weight to be attached to them. 

Senator Hill. I think on the question of competency the committee 
are unanimous. 

Mr. Merrick. All T ask is that they should be admitted. 

The Chairman. The motion of Mr. Hill is that the affidavits be ad¬ 
mitted. 

The motion was agreed to nem. eon. 

The affidavits admitted are as follows: 

Affidavit of Joseph J. Johnson. 

State of Louisiana, Parish of Orleans: 

Joseph J. Johuson doth depose and say : I reside in the city of New Orleans. Be¬ 
fore and during 1876 I resided in De Soto Parish, in this State. I represented that 
l)arish in the Kellogg legislature during the year 1876. I was a member of the Repub¬ 
lican caucus when discussing the question of electing a United States Senator. I re¬ 
member Milton Jones suggesting Colonel Casey^s nomination. I made a motion, which 
was carried, to have Kellogg come in and address the caucus. He did come iu, and 
said, in reply to what Mr. Jones had said, that he (Kellogg) had stood by the govern¬ 
ment; and risked his life for it; that if they intended to drop him then, that they could 
go to hell, and he would turn matters over to the Democracy. I complained of this 
language to Mr. Louis J. Souer, and he said that Kelloiig had to be elected to save the 
government. Mr. Jones had lefc the caucus, and he was sent for two or three times, 
but did not come back that day. Next day I was with him, and he told me he was 
going to Governor Kellogg to get some money. I did not go with him, but some time 
after Jones came to my room and told me he had got the money. He showed me an 
order on Auditor Johnson, signed by Kellogg. 

I myself went to see Governor Kellogg, and told him that I was hard up for money 
and couldn’t get anything and did not have my warrants yet, and asked him to do 
something for me. He told me he wanted me to stand by him, and to go to Colonel 
Souer and he would give me satisfaction, I then went to Colonel Souer and told him 
that Governor Kellogg had sent me to him to get satisfaction, that the election for Sen¬ 
ator was coming on, and I wanted to know what would be done. I asked him if I 
voted for Kellogg for Senator if he could give me a position iu the custom-house, as I 
knew he would be able to do it. Souer said that it did not matter much what was 
done afterwards, but that every one who voted for Kellogg then would get two hun¬ 
dred dollars ($200.00). I asked if I would get it, and he said to be sure I would. I 
then promised my vote, which promise I kept. After the vote, about four or live days, 
I was called in Mr. Souer’s private room and he paid me the two hundred dollars agreed, 
upon. George Washington, member from Concordia, was at the door looking in, wait¬ 
ing to be called after me. He saw the money paid to me. When I got my money 
Washington got his. I stopped at the open door and looked back and saw hiingetting 
money. The next came in after Washington was Anderson Tolliver, of Concordia. I was 
still waiting outside the door and looking iu. I saw Souer pay him money also. I then 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


253 


went away from the door, but remained in the anteroom, and saw Bal>pti8te Drew, 
of Rapides, ;jjo into the private room. When he came out, I asked him if he got hi* 
money, and he said ves, and showed it to me. 

J. J. JOHNSON. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this fourth of April, 1879. 

TH. BUISSON, MJ. P. 

f 

Affidavit of fV. John De Lacy. 

St.vtk of Louisiana, Parish of Orleans: 

Personally appeared before me this ninth day of April, 1879, W.,John De Lacy, who, 
being duly sworn, does depose as follows, to wit: 

I reside in Rnpides Parish, Louisiana. I represented that parish in the legislature 

1877 and 1878; am a Kepublicsn, and took my stand with the Packard government 
until its fall, believing it to be the lawful government at that time. 1 .arrived in New 
Orleans December 9,187H, after the promulgation of the elections by the returning-board. 
I attended the Republican caucuses before the assemblitig of the legislature. Colonel 
Keating was chairman of the caucus, and A. Dejoie secretary. The caucus was called 
the “administration caucus.’’ Tlie object was to elect Micluael Hahn speaker, and W. 
P. Kellogg United States Senator. I stayed in the caucus eight days. I left the caucus, 
having refused to])ledge myself to support certain measures, viz, the election of Michael 
Hahn to the speakership of the house of re[)resentative8. I was short of money, so I 
went to Kellogg to borrow some. He loaned me fifty dollars, with the understanding 
that I was to vote for him for United States Senator. On the day Kellogg-was elected 
to the Senate, I did not vote when my name w'as called, neither did my colleague, Mr. 
Drew. George L. Smith came to me and told me to stand by Kellogg, that I would be 
taken care of and that I would get what I was promised. Smith then threw an envel¬ 
ope on my desk, sealetl. I opened it and saw that it contained money. Mr. L. D. Her¬ 
bert n as present when I received the money. Members were ott'^red from ^200 to 
for their vote. Several that were promised got nothing. It was the every-day talk 
among the members of the legislature that “Kellogg” put up money so as to beat 
“ Piuchback,” and ho\v much they w'ere going to get. 1 got $200 for voting for Kel- 

loo''‘V. 

W. JOHN DE LACEY. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th April, 1879. 

[SKAL.] TH. BUISSON, 3rd J. P. 


Affidavit of Jules Seveignes. 


State of Louisiana, 

Parish of Orleans, City of New Orleans: 

Before me, the undersigned authority, jiersoually came and appeared Jules 
Seveignes, who, being duly sworn, says: I w-as not i>resent at the session of the gen¬ 
eral a'ssembly of Louisiana in January, 1877, when Wm. P. Kellogg was declared elected 
U. S. Senator for the long term, but recorded my vote for him on the following day. 

JULES SEVEIGNES, 
Ex-Mem. 11. li.jrom Lafourche. 


A 


Sworn to and subscribed before me, at the city of New Orleans, this 30th day of May, 


. 1). 1879. 
[seal.] 


OSCAR ARROYO 
Asst. /Secretary of State. 


Mr. Merrick. Mr. Cliairman, I will endeavor to have some of the 
documentary proof that I propose to offer ready in the inoriiiiig. 


ALLOWANCE TO WITNESSES. 


Senator Hill. There is a question about the payment of tlio witness 
on whose payment I made a }>oint yesterday, Seveignes. The question 
wliether he is to receive jiay ought to be determined at once, lie ought 
not to be held in any suspense about it. 

Senator Kernan. Upon what ground can wo refuse him pay ? 

Senator IliLL. I will state the case, but I do not care to debate it. I 
asked him distinctly if when he received the subpcena in behalf of Mr. 


254 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Spofford he understood that the object of bringing him here as a witness 
was to testify to the facts stated in the affidavit which he admitted he 
had given. He said he knew that was the object of subpoenaing him. 
1 asked him if, when he received the subpoena and came on, it was his 
intention to deceive the parties calling him and not to testify to what 
he knew they expected he would testify to. He said that was the ob¬ 
ject. Now I hold that this committee must protect itself and protect 
the Senate. Without regard to the object in this case, it might be a 
very convenient thing for a gentleman in New Orleans or some other 
remote portion of the country to come here at the expense of the 
government, and if he has no more conscience than to impose himself 
on some party who has an issue here by making him believe that he 
can testify to something in his behalf and comes upon that expectation 
with a deliberate intention to deceive him when he gets here, I do not 
think the accounts of such a witness ought to be paid whatever might be 
the occasion. I think where a witness confesses that his intention was 
to deceive the parties subpoenaing him, as he did distinctly in this case, 
we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to the public to protect, the public 
from that sort of imposition. 

Senator Bailey. Suppose a witness should appear and swear to a 
falsehood, manifest and patent, one that was apparent to every mem¬ 
ber of the commitcee. 

Senator Hill. You have a remedy for that. There is a penalty for 
that in an indictment for peijury. 

Senator Bailey. Would we pay his expenses in that case ? 

Senator Hill. If he intended to swear falsely and admitted that be 
intended to swear falsely, I would not. 

Senator Bailey. Suppose he was guilty of another falsehood in 
swearing that he did not. 

Senator Hill. You could not refuse to pay him in that cavse, because 
in my judgment we could not establish any line to govern unless you lay 
down the broad principle that every time you thought a man swore 
falsely you would not pay him. If a uian deliberately swears to a false¬ 
hood, that is indictable, you can indict him for perjury, but here is a 
man whom you cannot indict for i)erjury, for he did not intend to swear 
it when he started ; he deliberately intended to deceive the party j that 
is, he got a subpoena on false representations. 

Senator Bailey. I think he could be indicted in the District of Co¬ 
lumbia for perjury. 

Senator Hill. You could not indict him here forswearing differently 
from what he swore in New Orleans, for you could not tell which of the 
statements was the true one. 

Senator Bailey. You can indict him here for perjury and leave it to 
the jury to determine whether he swore to the truth or to falsehood. I 
think we ought to pay the witnessj I think the statute demands it; 
at least that is my impression. 

Senator Hill. I do not think it ever was the intention of the law to 
pay a man who deliberately and intentionally entrapped a party into 
subpoenaing him. 

Senator Kernan. Is any one of 3^011 aware of such a rule ever being 
applied ? 

Senator Hill. I never heard of such a case before since I was born. 

Senator Kernan. Suppose a man should say he knew a party wanted 
to prove a certain fact and should tell him that he could swear to it; 
that he knew it was true, and the party then supboenas him, and the 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 255 

man on the stand says, “ I did then mean to swear it was true, but I 
repent now and 1 cannot swear to that.*’ 

Senator Hill. But lie did not say that. 

Senator Keunan. No; but it does not make much difference. I am 
only piutiii" a case that mij^ht arise. The only analogous case I know 
is where a man is accepted as an in former, and there is no pledge that he 
shall not be tried ; he is a coactor. The law with us is that if the pub¬ 
lic jirosecutor accepts him it is u[)on au implied understanding that if 
the judge certifies that he believes he honestly told what he thought 
was so, the government must not put him on trial. It all depends on 
that. 

Senator Hill. Suppose a man in New Orleans, knowing that this con¬ 
troversy was going on between IMr. Kellogg and Mr. Spoffonl, should 
go to either side, go to Mr. Kellogg or Mr. Spofford, and rejiresent to 
him that he knew something material to him in this issue, and tell him 
what it was, and tell him, “ If I am subpoenaed as a witness to go to 
AVashington, I will swear to that.” Suppose it turns out that it was all 
false, that he did not intend to swear to it, that he simply adoped this 
as a ruseU) get here at the expense of the government, that he simply 
intended to come here at the expense of the government and deceive 
either jiarty for the express ])urpose of being subpcenaed in order that 
he might get here upon that false representation. Now, the point upon 
which 1 put this case, as the record will show, is that the witness says 
that he deliberately and intentionally deceived the party subpoenaing 
him and did it of his own accord. That is what he stated; those 
words were used, that he deliberately and intentionally deceived the 
l)arty subpoenaing him. Now I say, where a witness comes to either 
party and rei»resents that he knows something, that he will swear to a 
certain fact, and he does not know the fact and does not intend to swear 
to it, and where he by that false representation secures a subpmna and 
comes here, the government ought to be juotected from that fraud. If 
you do not, it is simply an advertivsement to all the scoundrels in the 
world that when they see a case is ))ending before a committee of Con¬ 
gress they can find a way to get to Washington at theexiiense of the gov¬ 
ernment. I would say the same thing, no matter what party it affected. 

Senator Kern AN. It is a pretty clear case where a man deceives either 
a party or officers of the government that he ought not to be jiaid. 
AVhat I am afraid of is that it will be alleged that we establish the rule 
that because a man did not swear to what he gave us to understand, 
we will not pay him, and it will bo said it is done to make men stand up 
to the mark in order to get their pay. 

Senator Hill. I ask the same question of the witness De Lacy. Do 
Lacy, while he did deceive the party calling him, did say that he did 
not intentionally deceive with the purpose of coming here. He did say 
that he made a statement, and that he would stand by the truth of that 
statement. He denied that he made the particular affidavit which was 
produced, but said he had made a statement, and he did come here in¬ 
tending to stand up to what he had sai<l in the statement he made. I 
think that entitled him to be paid ; but this other man who stated in 
Ids affidavit simply one fact and was brought only for one fact, used the 
language that he deliberately and intentionally deceived the party sub- 
jaenaing him. 

The Chairman. I think he is here under the subpoena of the commit¬ 
tee, and although he may have deceived the parties themselves, and 
they may have had the misfortune of having a man imposed upon them, 


256 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


he has obeyed the summons of the committee and appeared here. I do 
not feel like refusing him pay. 

Senator Hill. Take the vote. I do not intend that any man shall 
defraud the government in that way by my vote. 

Senator Vance. I have seen in a similar case a judge on our circuit 
court order the clerk not to allow a witness to prove his attendance ; he 
was not debarred, though, of the privilege of proceeding at common law 
against the man who had summoned him. 

Senator Hill. That is another thing. 

Senator Keenan. A witness must be paid his fees before he starts. 

Senator Hill. Then you can indict him for getting money under false 
pretenses. 

Senator Cameron. This witness stated, in addition to the statement 
to which Mr. Hill has referred, that he wanted to show how easy it was 
to get up affidavits in Louisiana. 

Senator Kernan. Ho showed that evidently. 

Senator Cameron. In other words, that some persons had entered 
into a conspiracy; that those persons, whoever they were, were engaged 
in procuring these affidavits, and that it was his object to show how 
easily such affidavits could be obtained, and that they w^ere not in fact 
true. In other words, he acted the part of a detective. He went in just 
as men sometimes profess to go into a consi)iracy for the purpose of ex¬ 
posing it. That was the ground upon which he put it. 

Senator Hill. I do not see how one man can prove that another will 
give a false affidavit because he chooses to give one. 

Senator Cameron. That is another question. 1 am stating the ground 
upon wdiich the witness put it. 

Senator Hill. But it is no ground at all. 

Senator Cameron. I think it is. 

Senator Hill. I think he deliberately and intentionally deceived the 
parties. 

Senator Cameron. I think he has performed a public service. 

Senator Hill. It is too small a matter to debate; I hope we shall have 
the vote. 

Senator Cameron. You have debated it at considerable length, and 
then say it is too small a matter to debate. 

Senator Kernan. I should not want to pay this man on the ground 
that he performed a public service. I think he has shown himself a 
very false man one way or the other, I do not say which way. 

Senator Cameron. Every man who goes into a conspiracy like the 
great consinracy that existed in Michigan some years ago, which Mr. 
Kernan remembers—Governor Seward went there to try it-. 

Senator Kernan. They did not there take a false oath as part of the 
conspiracy. 

Senator Cameron. I will take a more recent case. Take the Ku-klux 
organization. Some went into that and took whatever obligations they 
were required to take. 

Senator Kernan. I do not know much about them. I should greatly 
distrust the evidence. 

The Chairman. You have heard the motion of Mr. Hill. The chair 
will put the question. 

Senator Hoar. If you are going to call the yeas and nays, I will ob¬ 
serve that as I have come in since the transaction occurred, and I sup¬ 
pose allowing a witness fee in such a case is purely a matter of sound 
discretion with the committee, I think I had better not vote. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 257 

Senator Cameron. Is the question, Shall the witness be allowed his 
fees ? 

The Chairman. Shall the fees be disallowed ? 

Senator Ingalls. If the yeas and nays are to be called, I wish to say 
that it in iny opinion this witness had deliberately imposed upon the 
claimant or Mr. Spofford^s attorney, for the purpose of being subpoenaed 
here, I would not vote to allow him his fees ; but I do not understand 
that to be so. My impression is from his testimony that all he did was 
for the purpose of disclosing, as far as he could, the existence of a con¬ 
spiracy in New Orleans for the purpose of depriving Mr. Kellogg of his 
seat 5 and I understand further that if this witness had not obeyed the 
subpoena of the committee he would have been liable to contempt under 
heavy penalty, and, tlierefore, I shall vote against Mr. Hill’s resolution, 
because he was bound to come here. 

Senator Vance. It was his own fault that he was put in a position 
where he would have been guilty of contempt. If he had not lied to Mr. 
Spofford’s agents he would not have been summoned. 

Senator Bailey. As the yeas and nays have been called for, I wish 
to submit my reasons for voting in opposition to Mr. Hill’s motion. 

This man was summoned by an officer of the Senate, and was cer¬ 
tainly compelled to obey the mandate and appear in Washington to 
give testimony. He has appeared and testified that he acted a very 
base part in imposing upon the attorney of Mr. Spofford, and certainly 
either there or here he has been guilty of perjury, perhaps not in a legal 
or technical sense in Louisiana, possibly in a legal and technical sense 
here j but still he came here in obedience to the order of the committee, 
and he was compelled to obey that order. I think it would be ill-ad¬ 
vised and perhaps harsh to undertake to distinguish between the wit¬ 
nesses, to decide that one shall and another shall not be paid the com¬ 
pensation which has been fixed by the standing rules of the Senate, 
and therefore, although I think this man is unquestionably a very base 
and bad man, and one who would merit to be in the penitentiary either 
of his own State or of the District of Columbia, I shall vote for giving him 
his compensation as in ordinary cases. 

The motion of Senator Hill that the witness Seveignes be not al¬ 
lowed any compensation was disagreed to by the following vote: 

Yeas —Messrs. Hill and Vance— 2. 

Nays —Messrs. Bailey, Cameron, Ingalls, and Saulsbury (chair¬ 
man)—4. 

On motion, the committee adjourned until to-morrow at ten o’clock. 


Washington, Wednesday^ June 11, 1879—10 a. m. 

Present: The members of the committee; also, the memorialist, H. 
M. Spofford, with his counsel, R. T. Merrick, esq.; and the sitting mem¬ 
ber, Senator W. P. Kellogg, with his counsel, Hon. S. Shellabarger. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, have you any witnesses present this 
morning? 

Mr. Merrick. I have none. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sliellabarger, have you any witnesses present? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, sir ; there are a number of witnesses pres¬ 
ent. We did not desire to commence our testimony until Mr. Merrick 
was through with his. 

17 s K 



258 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Merrick. I do not think 1 am through, hut I have no witnesses 
this morning. 

The Chairman. The committee cannot afford to wait when there are 
witnesses here on either side, but will take them on either side. We 
must go oil and get through. 

Mr. Shellabarger. You have no witness, Mr. Merrick ! 

Mr. Merrick. I have no witness this morning. I shall have some, I 
expect, hereafter. 

Mr. Shellabarger. The trouble with us, Mr. Chairman, is very 
obvious. If we examine our witnesses in view of the testimony that is 
now in, and they are finished and discharged and go away, then may 
come on other testimony that we shall have to meet. We cannot assent 
to put ourselves in that position. 

Senator Kernan. Could you not keep them here, Mr. Shellabarger, 
to be ready I 

Mr. Merrick. I think the counsel is perfectly right. 

Senator Kernan. Our time is short. The witnesses are here from a 
great distance. 

Mr. Merrick. I did not suppose the other side would begin until I 
got through. 

Mr. Shellabarger. With the understanding suggested by the Sen¬ 
ator, we will go on. 

The Chairman. I want this understanding: If you retain witnesses 
here and they are called again and re-examined, they will be paid of 
course; but after you get through with a witness he ought to be dis¬ 
charged, unless he is absolutely necessary. He ought not to be kept 
here at the expense of the government after his examination is closed. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Of course we cannot discharge our witnesses 
until we know what the testimony will be that Mr. Merrick introduces. 
We will do the best we can in the way of having them discharged. 
Where we see from the character of their statements that they do not 
know anything about the case, and cannot meet any testimony to be 
produced on the other side, of course we will discharge such; but any 
witness who probably knows about what is coming we shall have to 
keep. We shall call first Mr. Randall. Mr. Randall is not one of the 
eight. He appears to be a resident of this city and knows about some 
of these things, and I want to examine him. 

William L. Randall, a witness called by the sitting member, was 
called, and the words of the usual oath stated. 

The Bible was presented. 

The Witness. I aflirm. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. Are you a Quaker?—Answer. No, sir. 

Q. An ordinary Christian ? Do you belong to any Christian denomi¬ 
nation ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. Have you scruples against swearing?—A. I never swear. 

Q. Is the other form regarded as more solemn by you than the oath ?— 
A. I would as soon do that, but never have done it. 

The Chairman. Have you conscientious scruples against putting your 
hand on the Bible? 

Senator Kernan. Is there anything that makes you regard it as more 
solemn to affirm rather than to swear in the ordinary way ? In my State 
the statute provides that a man who has conscientious scruples against 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 259 

sweariug on the Bible, and regards an affirmation as more solemn, may 
affirm according to the form of affirmation presented. 

The Witness. I have no scruples about it. 

The Chairman. You will be sworn on the Bible. 

The oath was again repeated. 

The Chairman. Kiss the book. 

Witness. Ko ; I will not kiss it. I never have in my life. 

The Chairman. It is not an oath unless you do. 

Senator Kernan. What is your objection ? 

Witness. I have alway been accustomed to affirm, sir, in my State. 

Senator Kernan. What State are you from 'i 

Witness. Louisiana. 

Senator Kernan. In New York a man is required to swear on the 
gospels, unless he says he has conscientious scruples against doing so, 
and then he affirms. 

Witness. It is simply a habit with me never to do it. 

The Chairman. You have no conscientious scruples about it ? 

Witness. Well, no. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shellabarger, your witness says he has no con¬ 
scientious scruples against taking an oath, but declines to do it. What 
do you propose in that case ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Mr. Chairman, the rule, I believe, is pretty uni¬ 
versal in the States that witnesses have a choice of swearing or affirm¬ 
ing. If they have any scrui)les in regard to the oath or have a choice, 
they are permitted to affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury. 

The Chairman. It is not the case in my State. If a witness has con¬ 
scientious scruples, he is permitted to affirm j otherwise he is required 
to take the usual oath. 

Senator Bailey. What was the Maryland law ? 

Mr. Merrick. So it is in the District, and was so in Maryland. 

Senator Kernan. In New York the law is that way, and some of the 
judges are very particular. They make the witness say that he has 
conscientious scruples before they will allow him to affirm. 

The Chairman. I have frequently seen the judge interpose when 
counsel did not, in my State, when a witness or a juror wanted to affirm 
and make the witness or juror say he had conscientious scruples, or he 
would be required to take an oath, because that was the usual mode. 
I think our statute provides for that. It exempts, however, j^ersons 
who have conscientious scruples in regard to the form of oath. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Mr. Bandall, have any conscientious scruples about taking the or¬ 
dinary oath, and do you prefer to affirm f—A. I prefer to affirm. On the 
question of conscientious scruples, I never raised that question. 

Q. You are ready now to be affirmed, and prefer that way of taking, 
the oath f—A. 1 do. 1 never have kissed the book in my life. 

Q. Have you often testified ?—A. Often ; and always affirmed. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I ask the committee to administer the usual 
affirmation. 

The Witness. I have seen it in the District of Columbia, in the courts 
here—men affirmed. 

Mr. Merrick. On conscientious scruples. 

The Witness. 1 have not heard the question raised. 

;Mr. Merrick. The law of the District is that a man swear on the 
Bible unless he has conscientious scruples, and then his scruples are 
investigated if a question is raised about them. Such was the law in 


260 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Maryland, and it is the law of Maryland now and the law of the District 
now. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, you have heard the request of Mr. Shel- 
labarger— 

Senator^lNGALLS. 1 have just come in, Mr. Chairman. What is the 
'precise point? 

PiThe Chairman. The point is that the witness put his hand upon the 
Bible. I administered the oath. He refused to kiss the Bible; but he 
said that though he had no conscientious scruples, he preferred to affirm; 
and the question is whether he shall be allowed to affirm after that state¬ 
ment. In my State he would be required, without expressing any con¬ 
scientious scruples, to swear on the Bible; but Mr. Shellabarger sug¬ 
gests that the witness be allowed, as he says that has been his usual 
mode, to affirm. 

Senator Bailey. If he were to affirm, under the circumstances, would 
he be subject to the penalties of the laws here against perjury? 

Mr. Merrick. I do not think that under our laws the court has any 
right to administer an oath otherwise than by kissing the Bible unless 
the witness declares that he has conscientious scruples and satisfies the 
court that it would be a violation of his conscience to require him to kiss 
the Bible ? 

Senator Kernan. Then he is allowed to affirm ? 

Mr. Merrick. Then he is allowed to affirm. 

Senator Vance. Is it legal to permit him to appeal to God without 
the affirmation ? 

Mr. Merrick. I think not, except under certain circumstances. 

Senator Vance. There are three forms of oath in ray State. 

Senator Bailey. (To the witness.) Have you any scruples in regard 
to kissing the Bible, Mr. Witness ? 

The Witness. I believe that is all a matter of form. 

Senator Bailey. That may be; but have you any scruples to restrain 
you from doing it ? 

The Witness. No. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Mr. Randall, if you have no scruples about taking the usual oath, 
I wish you would do it ? 

The Witness. I will do it, sir. 

The Chairman. Put you hand on the book again. 

The witness again placed his hand on the book, and the oath having 
been administered to him and he having kissed the book, he was exam¬ 
ined as follows: 

By Mr. Shellabarger: 

Q. What is your full name ?—A. William L. Randall. 

Q. Where do you now reside?—A. In Washington. 

Q. Where did you reside in January, 1877?—A. In New Orleans. 

Q. How long have you resided iu Louisiana, and between what peri¬ 
ods?—A. From 1844 to the 18th day of July, 1878. 

Q. Did you sustain any official relation to the legislature of Louisiana 
known as the Packard legislature in January, 1877 ?—A. I was elected 
assistant minute clerk of the house of representatives of the general as¬ 
sembly of the State of Louisiana. 

Q. Did you discharge the duties of that position ?—A. I did. 

Q. Between what periods did you do that?—A. From the 1st day of 
January for the sixty days^ session of the regular session, and in the ex¬ 
tra session which convened immediately afterwards for fifty-four days. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


261 


Q. Wbat was the nature of your duties as minute clerk? What did 
you have to do ?—A. To take the notes of the proceedings, to write the 
journal for publication and approval by the house, to make up the rec¬ 
ord. 

Q. (Exhibiting.) Just look at these certified papers and see w'hether 
they are the minutes of that legislature.—A. (Examining.) You have 
handed me the journal of the first week of that session of the house of 
representatives and the journal of the second week. 

Q. Those two papers, then, contain the journals of the first and second 
week of the house of representatives of that legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State whether you were present on the day of the election of United 
States senator, the lOth of January, 1877.—A. I was. 

Q. ^\hat had you to do with the calling of the roll in that election ?— 
A. I did not call the roll; the roll was called by the clerk of the house. 

Q. What did you have, if anything, to do in regard to taking that 
vote ?—A. I had to take the record of the vote. 

Q. Y^oii kept the record of the vote of the members?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you mean by that that you set down the vote as it was an¬ 
nounced from the lips of the members?—A. As the clerk would call the 
roll, he had his tally-book before him, and as members would respond I 
would mark a tally, so that he would mark it in his book and I would 
mark it on my memorandum. 

Q. Do you remember as a matter of fact whether you observed, as 
that roll call proceeded, to see whether the persons called were there?— 
A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And responded to their names ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Y^ou did ?—A. I did. 

Q. What is the truth in regard to the seventeen senators whom you 
find recorded here in the sixth page of the journal and the sixty-six 
representatives? What can you say as to whether those gentlemen 
were present or not ?—A. They were all present and voted. 

Q. Do you remember particularly in regard to Seveignes, whether he 
was there ?—A. Y'es, sir; he sat within fifteen steps of me; his desk 
was that far. 

Q. Did he answer to his name on that roll-call in the election—A. 
He did. 

Q. How is it in regard to Thomas ?—A. Samuel Thomas ? 

Q. Y^es, sir; of Bossier.—A. He was there and voted. 

Q. State the degree of confidence with which you make that answer, 
whether you know it or are in doubt about it or not.—A. The reason 
why 1 know it is, he was a regular attendant of that house, continued 
daily with the exception of a few days in the latter part of January, and 
that the night before he was in the house until after midnight, and he 
then went home sick, unwell, and came in the house in the morning. I 
know, furthermore, that there was a mock session during the night 
previous, and he was among the number that were called to the chair. 

Q. He was one of those in the chair the night before in the mock ses¬ 
sion ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And during the night ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. The session was there. Was Thomas there all night ?—A. No; he 
was not there all night; he was there till after midnight. 

Q. Who was the chief clerk ?—A. Eobert S. Guichard. 

Q. Who was the first assistant?—A. William Vijers. 

Q. Was there another minute clerk besides ?—A. Mr. Frank A. Clover 
was the minute clerk 


262 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. State who took the original minutes from which the minutes of the 
body were made up.—A. I did. 

Q. Have you those original notes ?—A. I have. 

Q. You may state generally whether you have examined this record 
of these two weeks of the house that you have handed back to me.. 
Have you examined them to see whether you find any errors in them or 
not ?—A. Well, not critically from beginning to end j I looked ^through 
them altogether. 

Q. Have you found any errors there as to the presence of members or 
as to the record of votes?—A. No, sir. 

Q. So far, then, as you could see, they are accurate ?—A. They are ac¬ 
curate as to the record of votes. 

Q. What was Thomases first name?—A. Samuel. 

Q. How many members were j)resent at that roll-call when they elected 
the Senator?—A. Sixty-six. 

Q. Did they all vote ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. How many members of the senate were present ?—A. Seventeen? 

Q. Did they all vote?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember about some gentlemen coming in the next day 
and having leave to record their votes ?—A. There were five. 

Q. Who were they ?—A. Kern, of Jefferson ; H. M. Johnson-. Can 

I refer to a memorandum ? 

Q. O, yes.—A. (Consulting a memorandum.) It has slipped my mem¬ 
ory this minute-. H. M. Johnson, of Terre Bonne; Durden, of Bos¬ 

sier ; Brown, of Yeruon. 

Q. You have now given four. Who else ?—A. Barron, of Natchitoches. 
The record shows the names. 

Q. Do you remember whether Barrett, of Eapides, and Kennedy, of 
Jefferson, took any part in the election ?—A. They did not. 

Excluding them, there were sixty-six who voted in the house —A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. There were five who came in and recorded themselves the next 
day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So that the sixty-six and the five and the two make seventy-three? 
—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. That was the total number that were returned to the house that 
took part in that legislature ?—A. They were the Eepublicans that were 
returned—seventy-three. 

Q. State whether on the second Tuesday in January, the day fixed by 
act of Congress for the voting in the separate houses, there was a quo¬ 
rum present in the Packard house of representatives ?—A. There was. 

How was it with the Senate ? Do you know as matter of fact, 
though you were not an officer of that body, whether the senate had a 
quorum on Tuesday, the 9th?—A. I do not know anything about the 
senate. I was not an officer of the senate. 

Q. Do you not know that the two houses failed to make an election?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why did they fail on Tuesday ?—A. I suppose because there was 
«ot a quorum of the senate. There were seventeen in the senate, and 
seventeen in the senate is not a quorum of the senate proper. The sen¬ 
ate is composed of thirty six members, and it takes a majority to make 
a quorum. 

Q. Then the next day they met in joint assembly and proceeded in 
the way you were describing ?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


263 


By Senator Kellogg ; 

Q. After the vote was taken for Senator for the long term, what did 
the house do f—A. It took a recess for one hour. 

Q. When they met again was there a quorum ?—A. Yes, sir; on the 
reassembling. 

Q. Was there a vote taken for Senator for the short term ?—xV. There 
was. 

Q. Is the journal correct as to the votes polled ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Who was elected for the short term !—xV. After repeated ballots, 
daily ballots (they met in joint session every day until they came to some 
conclusion), Mr. James Lewis was elected. 

Q. James Lewis, the naval oflQcerf—A. Yes, sir; the present naval 
officer. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. He was not naval officer at that time ?— A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Was Governor Hahn also a candidate f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many days ineffectually did they ballot f—A. I do not re¬ 
member how many. 

Q. Thirty or forty days ?—A. Three or four weeks. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. When did you make this memorandum to which you referred to 
refresh your recollection f—xV. xV few days ago. 

Q. Who was with you when you made it ?—A. By myself. 

Q. Who suggested to you to make it ^—A. Myself. 

Q. Hid nobody talk with you about it ?— A. xVbout making that mem¬ 
orandum ? No, sir. 

Q. What did you make it from ?—xV. I made it from my original 
notes. 

Q. Where are your original notes ?— A. Here they are (producing a 
paper). 

Q. You made it from these ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many members of the house were there?—xV. Keturned? 

Q. No; altogether.—xV. One hundred and twenty. 

Q. When were these notes made?—xV. Made on the day of election, 

Q. These notes were made on the day of election ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were not, then, made from day to day ?—A. Those notes were 
made on the day of election. 

Q. “ 9th day’s proceedings, H. K., January 10,1877,” they begin. They 
were made on the day of election?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you memoranda, original notes of the other days preceding 
that day ?—xV. No, sir. 

Q. Are these the only notes you ever made ?—xV. I kept those. 

Q. Hid you make any others ?—xV. l"es; I made every day’s notes. 

Q. These are the notes that you kept ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hid you not keep any others ?—xV. No, sir. 

Q. Y"ou have here the roll-call of the senate; did you make that roll- 
call ?—xV. No, sir; I took the roll-call as it was made. 

Q. Were you present at the time it was made ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

C^. Was it your business to take that ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there a quorum present at the time the Senate first met that 
morning ?—xV. Of the senate proper ? 

Q. Y^es, sir.—x\. No, sir; not of the senate proper—I do not know 
whether there was or not; I was not in that room. 


264 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You were only in that room after the joint session convened ?—A. 
I never was in that room at all. The joint session convened in the 
house. 

Q. The senate came into the house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there a separate roll-call of the senate after the senate came 
into the house in the joint convention ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And a separate roll-call of the house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there a quorum of the joint convention present at the first 
call of that roll ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At the first call of the roll ?—A. Of the joint session ? 

(^. Yes.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At what hour of the day did that joint session convene ?—A. A 
little after twelve o’clock. 

Q. And you are positive that there was a full quorum present at the 
first call of the roll after the convening of the joint session?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Where was the sergeant-at-arms of the house?—A. He was around 
the room or in the building somewhere. 

Q. Did you see him around the room ?—A. I saw him after the ses¬ 
sion was over. 

Q. Did you see him during the session ?—A. I do not remember. 

(^. Do you know whether he brought in men of either house that day 
in his capacity as sergeant-at-arms?—A. Only what he has told me. 

Q. You know nothing else?—A. No. 

Q. What has he told you that he did ?—A. He told me that he was 
out, had gone for absent members. 

Q. To bring them into the joint session ?—A. That is his duty. 

Q. I understand that as well as you do; but did he tell you he was 
sent out to bring them into the joint convention?—A. No; to bring 
them into the house originally in the morning, when the house first met. 
That was his duty. He had nothing to do with the joint session. His 
dut3" was to get the members present to answer the roll-call when the 
house convened in the morning to transact their own business. 

Q. Was it not his duty to go out any time during the day when there 
was not a quorum and get your members in?—A. Whenever he was 
ordered. 

Q. Do you know whether there was a full quorum of the house in the 
morning, when the house first met?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There was a full quorum in that house, then, during the entire 
day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There was no period of that day when there was not a quorum in 
the house?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was there any occasion during that day for the sergeant-at-arms 
to go out to bring in anybody ?—A. No, sir. If there had been any oc¬ 
casion the journal would have said that, on motion of Mr.-, he 

was dispatched. 

Q. 1 am not asking about what the journal said.—A. The record will 
show. 

Q. I am not asking for your opinion of what the record will show. I 
am asking for your individual knowledge. Do you know whether the 
sergeant-at-arms was at any time during that day sent out for absent 
members ?—A. No, sir; I do not know. 

Q. Did I not understand you to say he was?—A. Not by order of the 
house. If it had been ordered by the house, it would be a matter of 
record. 

Q. That is not what I am asking you. Do you know whether he was 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 265 

sent out or whether he went at any time to get absent members ?—A. I 
do not know, excepting from what he told me. 

Q. That is the only source of information you have upon the sub¬ 
ject f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If he brought in a member during that day, would there be any 
evidence given to him by any authority that he hacVso brought the mem¬ 
bers inf—A. No, sir; he would bring the man to the door and let him 
go and take his seat. 

Q. Take the man to the door ?—A. Bring him to the building. He 
would go down-stairs and find a man on the streets, and would say, You 
are wanted up stairs,” and he would go up. 

Q. After he did go up and went in, there was no evidence given to the 
sergeant-at-arms that he had brought him in?—A. I do not know what 
evidence the sergeant-at-arms had by way of record. 

Q. Do you know of any?—A. I do not. 

Q. Did all those present at the joint convention vote for Mr. Kel¬ 
logg?—A. They did. 

(2. You say that at the joint convention you particularly observed to 
see whether the members were present who answered to ;their names; 
ami right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You kept the roll-call ?—A. Kept a memorandum of the roll-call. 

Q. Was that part of your duty ?—A. Yes, sir; to make my journal up. 
All the yeas and nays had to be kept and a memorandum taken by me. 

Q. Are you positive that you saw every man that was in that joint 
convention who answered to his name ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Saw him personally ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Knew that he was there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know them all personally ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long had you known them all personally ?—A. I had known 
all the old members of the legislature. A great many were old mem¬ 
bers. I had written the journal of that legislature for seven or eight 
years, and consequently I knew all the old members, and the new ones 
I made the acquaintance of when they first came in. 

Q. What proportion of new and what proportion of old members was 
there?—A. I think about two-thirds were old members. 

Q. As much as tw o-thirds ?—A. I think so. 

Q. Two-thirds of the house?—A. I think so. 

Q. The other third of tbe one hundred and twenty were new ?—A. I 
am not talking about one hundred and tw'enty. I am talking about 
those members in that house, seventy-three members returned. 

Q. You are talking about the members that were in the Packard 
house ?—A. Yes, sir; I never saw those members who were in the other 
house, only a good many of them that I knew personally from the city. 

Q. You knew, then, two-thirds of the members wd }0 wereiu the Pack¬ 
ard house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What proportion of those men w ere white and wdiat proportion 
were black or colored ?—A. From my memorandum I can tell you the 
wdiite men and colored men. Do you mean any particular day or just 
take the roll of the house (examining the journal) ? 

(^. I mean any day when you had what you said you had, seventy- 
three or sixty-six. Take your sixty-six. —A. Speaker Hahn w as white; 
Barron colored; Bird colored. 

Q. Just count them up and tell us the proportions, or go through the 
names if you choose.—A. Browni, of Ga(ldo, colored; Burton, colored; 
Brown, of Jetterson, colored ; Blair, colored ; Brewster, white; Bosley, 
colored; Brooks, colored; Blackstone, colored; Carville, white; Como,. 


266 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


colored; Cole, colored; Drury, white; Davidson, colored; Dayries, 
white; Drew, colored; De Lacy, colored; Dickinson, colored; Dink- 
grave, white; Desmarais, white; D’Avy—well, he is colored, but say 
white; you cannot tell the difference. I have heard he is colored, and 
I have heard he is white. I do not know. 

Q. Then just say he is mixed.—A. I do not know that he is mixed. 
I will not say a man is mixed when his mother might be a white woman 
for all I know. 

Q. And his father a darky ?—A. Certainly. Detiege, colored; Dejoie, 
colored; Early, colored; Estopinal—I do not know whether he is col¬ 
ored or not; he is a very dark man. 

Q. If you do not know, do not say. Say how does he look.—A. He 
looks like a colored man. 

Q. That will do.—A. But he is a Democrat now. Eobb, colored; Gar- 
dere, colored; Gaude, white man; Gantt, white; Gracien, colored; 
Gary, colored ; Hill, of Ascension, colored ; Hughes, colored ; Holt, of 
East Baton Eouge, colored ; Holt, of West Baton Bouge, white; John¬ 
son, of De Soto, colored; Jones, colored; Bobert Johnson, colored; 
Keeting, white; Lane, white; Lewis, colored; Magloire, white; Mar¬ 
tin, white; Milon, colored; Moore, white; Bouton, white; Bomero, 
white; Baby, colored; Souer, white; Swazie, colored; Snaer, colored ; 
Seveignes, white; Shelton, white; Simmes, colored; Stewart, colored ; 
Thomas, colored; Tolliver, colored; Washington, colored; Watson, 
colored ; Warmoth, white; Walker, colored. 

Q. Now can you tell me which were the old members and which were 
the new ?—A. I can give you the best of my recollection by going over 
the list: Hahn, Brown of Jefferson, Brewster, Oarville, Como, Drury, 
Davidson, Detiege, Hill of Ascension, Jones, Keeting, Souer, Snaer, 
Stewart, and Thomas of Bossier, were old members; those are all lean 
remember. 

Q. You have given 15 out of 66.—A. That is all I can remember. 

Q. That is 15 out of 66; that leaves 51 that you never had seen in 
the legislature before.—A. O, no; plenty of those men I was person¬ 
ally acquainted with before ; they were clerks in the legislature and in 
the city of New Orleans visiting there. 

Q. Not being members in the legislature?—A. No. 

Q. Tell us who were clerks of the legislature before.—A. Gardere, 
D’Avy, Dejoie- 

Q. What had he been ?—A. He had been in various capacities there 
in the house or senate; he lived in the city; Estopinal I knew for eight 
years, probably. 

Q. I asked you for the men who had been previously employed in of¬ 
fice in and about the legislature.—A. I am going on to give them. I 
said in the legislature and otherwise employed. 

Q. Did you?—A. Yes, sir; men visiting the city. 

Q. I have no objection to your having it that way, if you say that is 
what you said.—A. That is what I meant. 

Q. I do not think that is what you said.—A. I meant that, employed 
in the legislature, and otherwise in the city. 

Q. Are you giving us the men who had employment in and about the 
legislature ?—A. I am telling you to the best of my recollection. 

Q. You were about throwing up the book, and I did not want you to 
stop until you got through.—A. I will go through. 

Q. What was D’Avy’s oflicef—A. He was enrolling clerk in the sen¬ 
ate. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 267 

Q. What year ?—A. The previous year to his election to the house. 
Milon I know personally. 

Q. What office did he hold ?—A. He did not hold any office. He 
lived below the city, in Pla(iuemines. Swazie 1 knew personally. 

Q. What office had he held ?—A. I do not know what office he held. 
I think he was a farmer. 

Q. I asked you to give me the names of men who held office.—A. I 
have told you all I know. 

Q That answers the question. Now you state to the committee that 
you are positive that on the day when that roll was called and the vote 
taken for United States Senator, you observed each individual in the 
joint convention as his name was called, and he answered ?—A. I do. 

Q. And kept the tally f—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. And you say that each man, as his name was called and answered, 
was there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that a very quietly conducted roll-call, or was the joint con¬ 
vention in a state of uproar ?—A. A quiet, dignified body. 

Q. As quiet as this room ?—A. Yes, sir. 

C^. J ust as calm as this room is 1 —A. Yes, sir. 

(). You could hear distinctly ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

(^. Not only the person calling the roll but the man answering?—A. 
They would rise from their seats. Every man has his peculiar way of 
accent when he wants to cast his vote. Some stand up; some sit j some 
put their feet on the top of the desk. 

Q. It depends on whom they vote for, I suppose ?—A. No; it does 
not. The desk that I occupied commands a full view of the house. 

Q. Y’ou were at one end, 1 suppose f—A. No, sir; in the center. 

Q. Were they sitting behind you ?—A. No, sir; I was at the desk in 
the center against the wall, and commanded a full view. Nobody was 
behind me but the speaker of the house and presiding officer of the 
senate. 

Q. Now tell the committee whether they were in a pretty general up¬ 
roar, shouting and laughing, and throwing paper balls, and having 
what New Orleans statesmen in such capacity might call a good time 
generally.—A. No. 

Q. Was nothing of that kind going on ?—A. No. 

Q. All was as calm and dignified as in this room now ?—A. Yes, sir; 
on that occasion. 

Q. Did you see Mr. Blackburn, a member of Congress from Kentucky, 
in that room at the time this was going on?—A. No, sir; I never saw 
him until the Potter committee was in session here. 

Q. Did you testify before that committee?—A. No, sir. I went in 
there one day and he was pointed out to me. That was the first time 
I ever saw him. 

Q. How often did you attend the sessions of that committee ?—A. One 
day—only one. 

Q. Did you go to the cars on the night of the arrival of this first batch 
of witnesses brought on here from New Orleans to meet them ?—xV. I 
did. 

Q. Whom did you go in company with ?—xV. I went by myself 

(^. How did you know they were to be here that night?—A. 1 was 
told. so. 

Q. Who told you?—xV. Mr. John IMolliere. 

Q. Is he a white man ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does he live f—A. He lives in Washington. 


268 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Whereabouts ?—A. I do not know where he resides. He lives in 
Washington. 

Q. What induced you to go down there to meet them ?—A. Just to see 
my personal friends. 

Q. Which of them did you regard as your personal friend 1 —A. Tom 
Murray. 

Q. You went down particularly to meet him'?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you spent much of your time with him and with the other 
witnesses?—A. O, yes. 

Q. Have you spent most of your time with those other witnesses 
since they got here?—A. I have met them. 

Q. Have you not been to their hotel and been driving out with 
them?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not drive out with them ?—A. No; I did not. 

Q. How much of your time have you spent at their hotel; how often 
have you been there?—A. I suppose I drop in there once a day. 

Q. How long do you stay when you drop in ?—^A. Two or three 
minutes. 

Q. Only two or three minutes ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Never longer ?—A. Sometimes, maybe, outside on the banquette, 
what you call sidewalk here. 

Q. Have been with them outside of the hotel ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where, and where going ?—A. Walking around, meeting them. 

Q. Showing them the town ?—A. No, sir. I never met one by ap¬ 
pointment. I have met them accidentally. 

Q. Accidentally on purpose ?—A. No; not accidentally on purpose. 

Q. I understood you to state that Thomas, of Bossier, was present in 
the house on Tuesday.—A. On the day of the joint session ? 

Q. Noj this was the day before the joint session.—A. Yes, sir; he 
was there the day before. 

Q. The day before the joint session, was he there all day?—A. I do 
not say he was there all day, but he answered the roll-call. There were 
only forty-four members present and no quorum. There was never more 
than forty-four members answered to their names, and he was one of 
them. 

Q. There never was !—A. On that clay. 

Q. Where were all the rest?—A. I do not know. They were outside, 
^hey did not come in. 

Q. Was not the house in session?—A. The house was in session, but 
they did not come there. There were pretty hot times in New Orleans 
about that time. 

Q. How hot; what made it hot?—A. The supreme court building had 
been taken possession of, and the State-house was barricaded. I do not 
know the causes what kept them away from the State-house on that 
day, but there was no quorum either there or in the senate. 

Q. That was Tuesday ?—A. Tuesday, the day previous. 

Q. Who barricaded the State-house?—A. The Republican party or the 
Republican managers I suppose. I do not know who barricaded it. 

Q. Was it not barricaded all the time from the time you first met ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why speak of it as barricaded, then ?—A. I said it in connection 
with there being warm times in New Orleans that the State-house was 
barricaded. 

Q. Were there warm times there all the month of January from the 
time you first met ?—A. O, no ; it tamed down afterwards. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 269 

Q. I asked when it went up.—A. Well, the first week in New Orleans 
was pretty exciting. 

Q. Did it begin on the first day of the session!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was just as hot on that day as it was on Tuesday, was it not? | 
A. It was. 

Q. Just as hot as when you met on the first day of January ?—A. It 
was hot that first day and during the week; it toned down after. If my 
recollection serves me, it was on the Monday before the Tuesday I speak 
about—and I am trusting to my recollection—that was the "time the 
Nicholls party, with the militia of the Democratic party, took possession 
of the supreme-court building, about three squares off. 

Q. You were locked up in the State house, were you not ?—A. M\^- 
self ! 

Q. No, sir; all of you. 

(^. You were out and around !—A. I go wherever I please. 

Q. You did then !—A. Yes, sir. 

Went out when you liked ?—A. I did. 

Q. It was just as hot on the first day you met as it was on the Tues¬ 
day that you speak of!—A. Just as hot! 

Q. Yes, sir; the excitement. I do not speak of the temperature, but 
the excitement.—A. It was i)retty hot. 

Q. The times were just as hot!—A. Yes. 

Q. Although there was no quorum in the house on Tuesday, you say 
Thomas was there and answered to his name!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I understood you to say that Thomas had attended regularly 
every day from the beginning of that session down to its close with the 
exception of a few days in the latter part of January.—A. I did not say 
to its close. I said to my recollection in the month of January, and I 
know he was there in the month of February and March and April. 
He was a constant attendant. I do not say that every day he was in 
his seat. 

Q. Did you not state to the committee on your examination-in-chief 
that he was present every day from the meeting of the legislature down 
to the close or near the close of January !—A. That is what I said. 

Q. He was present every day in his seat!—A. Except a few days in 
the latter part of the month ; four days, 1 think. 

Q. Let us have the benefit of your recollection ; how many days was 
it in the latter part of January that he absented himself! (The witness 
took a paper out of his pockt t and looked at it.) Have you another 
memorandum ?—A. It was during the last part, the 24th, 25th, 2Gth, 
and 27th. 

Q. What is that paper!—A. A memorandum of my own. 

Qi When did you make it!—A. Last week. 

Q. So you were considering this subject and writing it out ?—A. I 
wrote that journal, and that journal is attacked. 

Q. Is it!—A. Yes, it is; of course it is. Mr. Spofford attacks it. 

Q. And you made memoranda from the journal in order to sustain the 
journal !—A. No, sir ; to refresh my memory. 

Q. Where did you make that memorandum !—A. In my room. 

Q. What did you make it from !—A. From a copy of the New Orleans 
Kepublican. 

Q. Do you think that is better than your journal !—A. That is the 
ofticial journal of the State. 

Q. Then what I say is true, you made your memorandum from the 
journal in order to sustain the journal!—A. I made this memorandum 


270 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


from the journal to refresh my memory. 1 knew he was absent some¬ 
times. 

Q. You made it from the journal in order to sustain the journal, did 
you Is that what you say “t—A. NoJ I did not say to sustain the jour¬ 
nal, but to see if I was correct. 

Q. You made your memorandum from the journal because the journal 
was attacked ?—A. Well, to sustain the journal. 

Q. To sustain the journal. You made the memorandum from the 
journal in order to sustain the journal?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say he was absent how many days ?—A. Four days in the 
month of January. 

Q. That was all ?—A. That was all in the month of January. 

Q. That was in the last of January ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And then did he come back again ?—A. O, yes. 

Q. And how long and what was the character of his attendance as to 
punctuality after that ?—A. Yery regular. 

Q. Every day ?—A. Nearly every day. 

Q. Down to what time ?—A. To the time he went over to the Nicholls 
legislature. 

Q. The time you all went under ?—A. About that time. 

Q. You say he was there on Tuesday and remained until after twelve 
o’clock Tuesday night?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How do you know that he left on Tuesday night ?—A. I know it 
because he told me he was sick. He had gone into the corner of the 
room and laid down on an overcoat. 

Q. He did not sleep with De Lacy that night?—A. I do not know 
anything about it. 

Q. Do you know whether he did or not ?—A. No; I do not. I know 
that he left after twelve o’clock, and I saw him the next morning about 
eleven o’clock. 

Q. He laid down on a coat and told you he was sick ?—A. Yes; told 
me he felt badly. 

Q. Was that before or after he was called into the chair ?—A. It was 
after. 

Q. He said he felt badly ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he went home?—A. He said he was going home. 

Q. And you saw him next morning ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he there at the roll-call in the first instance?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you positive he was there ?—A. I am. 

Q. Did you see him at roll-call?—A. Yes. 

Q. He staid there after roll-call?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was not sent for then and brought in in a cab, wrapped up in a 
blanket ?—A. I do not know whether he was or not. I did not see him 
brought in a cab. I saw him in the house. 

Q. Did he come in with the other members ?—A. No j I saw him 
walk ill and take his seat quietly. 

Q. You saw him walk in and take his seat before roll-call ?—A. When 
the house was first called, when the gavel was struck by the speaker, 
they all walked in and took their seats; I looked up and saw him take 
his seat. 

Q. He among the rest?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The reason I asked you that was because I thought there was 
some testimony the other day that he had been sent for or brought in 
a cab.—A. I have heard that, sir, but I do not know whether it was so 
or not. 

Q. You know, on the contrary, that he was there in the morning ?_A. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 271 

I know he was there in the morning. He might have come in a cab, 
and probably did. 

Q. He was there before roll-call ?—A. He was there at roll-call. I did 
not see him until the roll was called. I was anxious for there to be a 
quorum, because we did not have one the day before. 

Q. What time of the day was that ?—A. Eleven o’clock. 

Q. Whoso names are these at the top of the memorandum you hand¬ 
ed to me, and why are they put there f—A. I had a work that is issued 
by S. B. Packard in which there was a discrepancy. Those present on 
the first day m^de 68, and I counted them over and found only 67, and 
I checked over the work in this form (exhibiting a paper). If you will 
see the name of A. K. Holt there, he was put down in that printed record 
as being present, and that made 68, but the vote afterwards showed he 
was there, so that it was simply a misprint. That is not an official doc¬ 
ument, though. 

Q. Which is not ?—A. That document of Mr. Packard. 

Q. What day do you speak of—the first day you met?—A. Yes. In that 
work I saw that record and I made this memorandum to see where the 
discrepency was; it was one man short, and I found that it was the 
error of the printer, or in the copying, in writing Holt of East Baton 
Rouge, and Holt of West Baton Rouge. Writing it once and looking 
back, as any one in the habit of writing would, ho would say, “ I have 
written Holt once,” forgetting there were two. That is the way it came. 

Q. When did you make that check ?—A. It has been about a week 
ago. 

Q. What did you make that from ?—A. My own knowledge, at my 
room. 

Q. I did not ask you where.—A. I wanted to see where the discrepancy 
was. 

Q. From what did you make this ?—A. From that document that Mr. 
Packard had published. 

Q. What else did you make it from !—A. A comparison of the 
journal. 

Q. You made this a few days ago ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you make up the other memoranda a few days ago ?—A. No. 

Q. You have given them all ?—A. Those are all. 

Q. You say you made this at the time?—A. Yes. 

Q. Are you positive that you did not make this a few days ago from 
the journals?—A. Yes, sirj I am positive. 

Q. Are you positive that you made this at the time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There is no mistake about that ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Why was it you saved your minutes of the 10th and not your min¬ 
utes of the 9th ?—A. Because I knew that the Democratic party would 
contest this thingj and immediately following the election of that day 
the talk was all over the city there that it was a forced quorum j and I 
kept that document. 

Q. Was it not understood at that time that the right to the seat of the 
Senator elected depended upon which government should be sustained 
—the Packard or the Nicholls government j was not that the under¬ 
standing and that the question ?—A. It was not my understanding j my 

understanding was that whoever- 

I did not ask yours. I asked if that was not the understanding 
of other people j was not that the general talk ?—A. No; I do not know 
that it was. 

Q. What employment are you in now ?—A. I am not doing anything. 


272 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How long have you been thus pleasantly occupied ?—A. About 
ten months. 

Q. What employment were you in prior to the time when you entered 
upon this occupation of doing nothing?—A. In New Orleans ? 

Q. Anywhere.—A. Various occupations j clerking, &c., writing. 

By Senator Kernan : 

Q. How long have you been staying here in Washington ?—A. I ar¬ 
rived here the 21st day of July, 1878. __ 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Hid you ever show this memorandum, these original notes, to any 
body?—A. O, yes. 

Q. To whom ?—A. Judge Shellabarger. 

Q. When ?—A. Last night. 

Q. Hid you ever show them to anybody before that ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To whom ?—^A. General Sypher. 

Q. When ?—A. About two weeks ago. 

Q. Hid you ever show them to anybody before that ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. To whom ?—A. To John Molliere. 

Q. When ?—A. About two weeks ago. 

Q. Hid you ever show them to anybody before that ?—A. No. 

Q. To nobody at all ?—A. No. 

Q. Then you kept them from January 10, 1877, to the present time, 
and never showed them to anybody at all?—A. No. 

Q. And never told anybody that you had them ?—A. No j I never 
took those papers out of my trunk until the day I saw the Senate of the 
United States here had passed a vote that this case should be reopened. 

Q. You did not bring them out when the case was investigated before? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. Why did you not?—A. I was never called on. 

Q. You were never called on this time, were you?—A. Well, when 
was it investigated ? I didn’t know it was ever investigated before. 

Q. You did not know that this was ever the subject of inquiry before ? 

The Witness. Newspapers? 

Mr. Merrick. You understand my question, do you not ?—A. No, 
sir j I do not know that the subject has been inquired into, except by 
general newspaper talk. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Well, that was all the way you knew about it 
this time, was it not?—A. If I knew where it took place 1 could tell you. 

I may not have been where the testimony took place. 

Q. You learned that it was reopened by the Senate now from the 
newspapers, did you not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hid you not learn from the newspapers some time ago that the case 
between Spofford and Kellogg was being examined ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never heard it ?—A. No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. This is the first you ever heard of it?—A. No, sir; I heard there 
was newspaper talk ; but 1 tell you I don’t know where the examination 
took place, or when it took place ; I have no idea. 

Q. But you did hear about it?—A. I heard something talked about the 
matter. 

Q. You did not bother about it ?—A. No; I didn’t bother about it at 
the time; not on this question at all. 

Q. And yet you had kept these minutes for the reason that from the 
day you made them you knew some contest would arise about that 
seat in the Senate ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And although you heard there was a contest going on some time 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. ' 273 

a"o about tins matter?—A. ]So, sir; 1 did uot. I didn’t see a contest 
about this matter at all. 

Q. It was a contest about the seat, was it not ?—A. Mr. Sjmtford was 
contestint? the seat; but there was no contest in the Senate chamber in 
regard to the fact of the journal being correct, that 1 know of. This is 
wliere the journal is attacked. That is where it comes up. 

I understand that; but you supposed, as you stated to the commit¬ 
tee, that at the time you made these minutes, in 1877, there would be a 
contest about the seat, and that these minutes would be important in 
that contest, and therefore you preserved them ? 

(The witness nodded his head attirmatively.) 

Q. Now you say that you did know of a contest for the seat going on 
before this contest was commenced, and in that contest, when so in¬ 
formed in regard to it by the newspapers or otherwise, you never re¬ 
curred to these minutes or took them out of your trunk ?—A. I did not 
until I saw that the integrity of the journal was attacked. 

Q. When was the integrity of the journal first attacked ? 

The Witness. To my knowledge ? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

A. Right here. 

(^. Wlien ?—A. In this Senate chamber. 

(^. When ?—A. This session. 

Q. IIow long ago?—A. About three weeks ago, I think. 

(>). About three weeks ago it was attacked in the Senate chamber ?— 
^V. Yes, sir; when the vote was had, whenever that was. 

Q. The journal was then attacked, and then, for the first time, you 
recurred to these minutes ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And yet you had kept them since 1877 to meet any attack made 
on the seat in the Senate ! —A. Yes, sir. 

That is the fact ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you saw from the newspapers that there was a contest about 
the seat in the Senate, in the first instance, did it not then cross your 
mind that the journal might be attacked, and did it not then occur to 
you that you had better look at these i)ai)ers which in 1877 you thought 
would be imi)ortaut testimony in such a contest ?—A. I didn’t pay at¬ 
tention to that last. 

Q. Why did you not ?—A. Recause I had something else to do. 

(»). That is true ; but it seems that you were so solicitous about the 
l)ossible exigencies of such a contest, that you ket)t these particular 
minutes from that day iii 1877 for the very purimse of being used 
as evidence ?—A. Yes, sir; in justification of the correctness of the 
journal ; that is all I kept them for. 

Q. When the case in which they were to be used as evidence came up, 
and you knew it was up, you never went to your trunk to get them, and 
you did not take them out ?—A. I didn’t know when the case was up. 

(^). I thought you said you knew that such a case was up ?—A. I said 
I had heanl rumors of it, but didn’t know when or where it took place. 
I asked you to give me the time or place when it took place. 

]Mr. Siieli.ararCtER. There never was any occasion before this ses¬ 
sion when witnesses were called in this case. 

Mr. .RerkmcMv. I am siieaking about this session. I am not speaking 
about a jirevious contest, about which you have talked a great deal 
before this committee. 

Mr. 811 ELLARARGER. There was no evidence in that previous contest 
brought up. 

Mr. Merrick. There was evidence asked for. The case was devel- 
18 s K 


274 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


opefl, but the evideuce of Mr.’Spofford was not heard. That is one of 
the things we complained of; but the case was pending, and he knew 
the case was pending, he says. 

The Witness. If I had heard any investigation was going to take 
place, and the document was wanted, I would certainly have put it in 
then if I had heard of it. 

Q. By Mr. Merrick: You knew the case was pending? — xl. No j I 
did not. 

Q. Did you not see in the newspapers that Mr. Spofford was contest¬ 
ing ?—A. Yes, sir; but I paid no attention. I had been out of politics. 

Q. Did you not see that there was a contest between them as to who 
was entitled to that seat ?—A. I saw Mr. Kellogg got it. 

Q. Did you not see that there was a contest before he got it ?—A. In 
the Senate ? 

Q. In the committee.—A. No; in the Senate. 

Q. Did you not see that the thing was being investigated as to who 
was supposed to have a right to that seat?—A. No, sir; all I know 
about it, when I found that Kellogg and Butler of South Carolina were 
seated. 

Q. That was the first you ever heard of it ?—xi. That investigation ? 
I heard of the contest. 

Q. You knew there was a contest ?—xV. Y'es, sir. 

(^. You did not know that there was any investigation ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not know that any committee had it in charge?—A. No, 
sir; I did not know it. 

When you heard of the contest did you not look in your trunk to 
see whether your record was all right or not ?— A. I did not look. I 
knew it was all right. 

Q. You did not look at it ?—xV. No. 

Q. You knew it was there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Where were you in November, 1877 ?—xV. I was in New Orleans. 

Q. When did you leave New Orleans?—xV. On the 18th day of July 
of last year. 

Q. Have you been residing here since?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who with ?—x\.. My aunt. 

Q. xVre you a frequenter of General Sypher’s office ?—A. Yes, sir; 
often. 

Q. When you heard this contest was pending did you go to him and 
tell him you had an original minute ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is ills office with Judge Shellabarger?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he call Judge Shellabarger's attention to the fact that you bad 
these papers ? Was that the occasion of his examination of them ?—A. 
No, sir; Judge Shellabarger to my knowledge never had these papers. 

Q. Do you know that General Sypher informed him that you had 
these papers ?—A. I know that General Sypher asked me to lend him 
the papers for a couple of days; and he told me that he had showed 
them to Judge Shellabarger. But I know that Judge Shellabarger saw 
them, because I handed them to him last night, and he just looked at 
them, and I read them over to him. I supposed that Judge Shellabar¬ 
ger had seen them before, but 1 do not know it. 

Q. Then before that time your attention had not been directed to 
the fact that they might be important ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. But it was directed to the fact that they might be important in 
this pending contest ?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 275 

Q. And that was the occasion of your calliu^ij General Sypher’s at¬ 
tention to them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And through General Sypher, Judge Shellabarger’s attention was 
called to the fact of their existence ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that all i —A. That is all. ^ • 

(^. You spoke on the cross-examination of there being pretty warm 
times in New Orleans ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. If I understand you, you said the first day of the session. Do you 
mean that, or do you mean the first day of Gov^ernor Packard’s admin¬ 
istration ?—A. The first day of the session, and during the whole week. 

Q. What week ?—A. The first week and the second week. 

Q. Was there much excitement the first week, when I was governor! 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the excitement!—A. There were two houses organizing. 

Q. Anything else !—A. The militia of the city was out under arms, 
and took possession of all the important points in the city. 

Q. The first week or the second week !—A. The first week. 

Mr. INIerrick. He says the first week. 

Senator Kellogg. I want to refresh the witness’ recollection. (To 
the witness.) Just give me your attention, if you please j when did the 
legislature meet!—A. The first day of January. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) That is, the first Monday of January!— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was governor during that week ?—A. You were. 

Q. Were the police stations seized during my administration !—A. 
No. 

Q. During that week matters were quiet, were they not!—A. Yes, 
sir. I will tell you, now you have refreshed my memory; I know it from 
this fact. There was an act passed and promulgated giving the gov¬ 
ernor of the State charge of the State-house of the capitol. 

Q. I do not care anything about the acts.—A. I only say that was 
passed; and then, after that was passed, the barricades were put up. 

Q. I do not care anything about that. I want simply to know if, 
during the week that I was governor, there was any seizing of these 
buildings ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. When did the seizure of the police stations and of the supreme 
court building take place ?—A. To the best of my recollection it took 
place on the day that Packard was inaugurated or the day after. 

Q. Very well, now we have it. That was the second week of the ses¬ 
sion, was it!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then, at the time the armed men were in the streets, it was on 
Tuesday the second day of the second week of the session ! 

Mr. Merrick. Wait a moment. He has not said so. 

Senator Kellogg. I ask him that.—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. (By Senator Kellogg.) Was it the day after Governor I*ackard 
was inaugurated !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he was inaugurated when !—A. On Monday. 

(^. What Monday, the first or second !—A. Second Monday. 

(^. Now we have it. Now please just pay attention and think a little 
as you pass along. All I want is the truth, but I want it consecutively. 
Then it was on Tuesda^^ that the disturbance was in the streets, was 
it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the occasion of there not being a quorum in the house ? 
—A. I presume so; I was satisfied it was. 

Q. Were they trying to get a quorum all Tuesday night ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present!—A. Yes, sir. 


276 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Was it during that session that you saw Thomas, of Bossier, re¬ 
peatedly?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was when they had what you call “ mock sessions ? ”—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Kelaxations?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Djd these men lie around in the hall ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were waiting for men to be brought in?—A. I don’t under¬ 
stand that question. 

Q. Did they lie around on their overcoats in the hall ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Singly and in couples ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So there is nothing improbable in Mr. De Lacy and Mr. Thomas, 
of Bossier, lying down, as De Lacy swore, on the same overcoat ?— 
A. No. 

Senator Kernan. Suppose you let him describe it. 

The Witness. I don’t know anything about that. 

Senator Kernan. Now he says he does not know. 

Senator Cameron. The counsel on both sides Lave without objection 
put leading questions, and it is pretty late in the day to object to it. 

Senator Kernan. The witness right off changes when it is left to his 
memory. I think he had better describe it. 

Senator Kellogg. I desire to remind the Senator from New York 
that Mr. Merrick called attention to that fact and referred to Mr. De 
Lacy’s testimony, asking him if he knew anything about it on the cross- 
examination. 

Senator Hoar. Tt seems that the question was as to the witness’ 
opinion whether something was improbable in somebody else’s testimony, 
and I think it is not very important. 

Senator Kernan. Well, I wanted the witness to give his own opinion. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) How many years had you officiated in the 
capacity of minute-clerk, or how many years had you been connected 
with the legislature in a similar capacity?—A. Seven years out of ten. 

Q. Were you accustomed to tallying ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. When the roll was called?—A. O, yes. 

Q. Is there a considerable sleight in that in a man knowing just when 
a member votes ? 

Mr. Merrick. I object to that. 

Senator Kellogg. I will put it thus: From long experience, are you 
not facilitated in knowing when members vote?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Did Thomas, of Bossier, rise with others 
when he voted, do you remember 1—A. No ; I do not remember whether 
he rose or not. 

Q. Are you positive?—A. I don’t remember whether he rose or not. 

Q. What is your reply ?--A. 1 don’t know whether he rose or not. 

Q. But you are positive that he voted ?—A. O, yes, sir. 

Q. Now, I ask you if it was not quiet and orderly at that time, and was 

there not considerable interest manifested in the balloting ?_A. Yes, 

sir. There was no occasion to be disorderly. To these people down 
there it is an important event—the election of a United States Senator. 
It doesn’t happen often. 

Mr. Merrick. Not by such a legislature, certainly. 

The Witness. Nor any other. I was present when Mr. Spofford was 
elected—looking at them. There was a good deal of excitement in that 
hall—natural excitement—natural to the occasion. There was natural 
excitement, intense interest manifested. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) You spoke of examining the official jour¬ 
nal. 1 ask you this question : After your attention was called, or after 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 277 

you had called the attention of General Sypher to your minutes, did you 
go to the official journal in the library to verify it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the occasion of your making that memorandum ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Is the memorandum the result of comparing your notes with the 
journal f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q, Do you swear that the journal verified your notes?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. They comport with the notes of the journal ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Mereick : 

Q. I will ask one question more before disposing of the witness. Was 
not the sergeant-at-arms arraigned twice on Wednesday before the house 
for not bringing in tbe absent members !—A. I don’t know anything 
about it. I don’t remember. 

(^. Do you remember that he was not ? Was he not called up before 
the house to answer why he did not bring in the absent members!—A. 
Well, if he had been it would have been on the record. I say 1 don’t 
think he was. 

Q. If it had occurred you would have recollected it, would you not?— 
A. Yes, sir; I don’t remember it. 

Q. Can you say whether it did occur or not ?—A. Ido not remem¬ 
ber it. 

Q. That is all you can say about it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are positive that there was a quorum of the house that day?— 
A. Yes, sir, whenever the rolls were called. 

Q. There was a quorum of the house then ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. State whether, if any such arraignment as Mr. Merrick now asks 
about had occurred, the journal ought to show it, under the plan and 
system of keeping the journal that you pursued ?—A. It would be there. 

Mr. Merrick. I suppose these gentlemen understand how a journal 
ought to be kept. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I want the fact. (To the witness.) It would be 
there!—A. Y"es, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Do I understand you to say that there was no evidence given to 
the sergeant at-arms when he brought a man in to show that he had 
brought him in ? Was it not customary to give him a receipt ?—A. No, 
sir; never. 

Q. No entry was made on the journal.—A. No, sir; a gentleman 
would rise and say, ‘‘ I move that the sergeant.-at arms be dispatched 
for absent members ” (and if that motion is made it is on the rf^cord. It 
is not on the record), and thereupon he turns around and S( nds his dep¬ 
uty out. He goes down on the corner of the street and toucaes a man 
on the shoulder and says, “ You are wanted in the’ house and I am sent 
after you,” and the man goes up; and he goes after another one. 

By Senator Hoar : 

(^. In the case that yon supposed there is no warrant issued under the 
seal of the house or by the clerk ! It is simply an order to disp;itch the 
sergeant-at-arms !—A. Yes, sir. 

Then, I understand you, he notifies them and they come in ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. But there is no written warrant on which he makes a return ?—A. 
No. 


278 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Mereiok. I did not say that. I asked him if there was any evi¬ 
dence given to the sergeant-at-arins when he handed over the rnan^ 
when he was verbally ordered to bring in an absent member. 

Senator Hoar. What I wanted in my question to distinguish between 
was the case of a warrant to arrest and bring them in and the case of a 
mere direction to request the absent members to come. I wanted to see 
to which transaction the witness was testifying. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Did this journal that you have here contain everything that trans- 
X)ired in that house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Everything ?—A. Everything that belongs to a journal; and had 
he been arraigned before the house for contempt, or anything that yon 
speak about, it would most certainly have been there. 

Q. That is, it most certainly ought to have been there ?—A. This is 
the first time I ever heard of such a thing. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. I understood you to say that they were seeking during’Monday 
night to procure a quorum. Do I understand you correctly ?—A. j 
Tuesday night. 

Q. Were they sending out sergeant-at-arms to get that quorum ?—A. 
They simple requested the sergeant-at-arms. 

Q. Then the usual mode was to request the sergeant-at-arms to bring 
in absent members ?—A. No, sir; after the roll-call was made they would 
sometimes say—some member would make a motion, or some one, or the 
clerk would say—“Tom, go off and bring some members and make a 
quorum.’^ 

Q. That was not entered on the journal ?—A. No, sir; but if a motion 
was made it was always entered. “ Go out and tell the members the 
house is called to order.” 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Tiiat was not entered?—A. No, sir; a verbal message from the 
clerk, no; but if a member of the house made a motion, it was. 

Q. Was it the habit of the clerk to tell the sergeant-at-arms to go and 
get them and bring them in ?—A. Yes, sir. 

, Q. They often did that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that did not go on the journal ?—No, sir. 

Q. Was the Tuesday and Wednesday session a continuous one ?--A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Did you adjourn on Tuesday ?—A. Yes, sir; to meet the following 
day. 

Q. What time Tuesday did you adjourn ?—A. I think it was about 
four o’clock. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. Did they ballot that day with a quorum ?—A. No, sir; they had 
not a quorum. They had only forty-four members in the house. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You did not have a quorum all day Tuesday ?—A. No, sir; but 
they had one the next day. 

Senator Kellogg. I would like to inquire if the committee propose 
to go on after the Senate meets. 

The Chairman. So far as I can control the action of the committee, 
we shall continue on consecutively until six o’clock this evening. 

Mr. Shellabarger. The clerk is the next witness we proposed to 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 279 

call, but his books have not arriveelj thej’^ will be here to-morrow morn- 

The Cii/ViRMAN. You have other witnesses, have you not ? 

Senator Kellogg. We have no others that we can call. 

The Chairman. Several reported to the clerk this morning. 

Senator Kellogg. Several will not be here until evening. 

The Clerk. Six witnesses reported. 

The Chairman. Six have reported and it is their duty to be here. 

Senator Cameron. It was stated yesterday that Mr. Merrick was go¬ 
ing to put in documentary evidence to day; and that was really the ob¬ 
ject of calling the meeting. 

The Chairman. No, that was not the object of the meeting. Mr. Kel¬ 
logg stated he would be ready to go on. 

Senator Cameron. But he is not ready to go on to-day. 

The Chairman. Six witnesses have reported. 

Senator Hoar. I suppose, as these witnesses are not ready, and as we 
would all like to be in the Senate when Mr. Hill speaks- 

The Chairman. I think it would be the duty of the committee to keep 
Mr. Hoar out of the Senate w hen the discussion goes on, for he will take 
part in the discussion. 

Who will agree to stay here after the adjournment of the Senate to 
complete this examination ? 

Senator Cameron. After the Senate gets through ? 

The Chairman. I mean after the Senate gets through. I doubt ex¬ 
ceedingly whether three members of the committee could be retained 
here after to-morrow if the Senate should adjourn to-day. AVe have 
subpcenaed these men and I think it is our duty to examine them if we 
have the time; otherwise to adjourn the examination until some other 
time. 

Senator Hoar. I think the chairman is quite right, myself. 

Senator Ingalls. I will remind the chairman that upon the sugges¬ 
tion of Mr. Merrick the other day, that he was not ready to go on, the 
committee adjourned to suit his convenience; now when there is no evi¬ 
dence of intentional delay on the part of Mr. Kellogg- 

The Chairman. We have only examined three witnesses. 

Senator Hoar. I understood Mr. Merrick had some documentary evi¬ 
dence that he desired at some time to put in. When will that be ready ? 

Mr. Merrick. I hav^e sent to New York to get it. It is very brief. 
It did not come this morning. I have telegraphed for it. As to the 
other w itnesses—I said I expected to have other witnesses—I am not able 
to say wdiether they will be here or not; I find some difficulty in getting 
them. I have none unless I send over for Mr. Blackburn. 

Senator Hoar. Let me ask Judge Shellabarger, if you will permit 
me, Mr. Chairimui, how’ soon shall you be ready to go on continuously f 

Mr. Shellabarger. To-morrow morning ; provided brother Merrick 
gets through with his testimony. Our testimony is rebutting. I sub¬ 
mit to the committee that it would not be fair to compel us to go on 
with our witnesses until we have heard what it is that we have got to 
meet. You have given indulgence to my friend, and it is all right, and 
I ask that you accord mo what has been accorded to him—such oppor¬ 
tunity to bring my w itnesses in at such time as will be most conducive 
to the purposes of justice and truth. VVe cannot meet the testimony of 
brother Merrick until we know what it is. 

Senator IIoAR. Suppose you should encounter the condition of things 
of an adjournment of both houses of Congress at an early day next 
week, and tire testimony which you have sent for from Louisiana not 




280 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


having been put in, what would you desire then; to have it go over to 
December f 

Mr. Shellabarger. I desire that this testimony shall be delivered. 

Senator Kernan. Let me ask this: Suppose Mr. Merrick should say 
that he would have no other witnesses produced before us here at this 
time, would you want to give evidence then ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kernan. That is what I supposed. He says he might have 
others and he might not, but even if he should not, you would want to 
examine those witnesses which you have here now. Do you think you 
can go on to-morrow morning if he is not ready ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. I do. Do you not think so. Senator (to Senator 
Kellogg). 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I desire to say this: The committee of course in con¬ 
ducting the business must expect to be subjected to the criticism of the 
respective sides. Brother Merrick yesterday thought that the rulings 
of this committee had been in favor of Mr. Kellogg; to-day the sugges¬ 
tion is made by brother Ingalls, and supplemented by the counsel for 
Mr. Kellogg, that certain things had been awarded to Mr. Merrick which 
they insist should be awarded to Mr. Kellogg. Kow, I would like to 
spend every hour during the remnant of the session in the Senate, but 
we have subpoenaed these witnesses here at the solicitation of the re¬ 
spective sides. We have subjected the government of the United States 
to the expense of bringing the witnesses here, and therefore I feel it to 
be my duty to stay here and examine them during the session; other¬ 
wise, I would prefer to be on the floor of the Senate. 

I say it now, and I say it unhesitatingly, that when the Senate ad¬ 
journs, whether these witnesses are examined or not, this investigation, 
in my judgment, will close; for I do not believe that you can get a quo¬ 
rum of this committee to remain here one hour after the adjournment. 

Mr. Merrick. As one of the committee was not present, who is now 
present, when I incidentally made the remark to which you have refer¬ 
red, either in the way of narrative or of censure, I deem it proper to 
repeat what I said then, especially as it is applicable to Mr. Shellabar- 
ger’s reason for not proceeding now. 

When the committee passed its resolution requesting the counsel on 
either side to state the points into which they proposed to make an in¬ 
quiry, and the number of witnesses they would probably require, I gave 
the committee a frank and full statement of the positions we expected to 
establish; and with a view to the time of the committee, and economy of 
the case, 1 intimated that weshould not require here overflfteen witnesses. 
The counsel on the other side at that time, instead of stating the points 
that they proposed to establish, replied, that as their case would be in 
rebuttal, they could not state their points until they had heard my tes¬ 
timony in full, nor could they give the number of witnesses they would 
require until they saw what case I made in chief. The committee there¬ 
upon permitted me, under an arrangement, to bring on eight witnesses, 
and at the same time permitted the other side to bring on eight wit¬ 
nesses, to be examined here, with the understanding that the investiga¬ 
tion would be continued in New^ Orleans in the fall of the year. The 
complaint that I made as to rulings being adverse to the interest of 
my client and as rather leaning toward the other side was founded 
upon the fact that the committee permitted the other side to interpolate 
their testimony before my testimony in chief was closed. ISow, the 
counsel upon tlie other side says that he cannot avail himself of that 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


281 


permission of the chairman, for the reason I may have possiblj'—I do 
not know whether 1 will or not—some one or two other witnesses to ex¬ 
amine here. My case will not be closed until this committee has com¬ 
pleted the i)romised investijjation in the city of New Orleans, and there¬ 
fore, if the position assumed by the counsel on the other side be true, 
that he finds an irremovable difficulty in the way of his proceeding by 
reason of the fact thatl have not closed my examination in full, it ap- 
applies to the counsel to such an extent that he cannot begin until we 
get through. Under your permission, he had the right to interrupt my 
examination-in-chief and to go on with a part of his case here. He says 
he cannot do it until he hears my whole case in chief, lie cannot hear 
my whole case in chief, under the ruling of the committee, and the 
understanding which was had, until the examination in New Orleans is 
finished. I think 1 ought to have had the right to complete my case 
before he went on, especially as he took advantage of the fact that he 
could not make his points or state the number of witnesses he wished to 
call until he heard my case, so as to avoid stating his points. 

Senator Kernan. lie says that, whether or not you can close your 
case here, even now, he wants to examine these witnesses who have been 
brought here and he can do that to-morrow. Now 1 understand. Just 
as you stated now, that when we made this order, the witnesses that 
came here would come here to be heard on one si(ie or the other, you 
not probably being able to close your case until you go to New Orleans, 
and he not being able to close his, and therefore they, having been 
brought here, ought, I think, to be examined, if it can bo done. 

Senator Hoar. What time did your witnesses arrive f 

Mr. Siiellararger. They arrived in this city this morning. 

Senator Hoar. It is fair tliat he should have a little time to speak to 
them before he examines them, of course. 

Senator Kernan. I think we had better adjourn until to-morrow 
morning. 

Mr. Siiellararger. I simjdy wish to make this statement in reply 
to Mr. Merrick. Mr. Merrick is right in saying that neither of us con¬ 
templated the closing of the entire case at this session ; and he is also 
right when he says that 1 cannot hear all of his case to its end at this 
sessiofi; but he is wrong when he assumes that I ought to be put iu the 
position of meeting the testimony that is to be delivered by him at this 
session before it is delivered. The whole point of this matter, after 
all. Senators, was this: that it was not proposed on our side that Mr. 
Sj)offord’s case shold be launched and should goto the country and should 
poison the public mind and have its effect during the vacation without 
being met. There is no Senator here, there is not a man of sense and ob¬ 
servation anywhere, who does not recognize the importance and value 
of that view of Mr. Kellogg’s case and defense. So that there is a 
trial at this session which has its own character and its beginning and 
ending for the purjmses of the vacation. 

Now, sirs, when I, therefore, say that it is hardly fair, I submit it in 
all deference to the committee, and will abide by their views in regard 
to the matter. It is hardly fair that that jiart of my friend’s case that 
is to be presented to the comtnittee and to the country at this session 
should be so i)resented that 1 shall be required to present my counter¬ 
vailing testimony before I know what 1 have got to meet at this session. 
That is my position in regard to this matter j and I submit to the com¬ 
mittee that it is not unreasonable. 

Mr. Merrick. My case was fully spread out in the points I gave to 
the corn/nittee. The counsel had every advantage. 


282 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Shellabarger. Your pleadings^ but not'your testimony. 
Senator Bailey. I move that we adjourn to ten o’clock to morrow 
morning. " 

The Chairman. I would like the members of the committee to be 
here as close to ten o’clock as possible, because some of us come here 
and have to wait several minutes before we can begin. 


Washington, Thursday^ June 12, 1879—10 a. m. 

Present, the members of the committee, and also the respective par¬ 
ties and their counsel. 

DISCHARGE OF WITNESSES. 

The Chairman. Two or three of the witnesses who have been exam¬ 
ined have been detained and not discharged. Counsel will accommodate 
the views of the committee by discharging the witnesses as soon a» pos¬ 
sible. One of those not discharged is De Lacy. 

Mr. Merrick. I think he may be discharged now, so far as this com¬ 
mittee is concerned. 

Mr. Shellabarger. We are through with Mr. De Lacy. 

Mr. Merrick. With a proper consideration for the very just views of 
the chairman, I will have my witnesses discharged at the earliest mo¬ 
ment I think it possible to do so. In regard to De Lacy, .I will say that 
he was not discharged earlier because he was held to be indicted by the 
grand jury, and I may state that I have asked the district attorney to 
allow me to assist him in conducting the prosecution. 

Senator Hoar. I understand counsel for one of the parties to state 
that while this investigation is pending, undisposed of, one of the wit¬ 
nesses is arrested on a charge of perjury, and not merely arrested, but 
that the prosecution of him is given over to counsel. 

Mr. Merrick. No, sir ; not given over entirely. I asked the district 
attorney, if he was to be indicted, to allow me to assist in the prosecu¬ 
tion, if necessary, as I am familiar with the facts. 

Senator Cameron. Not only one, but two. 

Senator Hoar. It seems to be a very extraordinary proceeding. 

Senator Houston. That will come up at some other time. Now it is 
not before us. 

Senator Hoar. I made my remark about it at the time the informa¬ 
tion was officially made to the committee. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shellabarger, have you a witness ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hoar. I do not speak of the arrest; I speak of the proceed¬ 
ing on the criminal charge. 

The Chairman. That is something with which this committee has 
nothing whatever to do. 

Senator Hoar. I think we have something to do with it. 

Senator Houston. Whenever the case comes up here properly we can 
argue it and dispose of it. If we have anything to do with it, I will go 
with you to act on it, but now is not the time. 

Senator Hoar. Mr. Senator Houston will argue it at the time he thinks 
proper, and 1 shall make my observation about it at the time I think 
proper. 

Senator Houston. I have no objection to your making your observa- 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 283 

tion, but it is uufair now, as I think, to the regular order of business to 
bring this in. 

Senator Hoar. I understand you think so. 

Senator Houston. I have no objection in the world to your opinion, 
and you generally express it; but I have my opinion. 

Mr. Merrick. There are some things about that matter with which, 
probably, Mr. Senator Hoar is not familiar, but when the testimony is 
printed Mr. Hoar will see the reason for our course. 

EXAMINATION OF RICHAKD J. BROOKS. 

Richard J. Brooks (colored), a witness called for the sitting mem 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. I reside in the parish of 
Saint Mary^s, State of Louisiana. 

Q. Were you a member of the legislature of 1877, known as the 
Packard legislature!—A. I was. 

Q. Which house—the senate or house of representatives ?—A. The 
house of representatives. 

Q. Were you present on the 10th day of January, 1877, at the meet¬ 
ing of the two houses for the election of a United States Senator ?—A, 
Yes, sir. 

Q. State, if you please, whether you knew a member by the name of 
Samuel Thomas'?—A. Yes, sir; I knew him; he was present. I was 
speaking to him at the time that he voted. 

Q. Where w^as your seat with reference to his ?—A. He was right to 
my right. There were two members that sat between me and him. 

Q. There were two members sitting between you and Thomas ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What parish was Thomas from ?—A. Bossier. 

Q. Now state w^hether you recollect about his voting for Senator on 
that occasion.—A. Yes, sir ; he voted for Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. How do you know ho voted ?—A. Because I was standing right 
at his back wiien he voted. 

Q. Had you been talking to him before ?—A. Yes, sir ; I was talking 
to him when his name was called. 

Q. And you heard him vote ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He voted, you say, for Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Has Murray told you anything since you came here in regard to 
what his testimony w^as about you ?—A. No, sir. He told me that he 
had not testified anything about me; that he had not called my name. 
I told him that I heard that he had said something about me, and I 
wanted to know what it w’as, and he said he had not said anything. 

Q. Has Mr. Thomas Murray said anything to you since you came to 
the city in regard to his engagemeutiu this business lor Spofford ? And, if 
so, state what he has told you about that.—A. Since I have been in 
this city ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. He has never said anything to me since I have been 
in this city. 

Murray has not ?—A. Murray has not said a w’oid to me about 
this matter since I have been in this cit 3 ^ 

Q. Did he say anything to you about it before you came here ?—A. 
Yes, sir; he said a good deal to me in the city of New' Orleans, 

What did he say ?—A. Well, he insisted on my going down before 


284 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Cavanac and making an affidavit or a statement or something. He 
was at my house, well, a dozen times or more. I told him that 1 could 
not do it. 

Q. What did he want you to state!—A. He wanted me to say that I 
was bribed to vote for Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. What did you tell him about it!—A. I told him I could not do 
that; I was not bribed, and that 1 would not swear that I was. 

Q. What did he say to that!—A. He told me I could not swear that 
1 was not bribed or some of the other men were not bribed. I told him 
I did not know but some of the others might have been bribed, but I 
know that for myself I was not. At one time there he told me I was 
going to get left. That Mr. Cavanac had told him to tell me Iliad better 
come down there and see him, that I was going to get left, and I told 
him that whether I was left or not I was going to stay right where I 
was. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. What did you understand him to mean by being left!—A. I did 
not understand him at all, what he meant by it. Then afterwards he 
said to me, “Brooks, I know you are holding off for something.” He 
said, “ You had better give me your figures, whatever you want, and I 
will go down and see Mr. Cavanac; I can fix it for you.’^ I told him 
no, I had no figures, and I did not want to go down there, and would 
not go. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Did he mention any figures to you !—A. Ko, sir; he did not. 

Q. Did he tell you anything in regard to Thomas—whether he knew 
that Thomas had voted !—A. No, sir ; he did not mention that; but 1 
brought it up myself. I told him I had heard that there was a rumor 
around the city there that he had said that Thomas was not present; 
and that he knew that to be a lie, because he knew that Thomas was 
present, and that I was speaking with Thomas at the time his name was 
called, and he voted. Murraj^ said that it was not him that had said 
so, but it was a man by the name of Watson. 

Q. Did he say anything about his knowing that Thomas had voted !— 
A. No, sir; he did not say anything about that. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What district did you represent. Brooks !—A. The parish of Saint 
Mary. 

Q. Were you the only member from that parish !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who else was!—A. My colleague was a man named William C. 
Gary. 

Q. Where is Gary !—A. I left him in New Orleans when I came up. 

Q. Did you ever hear Gary say he was bribed to vote for Mr. Kellogg! 
—A. No, sir; he never told me so. 

Q. You say that you were standing directly behind Thomas at the 
time that he voted !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was your seat near Thomas's!—A. Y^es, sir; it was on the same 
line of desks, only there were two members sat between me and Thomas. 

Q. Did Thomas come into the house that morning !—A. Yes, sir ; he 
must have come in, because I was speaking with him the day we took 
the vote, the 10th. 

Q. Did you come in that morning!—A. Y'es, sir, 

Q. Did not some of the men stay there all the night before!—A. Yes, 
sir; there was a kind of mock session all night the night before. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


285 


Q, Were not the doors barricaded ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Tiie doors were not barricaded f—A. There was a door on Eoyal 
street they all passed oat, and of course it was barricaded; but there 
were none of us confined in there. 

Q. How many men staid there all night ?—A. The best part of the 
members staid there; I think about fifty or sixty members were in there, 
ott'and on, all night. 1 was in there myself until about two or three 
o’clock ; then I went out and went home, and came back in the morning. 

Q. You did not have more that sixty-three in there altogether, did 
you f—A. 1 say I think about fifty or sixty were in there, off and on ; 
all night. 

Q. Were you in, off' and on, all night until, about two o’clock ?—A, 
Y>s, sir. 

Q. Was Thomas in at that time ?—A. No; Thomas left a few minutes 
before I did. 

Q. Was he well or sick ?—A. Thomas had been complaining all dur¬ 
ing that winter and was not very well at the time, but 1 do not think he 
was sick enough to be confined. 

Q. What time in the morning did he come into the house ?—A. l.did 
not see him when he came in. 

Q. What time in the morning was it when you first saw him ?—A. I 
think it was between ten and eleven o’clock. 

Q. You first saw him between ten and eleven o’clock ?—A. Just about 
the time the members all began to assemble in the hall 1 saw him. 

Q. Was it before roll-call ?—A. That 1 saw him ? 

Q. Y^es.—A, The first time; yes, sir. 

Q. Are you sure it was before the roll-call ?—A. I am sure I saw him 
before the roll-call. 

Q. Y^ou think that^Murray had a conversation with you? When was 
that conversation?—A. We had several conversations. 

Q. When was the first one ?—A. The first one; I do not exactly re¬ 
member the date; but I was brought to i^ew Orleans by Murray and his 
friends, by their suggestion. 1 was written to to come down there, and 
of course they were the first ones I saw when I got in the city. I saw 
]\[r. Newman, clerk of the court of my parish, the first evening I got in 
town. 

Q. YMn say you came down, brought by Mr. Murray and his associ¬ 
ates ?—A. Y^es, sir; at their suggestion. They wrote to me to come 
down. 

(^. What for ?—A. The l^etter that I got was from a member of the 
convention tliere now, Mr. bmith. Jle wrote to me in this language- 

Q. Where is that letter ?—A. I left it home. I did not think I was to 
be called in this matter. 

Q. What Mr. Smitli is it ?—A. The member of the convention from 
the parish of Saint Ylary. 

(^). AVhat is his first name ?—A. W. B. Smith. 

(^). Was he a member of the legislature f —A. No, sir; he was not. 

(J. What connection had he witli the legislature —A. lie had no con¬ 
nection with the legislature of 1877 and 1878. 

(,). Is he the meml>er of Congress we have heard of ?—A. No, sir ; he 
is a member of the State convention of Louisiana. 

(}. And he wrote to you to come down and you came in consequence 
of the letter ?—A. lie wrote me. The first of my hearing about this 
matter he wrote to me to come down, that the boys were downi here put¬ 
ting in their work, “and you had better come down and put in yours”; 
and at the same time he said, “It is rumored here that you have given 



286 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Spofford an affidavit, and if you have not given it to him he will 
try and get it from yon.” The next morning Mr. Newman dispatched 
to me. 

Q. Who is Mr. Newman ?—A. Clerk of the court of the parish. 

Q. What is his first name !—A. G. R. N. Newman. 

Q. Of what parish ?—A. The parish of Saint Mary. 

Q. Where you live?—A. Yes, sir. He dispatched to me to “ come 
down immediately; business of importance.’^ Of course when I got 
down to New Orleans 1 went right to see this gentleman. 

Q. Was Newman in New Orleans,?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is he doing there ?—A. He is loafing, I believe. I do not 
know what he is doing. I think he is loafing. I saw him on the streets 
all the time. 

Q. You went down in consequence of his dispatch and Smith’s letter? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you not, in point of fact, go down there to see about the con- 
stableship you were applying for?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you not applying for one ?—A. I had a letter from Mr. Gaffry 
that I would be appointed and my commission sent to me. 

Q. When did you put in that application ?—A. I think it was a week 
or ten days before I went down to the city. 

Q. You put in that application a week or ten days before you went 
down to the city?—A. Yes, sir; and with no intention to go down to 
the city. 

Q. You tell the committee that you did not go down to look after that 
application ?—A. Not at all. 

Q. You had no idea of that ?—A. No; I did not have to go there to 
get the commission. 

Q. What was the inducement for you to go down on the simple letter 
you received and that dispatch?—A. This dispatch said, “Gome down 
immediately; business of importance.” Of course I wanted to know 
what this “ business of importance” was. 

Q. Did it strike you that it was your commission ?—A. No ; I knew 
it was not a commission. 

Q. How did you know ?—A. I had an idea from Smith’s letter. 

Q. You had an idea from Smith’s letter ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you were not left in doubt as to what the “important busi¬ 
ness” was?—xV. I was somewhat in doubt of course; I did not know 
what it was. 

Q. Smith’s letter said you had given Spofford an affidavit ?—xV. That 
it was rumored so. 

Q. Rumored that you had given him an affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And if you bad not, that he would try and get one ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. xYnd then the dispatch that you should come down on business of 
importance signified to you that it had relation to that matter of the 
affidavit?—xY. Of course I did not want it to be rumored there that I 
had given an affidavit when i knew I had not. 

Q. Why did you not telegraph back that you had not given it?—A. 
His telegram did not ask about the affidavit. The telegram told me to 
come down. 

Q. But you knew what the telegram meant ?—A. No, I did not. 

Q. I thought you said just now you did understand ?—A. I said that 
irom the telegram, coupled with the letter, 1 considered it must be some 
business of importance. 

Q. What “ business of importance ” did you consider the telegram re¬ 
ferred to ?—A. I had no idea what the “ business of importance ” was. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


287 


Did you not suy just now that the telegram, taken in connection 
with the letter, the telegram speaking of business of importance, meant 
the same business the letter referred ! —A. Yes, sir. 

(}. Then you did know what the telegram meant i —A. Xo, 1 did not. 
Of course J did not. 

(»>. What is the reason ?—A. IIow could I know ? 

Q. Did you not say so just now I —A. I said that, coupling the tele¬ 
gram with the letter, there was something recpiired my presence in the 
city. 

Y"ou thought the telegram referred to the same thing as the letter?— 
A. I considered the telegram referred to the same thing as the letter. 

(,). Where did you first go when you got down to New Orleans ?—A. 
I went to my boarding house. 

Who was the first man you saw ?—A. When I got to the city ? 

(^. Yes.—A. Jt was hard for me to say, I met so many. 

What was the name of the man who sent you the telegram ?—A 
Kewman. 

(^. Was he one of the first men 3 011 saw ?—A. lie was not the first 
man I saw. 

(^. Was he one of the first men you saw ?—A. He was the first man I 
had any talk with. 

Did you see him that day ?—A. In the evening. 

What time in the day did 3'ou get there i —A. About half past four 
or five in tlie evening. 

Q. YY)u saw him that night ?—A. I saw him that night. 

(^. Did you see Murray that night ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. When did you first see Murray ?—A. Next morning. 

(,>. Did 3mu go to see him ?—A. No, sir. 

(^. Where did you meet him ?—A. I think right at the foot of the 
steps near jMr. Cavanac’s office. 

Q. Was it on that occasion that you had this conversation with him 
about going to Cavanac^s office ?—A. With Murray ? 

(,). Y"es.—.V. I never had conversation with Murray at all about go¬ 
ing to see Mr. Cavanac until after I was in his office. 

(}. After you were in whose office ?—A. In Mr. Cavanac’s office. 

Q. Then you had gone to Cavanac’s office yourself voluntaril3’ before 
3mu saw Murray ?—A. No, sir. The wa3' I came to get into Mr. Cavanac’s 
office, I went in the house of rei^resentatives to see Mr. Smith, and 
Smith said to Newman, “ When you take Brooks out, take him out b3’ 
the wa3' of Iloyal street.’^ 

(}. Smith said to Newman ?—A. Y>s; “ when you and Brooks go out, 
go out 1)3' way of Royal street.” I did not know but that it w'as a rule 
of the house that I was to go out that way iii going out. I went out 
that wa3", and when I got to the foot of the steps Tom. Murray steps 
nj) and says, “This wa3' gentlemen,” and he pointed to ^Ir. Cav'anac’s 
office. I knew nothing about the office, and I faced Murray. He said 
to me, “Now, Brooks, you take 3'our time and talk right along slow.” 
Then I mistrusted that there was something up. I got in there and 
Mr. Cavanac then began to tell me about this matter of ^tr. Kellogg’s. 

(^. What did Cavanac say to you on that occasion ?—A. He told me 
that he wanted to know whether or not Mr. Kellogg had offered me or 
paid me an3' money to vote for him. I told him that he had not. He 
asked me tiien if Mr. Souer did not give me some money. I told him 
that he did not. Then he said, “Now I want3^11 to go on and tell me 
about this; 1 know all about it,” said he, “and we are not going to give 
you an3’ 11101103' or anything now, but,” he says, “if Mr. Spolford gets in. 


288 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


the men that stick to him will be taken care of.’^ I told him that was 
all well enough. Then I asked him if he thought Mr. Kellogg would 
be removed. He said ‘‘Beyond a doubt, and you boys had better now 
come right out and make yourselves.^^ He said “We can get plenty of 
other men; we can get the white men who were in that legislature to 
testify; but we do not want anything to do with them, but we would 
rather have you colored men that live here.” I said, “ I don't know any¬ 
thing about this; I can’t say anything about it.” He insisted. 1 told 
him, well, I would call around another time, and see him, but that I 
could not say I was bribed in that legislature; I could not afford to do 
that under any circumstances. 

Q. When you left his office where did you go*?—A. I went home. 

Q. Back up the river!—A. Ko; I went to my boarding-place. 

Q. Hid not Cavanac say to you, ‘‘Now, Brooks, you colored men have 
been with a crowd of men wffio have robbed and plundered the people 
of this State, and you ought to be honest for once, and tell the truth 
without being paid for it”!—A. I don’t remember him saying that to me. 

Q. Do you remember that he did not say it! Does it sound familiar 
to you !—A. I know he said something about the white men, the white 
Kepublicans of the country, their having treated the colored people 
very mean; but whether he said they had robbed and plundered the 
country or not, I do not think he said that. 

Q. Did he not say that you ought to be honest for once, and tell the 
truth without being paid for it!—A. No, sir ; he did not say that to me. 

Q. You are sure he did not say that!—A. 1 do not know ; he might, 
but 1 do not think he did. 

Q. Did not Mr. Oav^anac ask you, “ Did you get money for voting for 
Kellogg”; and did you not reply, “ Yes, we all got it” ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you positive about that!—A. I am positive. 

Q. Who was present, besides Cavanac, at the time of that conversa¬ 
tion !—A. Murray and this man Newman were present. 

Q. Murray, Newman, and Cavanac were present!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you state to the committee that was not your reply, and you 
did not say any such thing !—A. No*, sir. 

Q. Are you positive about that!—A. 1 am positive about that; I 
never said that. 

Q. Did you not further say that you wanted to consider the matter 
of making an affidavit until Monday !—A. No, sir ; I did not. I told 
him this, before I would have anything at all to do with the matter, I 
had to consult myself; that is what I said to him. 

Q. Did you not say you wanted until Monday !—A. No, sir; I told 
him I might call in and see him Monday about nine o’clock. 

Q. You told him you might call and see him Monday !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you not say you wanted until Monday to make up your mind 
about it!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you go back on Monday !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not go back toCavanac’s office on Monday !—A. No, sir; 
I never put my foot into the office after that day. 

Q. You did not!—A. No, sir. 

Now, after you were at Cavauac’s office, and before you left town, 
were yon appointed in the custom house !—A. xMe! I wms appointed 
there in the custom-house, so I saw from the papers; but as to being put 
on duty, I never w^as. 1 was told just a day or two before 1 left the city 
that I was to be sent out somewhere to some Point Lookout or another, 
and I told Mr. Wells that I could not go there; I had a family in Saint 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 289 

Mary’s, and I could not go out there ; I did not know where it was. I 
do not know whether they dropped me or what they did with me. 

Q. When was that appointment made ?—A. I saw it, I think, on the 
2 d of this montli. 

Q. What was the day of tlie month when you were at Cavanac’s 
office?—A. I am not certain about what the day was : I think it was the 
17 th. 

Q. The 17 th of what month ?—A. The 17 th of May, I think it was. 

Q. Was not that appointment made immediately after your coming 
to New Orleans on that visit ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are positive that it was not ?—A. I am positive that it was 
not. 

Q. Did you not go back to Gavanac’s office and tell him you had got 
an appointment in the custom-house ?—A. Go to Mr. Cavanac’s office the 
second time^ 

Q. Yes.—A. No, sir; I never went there again, though his hirelings 
tried to get me. 

Q. llow do you know they are his hirelings ?—A. Because I am satis¬ 
fied they are working for him. 

Q. That is your opinion ?—A. It is, and I never went back the second 
time. 

Q. You never did go back the second time?—A. No, sir, I never did. 
I was not in the State house but once after that. 

Q. IIow long did you stay in New Orleans on the occasion of that 
visit?—A. Up until the time 1 left to come up here; but I had other 
business. 

Q. What was the date of your going to New Orleans ?—A. I think it 
was the Ibth. 

Q. The sixteenth of what month ?—A. Sixteenth or 17 th of May. 

Q. And you ha\*e been in New Orleans ever since ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have not been in the custom-house ?—A. 1 have not been in 
there. 

Q. nave not been employed in the custom-house ?—A. I have not 
done a day’s work there to my knowledge. 

(i. What have you been doing in New Orleans since the sixteenth or 
seventeenth of IMay ?—A. Going about, walking. 

Q, Loafing, as you said of somebody else ?—A. No, I never loaf. I 
said this man Newman, 1 believed, was loafing. 

Q. You were not loafing? AVhat were you doing?—A. I was going 
around among my friends, and having pleasure, as near as I could. 

Q. Having a good time generally?—A. Yes, sir; I expected I would 
go back home. 1 have plenty of business at home. I am deputy sheriff 
there, and I get along very well at home. I was not boundJto go to 
New Orleans to loaf. 

Q. Then the deputy sheriff and clerk have both been down in New 
Orleans since the seventeenth of May ?—A. The clerk was down there 
some time before that. The clerk got into a difficulty, and they ran him 
off from the parish of Saint Mary’s. 

Q. Who ran him off?—A. I do not know who ran him off; he ran off 
in the night. 

(},. You came off in the daytime, and he was loafing and you were 
visiting friends ?—A. I left there at night. 

Q. You were not run off?—A. No, sir. 

Y'ou were run off by that dispatch ?—A. No; I paid my way down 
on the boat. 

10 s K 


290 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you doing any business down there?—A. In the city? 

Q. Yes.—A. Not in particular. 

Q. Were you doing any at all?—A. How? What do you mean? 

Q. Any business at all in the city. Were you doing anything except 
loafing around among your friends?—A. I never loaf, sir j I am a gen¬ 
tleman ; I do not loaf. 

Q. Is not the clerk a gentleman, too ?—A. I do not know whether he 
is or not. 

Q. How do you know he did loaf ?—A. Because I saw him on the 
street. 

Q. Were you not on the street when you saw him?—A. Every time 
I went out 1 could see him standing around. 

Q. Were you not standing around visiting your friends ?—A. While 
visiting, I was not standing around. ^ 

Q. Then you never stood on the street five minutes in your life ?— 
A. O, yes, about five minutes j most of us stop about live miuutes 
on the street. 

Q. Were you doing any business there, and if so what?—A. I think 
that is my business. 

Q. I want to know if you were doing any business there?—A. I do 
not know as I am bound to tell you what was my business in the oity. 
Probably my business was private. 

Q. You were engaged in private business in the city ?—I was engaged 
in business in the city. 

Q. What was it?—A. I do not propose to tell you. 

Q. Was it private business ?—It was my own business. 

Q. Was it private business I—Whether private or public, it W'as my 
business, and I do not think it has anything to do with this case. 

Mr. Merrick. I submit to the committee whether it is a legitimate 
question on cross-examination. 

The Chairman (to the witness.) Answer the question. 

The Witness. I tell the gentlemen my business in the city was to go 
down there and find out about this letter and dispatch. When I found 
what it was, I spent the balance of the time in pleasuring and trying to 
make myself as comfortable as I could while I was there. I knew I 
could go home as soon as I got ready. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) I asked you if there was any business ?—A. 
That was business, and having a good time as near as I could. 

Q. Why did you decline to answer the question when I asked you 
w’ere you doing any business?—A. It seemed to me you wanted to ask 
every conversation, everything that took place, every man that I met, 
that I talked with, and that I must tell you what our talk wms. 

Q*. How many conversations did you have with Murray ?—A. I had 
several conversations. He was at my room every day, more or less. 
He came there so often, that I told my landlord when he came around 
to tell him I was not in ,* I did not WTint him in there. 

Q. Have you had any talk with him since?—A. Since wheu ? 

Q. Since you left him in New Orleans. Did you have any conversa¬ 
tion with him here?—A. He left me in New Orfeans. 

Q. Since he left you then ?—A. Since he left me I have not had any 
talk with him. 

Q. Have you had any talk with him here ?—A. No, sirj not about 
this matter. We have talked things over generally. 

Q. Have you ever made an affidavit in this case ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you ever made an affidavit about this business of any kind ?— 
A. I have not. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 291 

Q. riavo you made any kind of affidavit either one way or the other ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. You met Murray here very friendly, did you not?—A. YY»s, sir. 
1 do not have any pariicular objections to Murray. 

Q. In the legislature, at the time of Kellofjjj’s election,, was there a 
common talk about rhe lej^islature in reference to men bein<^ paid to 
vote for him ?—A. Not exactly in the legislature, but it was rumored 
about the streets there. 1 think it was put out there by some men that 
were not friends to the Piickard gov^eriimeiit aud to Mr. Kelloggj I 
think they started the rumor. 

Q. Was it not common talk among the members?—A. Well, yes; 
they were all talking around a good deal about there being money in 
the matter. 

(^. All the time, was there not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From the meeting of the legislature on down ?—A. On down where ? 

Q. Well, from the meeting of the legislature, during the first week of 
the legislature, was it not the common talk around there that there was 
money in it ?—A. No, sir; the talk was after Mr. Kellogg was elected ; 
that was the time the talk came up. 

Q. Was there any talk about settling up, and all that?—A. No; the 
talk was that there was money used to elect ^Ir. Kellogg. 

Q. Did you hear any man say that he had received money ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. You cannot name anj" one individual that you heard say it ?—A. 
Y"es, sir. 

Senator Cameron. He said he heard no one say it. 

Mr. Merrick. He snys he heard no one, but it was common rumor. 

. The Witness. That there was money used. 

]\Ir. Merrick. But he can name no one who told him he received 
money. (To the witness.) It was common rumor, as I understand you I 
—A. Y"es, sir; there was talk around there generally that there was 
money used to elect Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Was it not talked around among members of 
the legislature"?—A. No; I never heard an}' of them talk in particular. 

Q. Did you ever hear any of them talk in general ?—A. No, air. 

Q. Did you ever hear any of them say anything about it at all in your 
private conversation with them ?—A. I heard some of them there; there 
was a lot of outside fellows circulating it that there was money used to 
elect ]Mr. Kellogg, but that the niggers didn’t have sense enough to get 
in. That was the talk 1 heard Irom outsiders. 

Q. Did you not hear the talk inside that there was money used, and 
that it was $250 ai)iece ?—A. No, sir; I never heard that talk from 
members. 

Q. Did you not ever hear members say $200 or $250 was paid for 
votes ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never heard anything of that kind at all ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were you in Murray’s office, who was sergeant at-arms; did you 
meet with members in that office during the first week of the session or 
not ?—A. I think I was in and out there. 

Q. ^Murray’s office was a place of common rendezvous, was it not?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Did not members generally go there ?—A. I was not a regular vis¬ 
itor of Murray’s ofiice ; I only went in there when I had business. 

Q. Never for any other jiurpose?—A. No, sir. 

Y^'ou say you never have made any affidavit iu regard to this busi¬ 
ness ?—A. No, sir. 


292 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Have you ever written any paper in regard to it and given it to 
anybody?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you ever signed any paper?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you ever stated to anybody that you received money ?—A. 
I never did. 

Q. You never did ?—A. No, sir. 

Ee-examined by Senator Kellogg : 

Q. When you speak of rumors, do you mean rumors after my elec¬ 
tion?—A. Eumors after the election. 

Q. Did not those rumors grow out of declarations of discontented 
people, enemies of mine and of the Packard government ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
that is what I just stated. 

Q. Was it stated also that money was used to keep up the Nicholls 
government?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you not know as a matter of fact that they used money to break 
up the Packard legislature and induce the members to go to the Nich¬ 
olls legislature?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was not that common rumor?—A. That was a common rumor. 

Q. Generally believed?—A. Yes, sir. 

. By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. You said you knew some facts in regard to money being used to 
break up the Packard government. What facts do you know about 
that?—A. Did I say facts ? 

Q. I understood you so.—A. I do not know any facts about money 
being used to break up the Packard government. But it was generally 
rumored that the members by going there and seeing Senator Robin¬ 
son could make arrangements to get any amount of mone 3 ^ to go over 
and take their seats. 

By Senator Keli.ogg : 

Q. Did any one ask you to go over ?—A. Yes, sir; Ross Stewart, a 
member of our house, asked me to go over. 

Q. Was that all he said to you?—A. Ross Stewart told me that he 
had made arrangements—he did not say with whom, but just before the 
commission came down to the city, that he had made arrangements with 
some parties that if he would get up a crowd of eight or ten of us, he 
could get $2,000 apiece for each one to go over. 

Q. To the Nicholls legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who is Mr. Newman?—A.. Newman is a dark-complecled gentle¬ 
man from the parish of Saint Mary’s j he was elected clerk of the dis¬ 
trict court. 

Q. Was he driven out of the parish ?—A. He was not exactly driven 
out of the parish, but he had in his possession the election returns, and 
it seems that Some parties went to his house- 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. When was this?—A. This last November, I think, 1878. 

Mr. Merrick. Then stop. 

The Chairman. We cannot go into 1878. We do not propose to go 
into the election of 1878. 

Senator Kellogg. I will suggest that Mr. Merrick asked the witness 
how Mr. Newman came to be in the city after he was driven out. 

Mr. Merrick. No j the witness volunteered it. 

Senator Kellogg. .1 propose to show that Newman had the election 
returns and that a mob went- 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


293 


The CnAiRMA.N. We do not propose to go into the election of 1878. 
We have no authority to make anv inquiry into the election of 1878. 
If we get into that, it will take perhaps $100,000 for the expenses of the 
coinmittee’s in vest!gation. 

Senator Hoar. I think you will find on looking at the notes that 
although the witness stated, the phrase whicli he used was that the 
mail was run out of the parish, Mr. Merrick then put one or two ques¬ 
tions iu regard to the matter. 

The Chairman. There was nothing said about the time. 

Senator Hoar. I knowj but iu rejily to Mr. Merrick, I understand 
the question which is now put is to call for au explanation of that an¬ 
swer. 

The Chairman. 1 will just say, Mr. Hoar, there was one witness ex¬ 
amined here at som43 length about the election of 1878. I suggested 
then that that ought to be stricken from the testimony. Some conver¬ 
sation ensued. I then suggested that inasmuch as the testimony was 
in, perhaps it had better remain in, and Mr. Merrick might if he saw 
proper reply to that evidence, but that hereafter if any attempt was 
made to bring in the election of 1878, so far as I was concerned at least 
I should interpose an objection to it. Now it comes out that this wit¬ 
ness is about to testify with regard to the election of 1878, which is not 
covered by the resolution w’e are authorized to investigate under. 1 
therefore say that I object to any testimony about the election of 1878, 
as it has no tiertinency whatever to the inquiry we are authorized to 
make. 

Senator Hoar. But I understood that the present inquiry relates to 
the conduct of a gentleman who has, 1 believe, been a witness iu the 
cause. 

Mr. Merrick. Not at all; I never heard the name before. 

The Chairman. The name was not mentioned before. You see if we 
widen this investigation to go into the conduct of the election canvass 
of 1878, in the first place we are not authorized to inquire into it, and 
iu the second place it opens wide the inquiry; and where will it lead ? 

Senator Hoar. When this evidence originally went in, my attention 
was directed to it and I inquired of Mr. Cameron in a whisper whether 
the person referred to had been a witness, and I understood him to 
reply that he had. 

Senator Cameron. O, no; not here. He was a witness before the 
Teller committee. 

’ The Chairman. If the testimony goes iu, I shall move to strike out 
all about the election of 1878. 

Senator Hoar. I agree with you now, Mr. Chairman. I understood 
that it was in relation to a witness who liad testified. If not, the case 
is ditt'erent from what I had supposed originally. 

Senator Kellogg. I do not press the question. I withdraw it. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the witness. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) You are a friend of Mr. Darrall, member 
of Congress, I believe?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has Mr. Darrall been urging on the collector and other parties 
that some prominent men be appointed from your parish in the custom¬ 
house?—A. Yes, sir; ho had au application of mine there for a month 
or more, and Mr. Badger told me just a day or two before the first of 
the month, when I left the State, that he had my application signed and 
recommended by Mr.. Darrall, and just as soon as there should be a 
vacancy ho would give me something to do, that there was no one from 
my parish given anything. 


294 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How many years did Mr. Darrall represent your district in Con¬ 
gress ?—A. I think about eight years. 

Q. He is the leading man there!—^A. He is the leading man of that 
parish. 

Q. And recommends for positions in the custom-house men the most 
intiuential in the party!—A. Yes; be has always done that. 

Q. He recommended you for that reason, did he !—A. Y^es, sir. 

Eecross examined Mr. Merrick : 

Q. When did Darrall make that recommendation for you to the cus¬ 
tom house!—A. I do not know exactly what date it was. It was some 
time during the month of March that I drew up the ap])lication and had 
it signed by all the members of the parish executive Eepublicaii com¬ 
mittee and sent it to Dr. Darrall; that is, I took it to Morgan City my¬ 
self some time during the month of March. Aftefwards I received a 
letter from him stating that he had sent in my application and that I 
would be appointed as soon as there would a vacancy occur in the build¬ 
ing. 

Q. When did Darrall give you a recommendation!—A. Some time 
during the month of March, I think. 

Q. Was it after you went to New Orleans !—A. No, sir; sometime 
betore I went to New Orleans. 

Q. How long before!^—A. That was some time during the month of 
March. I never went to the city until, I think it was about the 16th 
or 17th of May last. 

Q. When did you first receive notice that you would have an appoint¬ 
ment from Mr. Badger, or that you had been appointed !—A. When 
did 1 first receive notice from Mr. Badger! 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. 1 never received that. 

Q. What is the name of the man who is the clerk; Newman ?—A. 
Newman. 

Q. When did Newman first tell you you had an appointment in the 
custom-house!—A. Newman told me it, I believe, two or three days 
after I got down to the city. 

Q. Did he not tell you a day or two after you were at Cavanac's 
office!—A. Yes; I think it was a day or two. 

Q. A day or two after you were at Cavanac’s office, Newman told you 
you had an appointment at the custom-house!—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. General Badger had not long been appointed collector at the time 
you made your application !—A. 1 think it was right after he was made 
collector. 

Q. Since the overthrow of the Packard government applications have 
been made constantly, by those who were attaches of the government 
and prominent men, for places!—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. A great part of the legislature that elected Mr. Kellogg is in the 
custom-house, is it not!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Are not thirty members of that legislature in the custom-house!— 
A. 1 do not think more than ten; hardly that. I do not know exactly 
how many are in there, but I say I know of some in there; but I know 
there are a great many others in there that were not members of the 
legislature. 

Q. I suppose so. You say there are only ten!—A. 1 do not say posi¬ 
tively. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


295 


Senator CA:\rERON. I submit that the counsel does not treat this wit¬ 
ness fairly. The witness said distinctly tliat he did not think there were 
more tlian ten. Then the counsel sa\’s, “ You say there are not more 
than ten.” 

Mr. IMerrick. I am cross-examining, Mr. Senator, and I submit that 
iny question is lu’oper. 

The Chairman. I think, Mr. Merrick, you have a perfect right to test 
the accuracy of the witness’s statements on cross-examination. That is 
my Judgment. 

Senator Uouston. I have no doubt about that. * 

]Mr. Merrick. “ Did you say,” I put it, in the interrogative form. I 
certainly never want to treat a witness unfairly. 

Senator Cameron. I did not say you wanted to do it, but I gave my 
opinion that you did not treat him fiiirly. I am of that opinion. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 submit it to the committee. 

Senator Kernan. I understand it to be in the interrogative, “ Do 
you say there were not more than ten,” as something testing him as to 
whether he would say it positively or not. 

The Chairman. The question is proper. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Did you not go directly from Cavanac’s office 
to the custom-house?—A. ifo, sir. 

Q. How long after you left his office was it that you went to the cus¬ 
tom-house ?—A. Some time in the afternoon. 

Q. Some time in the afternoon of the same day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see the collector ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see anybody that had the distribution of offices?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Did you speak about a commission ?—A. I spoke about my applica¬ 
tion to (Governor Antoine. He was the only officer in the building. 

Q. Did he tell you you could have it ?—A. He told me he thought I 
would get an appointment about the first of* the month. I want the 
committee to understand that I did not say that I went to New Orleans 
to get a commission as constable. 

(i. I understood you to say you did not go down at all about that; it 
had no influence on you ?—A. None at all. 

Q. 1 understood you to say that neither that nor the custom-house 
had any influence on you ?—A. Neither one of them. 

Q. That the only thing that carried you down, exclusively and alone, 
was the telegram of Newman and the letter of Smith ?—A. Yea, sir. 

Q. That you had no idea when you went down about looking after the 
constableship or the custom-house?—A. Neither one. I knew I had an 
application in there, though. 

Q. You had no idea of looking after it?—A. No, sir. Getting in that 
building is like boring a hole in a rock. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. One question more. Was it not currently and commonly rumored 
that there was money used to secure the election of Mr. Siiofford ?—A. 
Y"es, sir. 

By ^[r. Merrick : 

Q. Among whom was that rumor ?—A. That was in the Odd-Fellows 
Hall. I wish 1 had. 

Q. No matter. It was rumored in Odd-Fellows Hall ?—A. Y^’es, sir. 

Q. Among whom?—A. Among the members there. 

Q. Was not that started by outsiders, enemies of Mr. Spofford?—A. 
By outsiders; I do not know whether enemies of Mr. Spofford or not. 


296 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I am not acquainted with Mr. Spofiford’s relations among his people 
there in New Orleans. I do not know whether they were friends or 
enemies to him. 

Q. Did*you go over to the Nicholls legislature 1 —A. I did. 

EXAMINATION OF CHARLES F. BROWN. 

Charles Franklin Brown (colored), a witness called on behalf of 
the sitting member, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. What parish do you reside in ?—Answer. Jefferson. 

Q. How long have you resided in Louisiana ?—A. Since about 1862. 

Q. Were you a member of the Packard legislature ?—A. I was. 

Q. From what parish ?—A. The parish of Jefferson. 

Q. W^ho was your colleague ?—A. P. J. Kennedy—John Patrick Ken¬ 
nedy. 

Q. Were you present at the sessions of that legislature?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. From the beginning?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State whether you were there on the 9th of January, 1877.—A. 
Yes, sir; I was present. 

Q. Do you remember whether there was any attempt to elect a Senator 
by vote of the separate houses on the 9th ?—A. There was not a quorum 
present that day. 

Q. In which branch ?—A. In the house of representatives. 

Q. When did you succeed in getting a quorum ?—A. On Wednesday, 
the 10th, I believe. 

Q. That is right, the 10th. Were you present at the time of the ballot 
in the joint convention ?—A. Ye.s, sir. 

Q. Do you remember Samuel Thomas from Bossier ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you acquainted with him ?—A. Yes, sir; I became ac¬ 
quainted width him at the commencement of the session. 

Q. W^as he a new or an old member ?—A. I think he had been a mem¬ 
ber on one or probably more occasions ; I do not know. 

Q. You do not know about that personally ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Do you remember the state of the house as to order and silence 

during the roll-call for United States Senator ?-^A. It was very orderly. 

Q. Do you remember whether the members of the house kept tally of 
the vote as it proceeded?—A. A great many of them did. I think I 
did myself. 

Q. Do you remember whether this man Samuel Thomas voted?—A. 
Yes, sir; he voted. 

Q. How do you know that he voted ?—A. His seat was not far from 
me. 

Q. Do you remember the fact yourself, or do you just say he voted 

because you find it on the journal so ?—A. I know lie was there and 

voted, because it was at a moment when we looked upon every member 
very particularly to see what he did, and so forth. I think he was 
standing up at the time, if I am not mistaken; but I will not be posi¬ 
tive; I think he was. 

Q. Do you remember whether Thomas had gone away and come back 
on the 10th, or did he stay all night and all day ?—A, During Tuesday 
night we had mock sessions there at the house, and I think some time 
after twelve o’clock he went home. He was feeling badly or something 
or other. ^ ^ 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 297 

Q. Do you remember whether Thomas was in the chair during the 
mock session ?—A. think he was on one occasion. 

Q, You are not sure about that?—A. lam not sure. It was about 
nine or ten o’clock. Almost every one was in the chair. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Murray, the man who has been a witness 
here ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether Seveignes was there and voted ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; he was there. 

Q. What parish is he from ?—A. La Fourche. 

Q. How do you know that he was there?—A. Because I was well 
aware that he was there. We looked upon him as one of those men at 
that time we could not trust so well, and we generally watched for him. 
I know well he was there. 

Q* You know he was there ?—A. We were looking for that class of 
men always to leave us. We had not become acquainted with one 
another so well as we did further along. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Thomas Murray, the wit 
ness here, on Iloyal street, in May last, about this case or about this 
business or this election ?—A. All along April and May Murray came 
to be a regular bore; a person could not get along, could not stay at 
home hardly, but what he was at this. It became general. 

Q. In what way did he become a bore? What was he after ?—A. 
He generally wanted to consult a person on his feelings towards Mr. 
Kellogg, and what he was willing to do, and so far as making statements 
on any thing connected with the election of Mr. Kellogg as United 
States Senator. 

Q. Now, I want you to recall if there was any such occurrence and 
conversation that you had with him on Royal street, about the 1st of 
May, in regard to what you could get or had received for voting for 
Senator?—A. Well, he said tome that if I would make an affidavit 
that I or any other one received $250 he thought I would realize about 
a thousand dollars. 

Q. About a thousand dollars ?—A. That I would be worth about a 
thousand. I think 1 told him that was as much as 1 would have been 
worth before the war. 

Q. Did he say anything about where the thousand dollars was to 
come from ?—A. Well, yes, sir. 

Q. AVhat did he say about that? Go on and state the whole conver¬ 
sation if you know it.—A. He said Mr. Spofford was a very rich man, 
and was very ambitious to get into the United States Senate; that his 
back j)ay would amount to considerable, and that he would divide it 
amongst those who assisted him in getting in, or it would be divided. 

(^. What did Thomas Murray say about the fact as to whether you 
had or had not receive<l the $250 ?—A. He did not ask me whether I 
had or whether I had not, but he said if I would make an affidavit to 
that effect that I had received $250, or of any one else receiving it to 
my knowledge, 1 could call for about a thousand dollars. 

Q. Did you ever have any other conversation with Murray about this 
same matter ?—A. O, on several occasions. 

Q. What did you tell INIurray about whether you had or had not re¬ 
ceived any pay fbr voting for Kellogg ?—A. I did not tell him anything 
about it. 

Q. One way or the other ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you ever offered anything for voting for Kellogg ?—A. No, 
sir. 


298 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Wore you ever oifered anything for going over to Nicbolls and 
voting for Mr. Spofiord?—A. Well, yes 5 1 was offered something for 
that. 

Q. What were you offered, and who offered it?—A. On the 9th of 
January, 1877, the day that we were to elect a United States Senator, 
P. J. Kennedy, my colleague from Jefferson, proposed to me that if my¬ 
self and 14 others would go to the Nicholls legislature he would guaran¬ 
tee us $100 a day for ten days apiece or until a United States Senator 
was elected. That was the proposition of Mr. Kennedy. 

Q. And where did Kennedy say he got his authority to make that 
proposition ?—A. He said he represented the Nicholls government. 

Q. Did Kennedy go over pretty early to the Nicholls government?— 
A. Yes, sir; he went over probably about the 7th or 8 th; I am not po¬ 
sitive. He went over just prior to the election of United States Senator 
a day or two, I guess.. 

Q. Who did .he say, if anybody, was the prominent actor in getting 
up this arrangement to buy the Packard members, wdio w^as back of him 
—Kennedy ?—A. He did not say, because he is a man who always makes 
himself very conspicuous. He seemed to be acting directly himself. 

Q. He said he was representing the Nicholls government?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Was anybody by at that time besides j’oii two?—A. Yes; Mr. 
Brown, of Vernon, in a private room, sitting there by the hre. It was a 
very cold day. Mr. Kennedy stepped in and made this proposition. 
After he made it I laughed at him. He asked me what I was laughing 
about. Said I “Nothing.’’ Said he, “Do you think I have not the 
money.” Said I, “ 1 don’t think whether you have or not.” He pulled 
out of his vest pocket two large rolls and laid them down, and said 
“ There’s the hash for you boys if you want to go.” 

Q. Did you notice the denomination of the bills?—A. Fifties and one 
hundreds. 

Q. Did you see any hundreds in the pile ?—A. O, yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see any fifties?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember any other denomination ?—A. There were $500 
bills. He laid them down on the table; we could both see it very readily. 

Q. What was done with the money ?—A. He put it back in his pocket. 

Q. Did you afterwards go over to the Nicholls legislature ?—A. I did, 
some one hundred odd days afterwards. 

Q. Did you go over before Governor Packard recommended it ?—A. 
No; I went on that morning. The remaining portion of the house and 
senate were there. He sent for us, and we went into his office, and he 
said “Gentlemen, you have lived up to every obligation that you 
l)romised in the outset, and I honorably discharge you. If you have 
anything to do for your constituents at home, local good, you had better 
go and have it done, because the legislature will shut dowi^in a few days.” 

Q. Was that all that was said, or the substance of it ?—A. I went up 
on the next day. I did not go in that gang, because I considered that 
I had been bartered away, and so I thought I would deliver myself, a 
chattel. I went up alone. I did not go in that gang. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Who had bartered you away ?—A. Some political frauds. They 
are hard to keep up with. 

Q. The MaeVeagh commission and the President of the United 
States ?—A. Numerous others. 

Q. They are among them—the MaeVeagh commission and the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States?—A. Probably they might be. 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 299 

Q. The parties you thought were bartering yon away, and you thought 
yourself delivered up as a chattel?—A. That is hard"to tell. 

Q. You say you had a conversation with Murray on Royal street ou 
the first of May ?—A. On or about that time. 

Q. Among the many conversations that you had with him, how comes 
it that you can locate that particular one as to time and place ?—A. 1 
believe that is about the time that I visited Mr. Gavanac’s office. He 
had insisted upon my going, and so that day I went in with him. 

Q. In that conversation you say that Murray told you that you could 
make a thousand dollars, or it would be worth a thousand dollars; 
which was it?—A. I would realize about a thousand dollars. 

Q. And that Mr. S[)offord was a rich man, and that the back pay 
would go for that ?—A. He said Mr. Spollbrd was a very rich man, and 
he was very ambitious to be in the United States Senate, and his back 
money was of very little consideration, and it would go to those who 
assisted him in getting it. 

Q. Did not Murray tell you that if you would stand up to the truth 
it would be worth a thousand dollars ?—A. He knew not what I knew 
at all. 

Q. He did not know what you knew ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. You never told him what you knew?— A. No, sir. 

Q. You never told him what you did not know ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. If the conversations were a nuisance to you, why did you not tell 
him that you did not know anything that would benefit anybody on his 
side ?—A. That is not the bait that catches the fish. 

Q. What fish were you wanting to catch ?—A. Information. 

Q. Information from him?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were not wanting to give any information, but seeking to 
catch information ?—A. You must keep your well dry when you want 
to get water in your own out of some others. 

(^. How is that?—A. I didn’t give any, I was after.it. 

Q. You were after information ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were after an office?—A. I always got an office. My con¬ 
stituents never allowed me to go without it. 

Q. It is a very clever constituency ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When were you put in the custom-house ?—A. I have been in 
there some time. 

Q. How long ?—A. Over a month, I reckon. 

Q. Some time over a month ? Your conversation was on the first of 
May with Murray and this is the 12th of June, is it not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you not put in the custom-house immediately afterwards ?— 
A. I might have been put in before, I reckon. 

Q. Might have been put in a long time ago?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you not recollect that you were put in after the first of May ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Of course 3 ^ou do. Then why did you say just now, “It might 
have been.” Why did you not answer that at first? Can you give a 
reason for it?—A. It is not material in this matter. 

Q. That is not 3 "our business. My question now is, Why did ^rou not 
answer that at first?—A. Suppose i hadn’t answered it? 

Q. I ask you if you have any reason whj’^ you did not answer it at 
first?—A. I have no reasons. I am not afraid of being in there. It is 
an honest living, if I work there. 

Mr. Merrick. I have no doubt about that. It depends upon the 
way it was got. 


300 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The Witness. I could have beeu iu there in March, if I had wanted to. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you not apply in March ?—A. I applied and could have been 
put in, bill I said I didn’t want the position. I was making a canvass 
in the parish for delegate to the constitutional convention. 

Q. Did you not apply for that position in March ?—A. I guess prior, 
probably, to March. 

Q. Did you not apply for it in February?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. When was it ?—A. I haven’t the dates. 

Q. What month was it in ?—A. I do not recollect precisely. 

Q. Gome as near as you can.—A. It might have been in February, 

Q. Was it not in February ?—A. Probably. 

Q. Was it not in February ?—A. I don’t remember. 

Q. To the best of your recollection ? 

Senator Kernan. Give the best of your recollection as to what month 
it was ?—A. I say I think it was February. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Then that application made iu February remained until after the 
first of May?—A. I could have been aiipointed. 

Q. I did not ask you that; I have not asked you that yet. You were 
not appointed. That is the fact, is it not ?—A. Of course. 

Q. You were not appointed until after the first of May?—A. That 
you are aware of. 

Q. You have stated that?—A. You have the names of all. 

Q. Of all what?—A. Of all of us that are employed there. 

Q. Have I ?—A. 1 expect so. 

Q. How many of them are there iu there now that were in the legis¬ 
lature?—A. There ain’t many of them. 

Q. How many ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. How many were in there ten days ago ?—A. There was one in the 
department where I am. That is myself. 

Q. How many of them were in the custom house ten days ago that 
wereiu the Packard legislature and who voted for Kellogg ?—A. 1 could 
not tell you. 

Q. Come as near as you can ?—A. I could not tell you. 

Q. Is there not over 25?—A. I could not tell you. 

Q. What is your best information?—A. My best information is that 
I am there myself. 

Q. That is quite positive.—A. That is one. 

Q. How many more, according to your best information, were there 
there ?—A. There is Mr. Keating. He is in the department I am. That 
is the only one that is in there permanently. 

Q. The only one permanently ?—A. The only one I know of. , 

Q. How many do you know that are in there temporarily ?—A. Idon’t^' 
know. 

Q. Have you not, iu going iu and coming out of the custom-house, met 
going in and coming out among the employes from ten to thirty mem¬ 
bers of the Packard legislature ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. You have not ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Do you tell the committee that the persons you have named are all 
the members of the Packard legislature now in the custom-house that 
you know to be there ?—A. I am not familiar at all with the rolls of the 
custom-house. You want me to swear to facts, and I can swear to two 
facts. 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


301 


Q. I want you to come as near as you can ?—A. That is one that is 
in the department where I am, and myself. In none of the other depart¬ 
ments do 1 go. 

Q. And you tell the committee that you do not know whether there 
are any others of the Packard legislature there or not ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not knowf—A. I am not positive of it j no, sir. 

Q. You are not positive of it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What is your best opinion about it?—A. I do not know anything 
about it. 

Q. You do not know anything about it at all?—A. Not about other 
men* 

Q. I mean about other men. I am not talking about yourself ?—A. [ 
am there, that is sure. 

Q. You were trying to catch fish ? You were not communicating in¬ 
formation, but you were trying to get into the custom-house then ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Your application was pending ?—A. I could have got into the cus¬ 
tom-house without that. 

Q. You are satisfied of that ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How much do you receive in your position in the custom house ?— 
A. $50 a month. 

Q. Is it permanent?—A. Yes, sir ; it is by the month. 

Q. You spoke of permanent employment and temporary employment ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is this a permanent or temporary employment?—A. It is by the 
month. 

Q. What did you mean when you spoke of permanent and temporary 
en)])loyment just now ? 

The Witness. Did I speak that way ? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cameron. He did not use the word temporary ? 

Mr. Merrick. Mr. Stenographer, just turn to the minutes and read 
that portion ? 

The Stenographer (reading): 

Q. How many, according to your best information, were there ?—A. 
There is Mr. Keating. He is in the department I am. That is the only 
one that is in there permanently. 

“Q. The only one permanently ?—A. The only one I know of. 

“Q. How many do you know that are in there temporarily?—A. I 
don't know.” 

Mr. Merrick. He adopted my use of the word, which is the same 
thing. 

Senator Kernan. Let us go right on with the questions. 

Senator Cameron. I wanted to show that my recollection was cor¬ 
rect about it. 

Senator Kernan. The word ‘Hempor<arily ” was in the question and 
not in the answer, but it is not worth while to argue about it. 

Senator Cameron. He didn’t use the word ‘‘ temi)orary.” 

Mr. Merrick. I asked him how many were in there temporarily, and 
he said he did not know. 

The Chairman. Go on. 

Q. (Ily JNIr. Merrick.) You are in there by the month ?—A. Yes, sir. 

You did not tell anybody what you knew and what you did not 
know at this time?—A. No, sir. 

(2. You kept it to yourself ?—A. Yes, sir. 


302 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did anybody else besides Murray speak to you about it ?—A. On 
the Spoiford side ; that was all. 

Q. Who was on that side?—A. Mr. Murray. 

Q. Who else?—A. Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. And who was on the other side?—A. It was general outdoor’s 
talk, you know. 

Q. Who on the other side spoke to you about it? You say that is 
all on the Spofford side ; and I suppose 1 may be permitted to infer that 
you possibly indicate that there was somebody on the other side. Now, 
.who on the other side spoke to you ? 

The Witness. About what ? 

Mr. Merrick. Do you not know what I mean ? 

The AVitness. No, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. About what you knew and what you do not know as 
to votes for Mr. Kellogg being i)aid for. 

The Witness. No, sir; no one asked me about that. 

Q. (By Mr. Mebrick.) No one on the other side ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Murray ask you about it?—A. No, sir ; he didn’t ask me, 
because Mr. Murray is of the opinion himself, 1 believe, to-day, that I 
did not receive anything. He did not ask me that. 

Q. Who on the other side spoke to j'ou in reference to the same sub¬ 
jects that .you and Murray talked about ou Eo.yal street on the first of 
May or thereabouts ?—A.^ I don’t believe that—I don’t remember of any 
one. 

Q. You don’t remember of any one ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Can you say positively that no one did ?—A. No; 1 don’t think 
there is any one who did. 

Q. You do not think any one did?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you tell any one of the conversation you had had with Mur¬ 
ray ?—A. 1 si)oke to a man about it that works with me in the office. 

Q. AVho?—A. A man by the name of Dunbar. 

Q. When did you speak to him about it; the same day that it oc¬ 
curred?—A. No. It happened that when this case opened, that in 
reading the papers we would get to talking over this matter. 

Q. This case opened on the 4th of March, or shortly after the 4th of 
March.—A. Probably it did. 

Q. When was it you had this conversation with Dunbar?—A. I don’t 
know. That was two or three weeks ago. 

Q. Was it not over a month ago?—A. No; not over a month. 

Q. Was it before or after you went into the custom-house ? — A. I t 
don’t know—O, it was after; a long while after. 

Q. After jou went went into the custom-house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you speak to anybody else about the conversation .you had \ 
had with Murray or with Cavanac?—A. No, sir. 1 

Q. You never spoke to anybod^^ else about it at all ?—A. Only with ] 
him. 7 

Q. Did you see anybody else ?—A. I only spoke to Dunbar about the '■ 
conversation that I had had with Murray after reading the dispatches 
from Washington. , 

Q. Did you ever speak to anybody else about your having had a con- 1 
versation with either Murray or Cavanac?—A. No, sir; I believe not. ’ 

Q. What is your best recollection ? You say you believe not.—A. I 
don’t recollect speaking to an.y one. 

Q. Can you say positively that you never did speak to any one about J 
your having had a conversation with Murray or Cavanac except Dun¬ 
bar?—A. 1 don’t believe I did. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


303 


Q. Can yon say positively whether yon did or not?—A. Kot on the 
Kellogg side of the house, I don’t think I did. He was about the only 
one I spoke to about the matter. 

Q. Wliat day was it that you went to Oavanac’s office?—A. It was 
only about the first of May. 

Q. Was it on the same day you had that conversation with Mur¬ 
ray ?—A. That is one; we talked about moneyed matters, &c., on that 
day. 

Q. Was it on the same day that you had this talk with Murray, about 
w'hich we have been speaking, that you went to Cavanac’s office ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. It was on that same day ?—A. We talked about it on several 
ccasions, but on that day we went there. 

Q. You went there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why did you go to Cavanac’s office?—A. Because I went to go 
with ]\Ir. Murray. He insisted upon it several times. 

Q. If Murray was such a nuisance, why did you go with him to a 
place he asked you to go to?—A. I was after information. 

Q. So you were after information ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What use w’ere you going to make of it ?—A. We all like to know 
things that are internally working. We get into it somehow. 

Q If you were searching for information and so desirous to obtain 
it, and Murray was tlie man th it was working, why did you exclude him 
from your house?—A He didn’t desire to get in, I guess. 

Q. Did you not sav yon told your landlord not to let him up, or was 
it the other witness? Well,you said he wms a nuisance, did you not, 
and had become a bore ?—A. A kind of boreship; j’es, sir. 

Q. If Murray was a bore and his conveisations w’ere a bore, why did 
you go along with him when he wanted you to go ? Why did yon not 
quit him ?—A. I did quit him on that day. 

Q. You did quit him ?—A. We talked along frequently until he came 
away. 

Q. [Jntil he came away from where ?—A. From New Orleans. 

Q. Until he came on here in obedience to the subpoena ?—A. Yes, sir j 
I guess so. 

Q. Did you ever approach him?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Y’ou never went after him ?—A. Never w^ent after him, because we 
were always running upon one another. He was always in Canal street, 
and going into the State-house I w’onld always see Mr. Murray. 

Q. Did you never go to his house ?—A. I was at his house probably 
a couple of years ago. 

Q. Have you not been to his house this spring?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you not been to his office?—A. No, sir 5 1 don’t know where 
his office is. 

Q. Did you ever go to look for him ?—A. No, not after him. 

Q. Did you ever go out expecting to find him?—xV. I never went out 
with the intention of finding him. 

Q. YY)u never went out in j^our life with the intention of finding 
him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. xVnd yet when he asked you to go to Cavanac’s office with him you 
went, although he w\as a bore ?—A. The subject which he was generally 
talking to me about was one that I wnis not particularly interested in so 
far as ho w'as concerned, although I thought it w^ould be a good time to 
get hold of a little information. 

(^. Then you w'ere not interested in the subject that he was talking 
about on account of himself, but you were interested in the subject in or- 


304 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


(ler to get information, were you ?—A. I didn't care about assisting him 
along. I considered, of course, that be bad a nice little tbing on band 
from wbat be bad told me. 

Q. You wanted to get a nice little thing on band by getting informa¬ 
tion.—A. I don’t know. I am alvvays getting that. 

Q. And altbougb yon did not care about it on bis account the subject- 
matter was not a bore to you, but was one wbicb you wanted to continue 
to discuss ?—-A. I would gladly received the information that I could not 
get otberwise. 

Q. You were glad to receive, it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you wanted to receive it ?—'A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did yon not go in search of it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You went to Cavanac’s office, did you —-A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have a conversation with Gavanac?—A. Yes, sir ; we bad 
a sociable little chat there. 

Q. Did you not have a long conversation with him ?—A. No, sir; not 
long. We did not have much time. 

Q. Did you not have a long chat with him?—A. No; probably ten 
minutes. 

Q. Did you not tell him you wanted to make an affidavit ?—A. No, 
sir; be asked me if I was willing to do so. I told him that was some¬ 
thing that required a good deal of nerve, and I would have to consider 
such a matter. 

Q. A great deal of nerve to tell the truth ?—A. To tell the truth; such 
truth as be wanted, I expect. 

Q. Did be not tell you be did not want anything but the truth I—A. 
I consider that Mr.- 

Mr. Merrick. No matter what you considered. 

Senator Cameron. State wbat occurred. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not want wbat be considered. He is on cross-ex¬ 
amination. I want him to state whether Gavanac did tell him that be 
(Gavanac) did not want anything but the truth. 

The Witness. I don’t know. Politicians always do want it. 

Mr. Merrick. I am not asking you wbat politicians always do. We 
have learned wbat politicians in your part of the country and of your 
stripe do. 

The Witness. And many others. 

Mr. Merrick. And of other colors, too; and I think the others are 
a great deal worse. I want to know whether Mr. Gavanac did not say 
to you that he did not want anything but the truth ?—A. He might 
have said so. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick ) Did he not say so^—A. I do not recollect. 

Q. Do you not know, to the best of your recollection, recall that he 
said so?—A. I do not know. 

Q. You do not know ?— A. No. r/ 

Q. You cannot say whether be did or not?—A. No, sir; I remember, 
though, of his asking me if I would make an affidavit. I told him that 
I could not tell him, but I thought it would require a great deal of nerve 
for a man to do such a thing as that. 

Q. You meant, then, that a great deal of nerve was required for a 
man in your position and of your party to tell what you thought would 
be just to the other party, did you not ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. That is what you mean of course. Now, then, did you not tell 

Gavanac that you had received money for voting for Mr. Kello«-o'?_A. 

No, sir. 

Q. You are positive you did not tell him that ?—A. No, sir. 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


305 


Q*. What was your affidavit goiii" to be '?—A. That was it. 

Did you not tell him that you had, and that it would require a 
ji’reat deal of nerve if you were to swear to it ?—A. I do not confess any 
in iny own mind, myself. 

That siiififle fact—did you not develop to your own mind that 
ffict—that you had received money for voting for Mr. Kellogg, and that 
that was to be your affidavit ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. You did not ?—A. No, sir. 

In a few days after that visit to Cavanac’s office did you not go 
back to his office ?—A. I never was there but once; that he knows. 

You never were there but once.'—A. No, sir; not but once. I 
never knew him from Adam until that time. 

Q. Did you not go back and say to him that you had secured a posi¬ 
tion in the custom-house.—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not go back and say to him that you had concluded upon 
reflection not to do anything ? 

The WIT^’ESS. (to back and tell him that ? 

3Ir. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

A. No, sir; he who swears to that will swear to a falsehood. 

(*>. That may be a question whether he swears to what is false or you 
swear to what is false. Did you not say to him that you had received 
money for voting for Kellogg, but that you were afraid to give up the 
name of the party who paid you ?—A. No, sir. 

(}. You are positive'you did not say that'?—A. No, sir. In the legis¬ 
lature of 1870 I said this, if you want to know what it was- 

(j). What is it' 1 want to know all the conversation.—A. 1 said, prob¬ 
ably, if I made a statement it would implicate third parties. Mr. Cava- 
nac says, “ O, no; not at all.’’ I told him I thought differently. 

Q. What did you mean by that—that it would “implicate third par¬ 
ties?-’—A. 1 was after information. 

(}. You were searching for information ?—A. Yes, sir; I didn’t know 
anything, and I wanted to know something. 

<}. You did not know anything and you wanted to know something, 
so you told him if you made a statement it would inqilicate third [lar- 
ties ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(j). Did you say it would implicate third parties?—A. That is what I 
said to ]Mr. Cavanac on that day. 

(»). You told him if you made a statement it would implicate third 
parties ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Wouhl it implicate third parties ?—A. No, sir; there was nobody 
to implicate. 

Q. What did you fell him that for ? It was not true, was it ?—A. I 
was still fishing, you know. 

Q. It was not true, was it A. It was not under oath. 

(,>. A man is not bound to tell the truth if he is not under oath; is 
that what you say?—A. 1 don’t tell lies as a general thing. We say 
many of these little things sometimes in political matters. 

(). Whenever you go fishing you tell lies, do you .'—A. I have done 
it when 1 was younger. 

(). .You were only three weeks younger than you are now. You had 
that privilege ! —A. 1 am not in the habit of telling stories. 

When you go fishing, you do ?—A. Sometimes when we were boys 
we did so. 

(,>. J)Ut as men, when you go fishing hu' information, you do, do you 
not?—A. Sometimes. 

20 s K 



306 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. The fish .you caught was a custom-house appointment, was it 
not ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. You had your rod out and you were fishing, and that was the thing 
that bit, and you hauled it in ?—A. I got something very important, too. 
I got something very important from your side of the house. 

Q. You did ?—Yes, sir. 

Q. We will see how important it was. What you got from our house 
helped the custom-house appointment, did it not ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. You don’t know whether it did or not ?—A. I don’t think it did. 

Q. It might have done it, might it not ?—A. ^o ; I don’t think it did. 

Q. You do not think it did.—A. No. 

Q. Who were present at the time of your conversation with Cava- 
nac f—A. Mr. Murray, Mr. Cavanac, and myself. 

Q. Now, have you told us all your conversation with Cavanac ?—A. 
That is about all. 

Q. Is there anything that you think of that you can tell us now ?— A. 
No, just off handed. 

Q. Did not Mr. Cavanac tell you that they wanted nothing but the 
truth, and that they were not paying anything ?—A. He said they were 
not paying anything. He said I had better fall in and make terms; 
that Kellogg was going out and Spofitbrd was coming in, and the cus- 
tom-house patronage belonged to us boys, and if Spofford got in we 
would get some of it; so it was a bid all around. 

Q. It was a bid all around, and you took the Kellogg bid, did you ?— 
A. He said the handwriting was on the wall, and that Kellogg had to 
go, and we had better fall in. He pictured it so plain I had to look on 
the wall myself to see if it was there. 

Q. Did you see it ?—A. No; I didn’t see it. 

Q. But he told you they were not paying anything ?—A. No; he did 
not. 

Q. You said so just now, did jou not ?—A. He said there was noth¬ 
ing in it; but he said the patronage of the custom-house would be for 
us men, to whom it belonged, when Mr. Spofitbrd got in. He said he was 
a very good friend to my kind of people. I have no doubt but what he 
might have done something if Spofitbrd was successful. 

By Senator Hoae : 

Q. That who was ?—A. He said himself was. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You say that you know Seveigues was present ?—A. In the house. 

Q. You watched him, did you ?—A. I saw him. He sat directly in 
front of me. 

Q. I understood you to say that you watched him particularly, be¬ 
cause he was one of the fellows who would stand watching ?—A. Well, 
we didn't know at that time hardly who to depend upon. We had 
men there that were very shaky, you know. 

Q. I understood you to say that he was one of the stock that you did 
not rely on ?—A. We were not acquainted with one another at that 
time, and there were all kinds of bids. 

Q. There were all kinds of bids ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From all kinds of sides ?—A. I don’t know of but one side. 

Q. You don’t know of any bids from the Kellogg side ?—A. No, sir ; 

I didn’t know of any. 

Q. What ?—A. I don’t know of any. 

(,>. You never heard of any ?—A. No, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


307 

(}. There were all kinds of bids from the other side, were there ?—A. 
There was a splendid prize on the other side. 

(,>. And there was laid down before you a pile of money, of thousand 
dollar notes and five hundred dollar notes, and you did not take an^’^ of 
it A. I saw fifties, hundreds, and five hundreds. 

Q. And thousand dollars i —A. No, sir. 1 didn’t take any. It was a 
great wonder, I suppose. 

Q. Well, it was all laid out before you, and yon saw a thousand dol¬ 
lars ?—A. It was not spread out. It was in a pack. 

Q. But you could see it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it was within reach I —A. Yes, sir. Patriotism at that time 
was worth more than money. 

Q. You rated it higher at that time. Has it come down since ?—A. 
There ain’t much for a man to be patriotic about there now. 

Q. Honey would not stand as good a chance now against patriotism 
as it would then, you think ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. The patriotism was all that constrained you at that time. Do you 
not think you would take money now ?—A. AVe had some very patriotic 
men. 

Q. I am speaking of you.—A. I am inclined that way. 

Q. You say that the house was very orderly during the progress of the 
balloting for Senator, do you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And dignified ! —A. Very. 

Q. AVas it as dignified as this committee ?—A. Almost; not so agree¬ 
able, perhaps. 

Q. But just as dignified ?—A. They appeared to be on that day. 

Q. Solemn, dignified, and quiet ?—A. Yes, sir; and they were inter¬ 
ested in a very solemn proceeding. 

Q. You could have heard a pin drop between the votes, could you not ? 
—A. If it dropped heavy enough, we could. 

Q. I do not mean a rolling-pin ; I mean an ordinary pin.—A. Not an 
ordinary pin ; no. 

Q. You could have heard any sound at all between the votes ! —A. 
Any ordinary sound. 

Q. You could have heard a sound like your voice, for instance ?—A. 
You could not hear a fly walk. 

Q. But anything except that you think you probably could have heard, 
I suppose ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say many of the members kept the tally. AA^hat did they 
keep tally for ?—A. It is customary, isn't it, in an ordinary delibera¬ 
tive— 

Q. I am learning from you. It is you who are giving information ; I am 
seeking light.—A. That is what I am giving you. 

I am getting a good deal from you ; you say it is customary. Is it 
customary when there is only one man running ?—A. AA"e had two run¬ 
ning. 

Q. AVho had you running ?—A. No; we had only one. That is so. I 
was thinkiirg of something else. 

Q. You had only one man running ?—A. Yes, sir. 

And he was going to get all the votes ?—A. Yes, sir. 

AVhat did you want to keep tally for ?—A. They generally do it. 

(^. Do they generally do it when only one man is running ?—A. They 
kept tally. 

Q. You kept tally yourself ?—A. Yes, sir ; we do it to see if the clerk 
is correct, I exi)ect; if he makes a mistake, and so on. 



308 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How could be make any mistakes when they were all going to vote 
for one man ?—A. I don’t see bow be could. 

Q. How did you vote —viva voce ! Was your name called, and you just 
answered Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir 5 viva voce. 

Q. One witness testified that in tbe first instance when bis name was 
called be voted blank. Do you recollect any blank votes in tbe first in¬ 
stance ?—A. I do not recollect. 

Q. If a man wanted to vote blank under those circumstances wbat 
would be do ?—A. 1 think there was one membei’, but be changed it 
afterwards. 

Q. How did be vote blank, and bow did be announce himself as 
blank ?—A. I believe that is tbe way they vote, “bbink.” That is tbe 
expression they use, I think. 

Q. Do you recollect whether that expression was used or not ?—A. I 
think it was. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 have no doubt it was. 

Tbe Witness. And afterwards it was changed—after be came to 
speak of it. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) One man voted blank and afterwards changed 
bis vote, and you recollect that ?—A. I think such a thing was done. 

Q. That is a fact. Wbat Kennedy is this of whom you speak '?—A. 
“Levee” Kennedy. He is well known around there. 

Q. Is that a nickname, or is it bis proper name f—A. “ Levee ” Ken¬ 
nedy is a nickname. 

Q. Wbat is bis proper name?—A. John Patrick Kennedy. 

(»). Is be a man of wealth ?—A. Yes, sir; be has considerable “ bash,” 
as be calls it. 

(,). He calls it “ bash”?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^). Is it tbe same sort of “ bash ” be threw down in front of you ?—A. I 
don’t know wbat kind of “bash” be bad exactly. He said it "was not bis 
money; it was given to him to attend to that business. 

Q. He is a man who has a great deal of money of bis own, has be not ? 
—A. He told me, on tbe assembling of the legislature, that be was en¬ 
tirely out of means, and that be bad to raise money duriiig tbe summer 
on some mortgage notes; that be bad some $5,000 to settle off in a very 
few days. On tbe morning prior to tbe ninth day of tbe session of the 
legislature be showed me tbe $5,000 of notes which be bad taken up— 
$5,000 in notes—five $1,000 notes. 

Q. Five 81,000 notes?—A. Yes,sir; I think that was tbe denomination 
of them. But be bad not sold bis sugar crop. He was a very large 
sugar planter. 

Q. Do you know when be sold it ?—^V. He sold it some time along 
through tbe winter after that. 

(>). They sell sugar down there from January on, do they not ?—A. 
Yes, sir; whenever the market suits. 

Q. He bad a large sugar crop. Were you and be intimate friends?— 
A. O, yes. He bad a great many levee bonds. 

That is where be got the name “ Levee” Kennedy, is it ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

By having levee bonds ?—A. Yes, sir. He wanted to legalize them 
in that session of tbe legislature, and asked me to assist Idm. I told 
him that I bad made a canvass over tbe parish, and promised tbe peoi)le 
I w’ould not assist in any manner to legalize them ; and consequently be 
got tbe promise, so be told me, from the Kicbolls legislature—if be came 
up there and turned to be a white man, as be should do. 

Q. Is be a white man ?—A. He is an Irishman. 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


309 


Q. Did the Nicholls legislature legalize his bonds ?—A.^^No. 

(>>. They did not ! —A. They promised to do it. 

But they did not legalize his bonds ?—A. They promised to do it. 

(^>. IIow do you know ! —A. He said so. He hasn’t had any use for 
them since. 

Q. For the bonds ?—A. No; for the Nicholls government. 

He has had no use for them ?—A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Since ?—A. He says they are the most corrupt men that ever was— 
the Nicholls government was composed of. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Those bonds were issued by the Kellogg and Warmoth govern¬ 
ments, were they not ?—A. I don’t know; I expect they was. 

Q. You were all pretty hard up for money, were you not ?—A. I got 
along. What ? During the time of the session f 

Q. Yes; the first week in the session.—A. My constituents used to 
make up little contributions and send to me and my family to live on. 

Q. Except what you got from your constituents ! —A. I got along. 

Q. I mean, generally, the members were pretty hard up for money, 
were they not ?—A. There were some of them. 

Q. I mean generally.—A. Those that were a long way from home at 
first were. Some of them 1 lent little sums of money myself—that is, a 
dollar or two dollars and that way. Of course we might go weeks and 
days without a drink. 

Q. That was very hard, was it not ?—A. To anybody that is addicted 
to drinking once in a while. 

Re-examined by Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Our people were generally pretty poor, were they not ! —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you speak of your constituents making up contributions, it 
was for the i)urpose of helping you ?—A. Most of them—the colored 
ones were. 

Q. It was for the purpose of raising contributions to help you so that 
your families could be supported ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. While you withstood these inducements—sums of money offered 
by the opposition ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So you preferred to stay with the Packard government, and your 
constituents helped to support you by contributions and the little money 
you could get ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that it?—A. Yes, sir; it would not have been healthy at my 
home to have done otherwise. 

Q. Tell the committee where you live.—A. I live about three and a 
half miles from Canal street, in the city of New Orleans, opposite the 
fourth district of the city of New Orleans. 

Q. Do you refer to a portion of what is called the parish of Jefferson ? 
—A. Yes, sir; that is on the right and left bank of the city. 

Q. So that you really lived in Jett'erson in New Orleans?—A. In 
Oretna, just over the river. 

(,). You cross the ferry and come into the city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^, Now, Mr. Brown, you are a pretty prominent member of the Re¬ 
publican party, are you not ?—A. Well, I believe I am. 

You are considered a representative man in Jefferson?—A. Yes, 
sir. * 

It is a large colored parish ?—A. Yes, sir. 

A large Republican i)arish ?—A. Yes, sir. 


310 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. And you are supposed to have considerable to say about the pat¬ 
ronage of the custom-house, are you not ?—A. Yes, sir j I could have 
had it before the last election if I had wanted it. 

Q. You say you are a i)retty prominent member of the llepublican 
party and you could have had what?—A. I could have had a position 
in the custom-house at most any time. 

Q. Were you out canvassing for the member or delegate to the consti¬ 
tutional convention ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And organizing the Eepublican party ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you did not take a place in the custom-house during that 
time?—A. No; because our people were divided and I w^as electioneer¬ 
ing for the district candidate in particular, and we had the custom¬ 
house faction there, and I didn’t want to take a position in there before 
the election was over. 

Q. But you could have had one if you had wanted it, as a prominent 
man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long has General Badger been collector?—A. I believe some 
time in the winter. 

Q. Last February?—A. I don’t recollect. 

Q. He is a pretty good friend of yours ?—A. Yes, sir; for many years. 

Q. And almost any time you could have had a place, could you not ? 
—A. I never had any trouble to get a place. 

Q. After you got through with the canvass for the constitutional con¬ 
vention you were out of work, and he gave you something to do ?—A. 
He sent word by a friend of mine to come immediatel}^ after the election 
was over. 

Q. And that was after the election was over ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was the election ?—A. The 18th day of March last. 

Q. Now, I want you to tell the committee where Dickinson sat. First, 
I will ask you, was there a member of the legislature by the name of 
Dickinson ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did he sit during the voting for Senator ? 

Mr. Merrick. I do not want to object to any testimony, but I think 
that when the other side have a witness they had better exhaust him on 
the direct examination. 

Senator Kellogg. I will withdraw the question. 

Mr. Merrick. It prolongs the investigaiiou. 

The Chairman. I know there are a great many questions which are 
repeated again and again. This is a matter that "was before the com¬ 
mittee before—as to General Badger. 1 would be glad if the counsel on 
the respective sides would limit their inquiries to what is pertinent to 
the investigation. 

Senator Kellogg. I will endeavor to do so. (To the witness.) I 
want you to tell the committee wny it was that you know that Murray 
knew that Thomas was there on that day.—A." Because he could not 
help it. Murray was on the floor all the time in sight. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) I want you to tell the committee why you 
believe, or how it is you know, if you do know, that Murray must have 
known that Thomas was on the floor that day. Just tell them all about 
it.—A. He could not help it, because he was" interested all the day and 
the evening before in getting the members in, and he was interested in 
keeping them there in the morning that there should be a quorum. 
He was always passing around among us to see who was there. 

Q. Did Murray speak to Dickinson ? Did he pass between you and 
Dickinson ?—A. They were off, probably, as far as from here to that 
door to my right, I guess. [The distance indicated by the witness was 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 311 

about twelve feet.] I tbiuk, probably, standing in a group—Thomas, 
Simms, and Dickinson. 

(,>. Simms of what parish ?—A. Simms of Saint James, and Dickinson 
of Saint James. 

Q. Is Mr. Simms here?—A. Yes, sir. 

He is here in the city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

You spoke about members keeping tally ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why was there such an interest about the tally ? Was it not to 
see if there was a quorum ?—A. Yes, sir; of course it was for that pur- 
l)ose. 

Q. And the number of members was kept and tallied with a view to 
seeing if there was a quorum voting?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You spoke of being down to Mr. Cavanac’s otiice, and you stopped. 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You said you considered, &c. Now, I want you to tell what you 
did consider, and what they wanted you to make that affidavit for.—A. 
I considered that they wanted me to swear to an affidavit- 

Mr. Merrick. Wait a moment. 

Senator Kellogg. I submit to the committee- 

Senator Cameron. Let him state what occurred. 

Mr. Merrick. Let him state all that occurred. 

The Witness. I considered- 

jMr. Merrick. No matter as to that. 

Senator Cameron. State the fact as near as you can. 

The Witness. It took place at Mr. Cavanac’s office. Mr. Cavanac 
asked me what I knew about the matter. I told him I didn’t know 
hardly. He ahvays said that he knew what I kuowed, and there was 
plenty of others wTio knew the same, and were going on to Washington, 
and ‘‘ you had better hurry up and make me,” get ready.” 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Did he say anything about handwriting, 
&c. ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tell the committee what he said.—A. He said that Kellogg was 
bound to go; that the handwriting was on the wall. 

Mr. Merrick. He testified to that. 

The Witness. That ]Mr. Spottbrd would be seated, and that the pat¬ 
ronage in the custom-house belonged to such men as myself, and we 
were entitled to it, and we would get it. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Now, I willaskyou this: They asked you 
to make au affidavit, did they ?—A. Yes, sir; Mr. Cavanac askeil me if 
1 would make an affidavit. 

(,>. Did 3^011 understand what they wanted you to make au affidavit 
about ? 

Mr. Merrick. State what occurred, not what you understood. 

Senator Kellogg. You are drawing a strict rule of law, after having 
asked wTiat the witness considered. 

Mr. Merrick. He was Mr. Kellogg’s witness. 

Senator Cameron. You went into the conversation with Cavanac. 

Mr. Merrick. I want the whole of it. Is there any objection to that ? 

Senator Cameron. No ; but 3^011 w’ere not uj)ou cross-examination, so 
far as that particular matter was concerned, because it had not been 
gone into on the direct examination. 

Mr. Merrick. Still, it was a matter very pertinent to the case; and 
anything that is pertinent to the case is legitimate cross examination. 

Senator Cameron. It is not cross-examination. 

Senator Hoar. I do not understand that there is any dispute between 
Mr. Merrick and Senator Kellogg, who is examining the witness, as to 




312 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


the right of Senator Kellogg to ask everything that occurred. iMr. Mer¬ 
rick’s objection is as to Senator Kellogg’s inquiry of what the witness 
considered or understood was the result of the interview. It seems to 
me the right to put that question depends upon whether Mr. Merrick put 
any question which was in substance that •, whether he had not himself, 
in examining the witness, asked him what he considered or understood 
was Mr. Cavanac’s desire. If he did, then Senator Kellogg would have 
a right to examine him. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not think that I did ; but even if I did, if I put 
an improper question, and they did not choose to object to it, they can¬ 
not follow it up. 

Senator Hoar. They can explain the answer. 

Mr. Merrick. I may offer illegal testimony. That does not authorize 
its rebuttal. 

Senator Hoar. In cross-examining the witness in regard to his con¬ 
duct, it would not be an improper question for the party cross-examining 
him to inquire what he understood. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not remember, really, what I said. 

The Chairman. I was not here at the time. I have felt disposed, as 
there were eminent counsel here to conduct the examination of the wit¬ 
nesses, to leave it entirely in their hands, knowing that their large expe¬ 
rience made them familiar with the proper mode of examining witnesses. 
In legislative inquiries of this kind there is and always has been some 
latitude, and too much latitude, in my opinion. 

Senator Hoar. What we object to now is longtitude. 

The Chairman. I do not know that you can limit the inquiry by the 
rules that are recognized in courts. 

Senator Kellogg. I understood Mr. Merrick to ask you this question: 
“What did you understand they wanted you to testify to V' Kow (to 
the witness) did you not understand they wanted you to testify to- 

Mr. Merrick. Wait a moment. 

The Chairman. Is it not apparent that if the witness gives his infer¬ 
ence from facts, that is not testimony that would weigh f It is simply 
a conclusion in the witness’s mind as to these facts. It may be a correct 
conclusion or an erroneous conclusion. 

Mr. Merrick. He has answered the question, and I am perfectly 
willing to let it stand—that he went to Cavanac’s office (Mr. Kellogg 
has got it developed)—understanding that the affidavit was in reference 
to bribery, and that he talked with Cavanac throughout, understanding 
that to be the condition of things. 

Senator Cameron. The witness has not yet said that he went to 
Cavanac’s office understanding that Cavanac wanted him to make such 
an affidavit. 

Mr. Merrick. I was conceding all that the other side wanted. 

Senator Kellogg. I said that Mr. Merrick asked the witness so and 
so. 

Senator Hoar. Suppose you put the question now. 

Senator Kellogg. My question is, what you considered they wanted 
you to swear to, and why 

Mr. Merrick. Very well; let him answer the question. 

The Witness. What do I consider they wanted me to swear to ? 

Mr. Merrick. What did you understand at that time is, as I under¬ 
stand it, the question. 

The Witness. That they wanted me to swear to an affidavit stating 
that I had received, or some one of the members of the Packard legisla¬ 
ture, $250 to vote for Kellogg. That is what I understood they wanted. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 313 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Why did you think they wanted you to- 

]\Ir. Merrick. I object now. That question is answered. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Did they tell you so ? 

^Ir. Merrick. Wait a moment. O, you ask what they told him. 

A. :My frequent conversations with Murray first taught me what was 
wanted. 

(^>. (By Senator Kellogg.) Did Murray tell you that he was working 
with Cavanac to get up this evidence?—A. O, yesj he said he was 
going to remove you. 

Q. Bound to remove me, and that they were going to get up evidence 
to do it ? 

Mr. Merrick. He has not stated that. He said Murray told him 
he was bound to remove you. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Did you not say that ?—A. He said he was 
bound to remove Kellogg. 

How f—A. By proving there was not a quorum in the legislature, 
and by proving bribery. 

Q. They wanted you to make an affidavit to help out on that, did 
they ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Did Murray say so ? 

Senator Kellogg. That is what he says. 

The Witness. That didn’t happen in Mr. Cavanac’s office, though. 

Senator Kellogg. What is that ? 

The Witness. 1 am telling Mr. Merrick it didn't happen in ^Ir. Cav- 
anac's office—that conversation. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) I want you to answer a question in reference 
to an inquiry that Mr. Kellogg made, and your statement. You said it 
would not have been “ healthy” for you to have gone over to the Nicholls 
legislature, or something to that effect—healthy” for you “at home.” I 
speak now of 1877, and not of the entire time at all. Why would it not 
have been healthy for you at home among your constituents at that 
time ?—A. 1 think they would have taken my life, or probably mobbed 
me, for doing such a thing as that. 

Q. You think they would ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How do you know you could have got an appointment in the cus¬ 
tom-house at any time ?—A. Because 1 was aware of that fact. 

Q. You were aware of that fact, and you are willing to swear that you 
could ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The election terminated on the 20th of March, or 17th, diditnot ?— 
A. The 18th. 

Q. The canvass terminated on the 17th or ISth of March ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And you did not get an appointment until after the 1st of May ?— 
. . 1 could not have taken it if 1 had wanted it. 

Q. I only ask the fact, that you did not get it until after the 1st of 
May. How long had you been in Yew Orleans at the time you had this 
talk with Murray on the 1st of May ?—A. Almost every day in the city. 

Q. Where did you live ?—A. In Gretna, a portion of Jefferson. 

Q. Across the river ?—A. Across; opposite the fourth district of New 
Orleans. 

Q. You say you could not have taken it. Were you notified that you 
could have liad it i>rior to the time that you did take it ?—A. Yes, sir; 
I was sent for to come down there iirior to the election, and when the 
election was over 1 was notified to come. 


314 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. When were you notified !—A. i sent them word back that I was 
busy in the district court j that I didn’t have time then. 

Q. Who notified you ?—A. A friend of mine. 

Q. Who !—A. A gentleman named Mr. Kemp, I believe. 

Q. You said you believe. Are you certain he was the man ?—A. I 
believe he was the man who left word at my house. 

Q. Who is he; is he in the custom-house!—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. What does he do !—A. He lives in Gretna there. 

Q. Was he helping you to get this appointment!—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. AVhat had he to do with it!—A. He is a friend of mine; at least, 
he is an acquaintance of mine. 

Q. He has no connection with the customhouse!—A. Kot that I 
know of. 

Q. Then you were not officially notified until after the 1st of May; 
and as soon as you were notified you could get a position you took it, 
did you !—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. How long was it before you took it!—A. It must have been some 
fifteen or twenty days, because I sent word that I didn’t have time, 
because I had some work to attend to around the courts. 

Q. That was when Kemp notified you. Kemp had nothing to do 
with the custom-house, you say !—A. isot as I know of. I don’t know 
all who have. 

Q. But after the 1st of May, who notified you that you could have 
that place !—A. There was a friend of mine told me to go down and re¬ 
port; that if I didn’t he thought the place would not be kept open any 
longer for me. 

Q. Who was your friend !—A. I forget which one of them it was. 

Q. Tell all who it could probably have been.—A. They are numerous. 

Q. Give us a list of them.—A. I think it was Mr. Stamps, if I am not 
mistaken. 

Q. What is his first name !—A. Toley Stamps. 

Q. When did he tell you !—A. I think he sent me a little note telling 
me that; that there was no use in my delaying any longer; that if I 
wanted the position I had better go, or I would not be able to get it. 

Q. When was that!—A. That was, I think, about the last part of 
April. 

Q. Who notified you again after the 1st of May !—A. Kobody. I went 
down there, and went in and saw the collector, and he told me he was 
very glad that I had come, because he would not have kept the imsition 
open any longer; that he desired, of course, to see the parish of Jeffer¬ 
son have a representative in there ; that it hadn’t had for a great many 
years, he was informed; and that since he had been there he had been 
intending to give it one, and that he had expected to give it to me, and 
he was glad I had come; that he would not have .kept it open any 
longer; that he thought he had done the parish justice by keeping the 
l)osition open ; that it should have some one in there. 

Q. Hid you tell him then about your conversation with ^Murray and 
Cavanac !—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not tell him !—A. No, sir; that was all that was said. I 
went immediately out. I was not two minutes in there. 

Q. What department are you in in the custom-house !—A. I am in the 
ganger’s department. 

Q. When did you go to work!—A. I don’t know. I think it was 
about the 16th or 17th of May. 

Q. Not earlier than that!—A. I don’t think I did. I didn’t want to 
go to work at that time. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 315 

No mattor about what you wanted. Have you not drawn some 
salary ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How much have you drawn ?—A. I drawed, I believe, 832.95. 

Q. When did you leave New Orleans f What day did you leave on ?— 
A. Sunday. 

Q. Sunday nip:ht ?—A. Sunday nifrht. 

Q. Y’our monthly pay was 850 ?—A. Yes, sir; I can ado d to lose it. 

O. Lose what ?—A. Lose the per diem. 

Q. What per diem ? 1 don’t w’aut you to lose anytiiing. I am not 

desiring- to lay a tbun<lation for you to lose anything. I only want to 
know how much you make.—A. I know. J can afford to lose that, and 
more too. 

Q. You say to Mr. Kellogg that Murray ought to have known who 
was there ?—A. He was always very attentive to the members. 

(^. He was sergeant-at-arms, was he not; it was his business to look 
around ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He would be more likely to know who were there than anybody 
else ? Following out Mr. Kellogg’s examination, would he not have 
been more likely than anybody else to know who was in there?—A. No; 
I think tlie clerk of the house would have been more apt to know. 

Q. Do you know whether Murray w-as sent out for absent members 
that day or not ?—A. He had orders, but I suppose he sent his depu¬ 
ties; I don’t know whether he went in person. 

Q. He had orders that day, had he ?—A. I think he had. 

Q. You say to Mr. Kellogg that Oavanac asked you what you knew, 
and you told him that you didn’t know. Is that correct—“ 1 don’t know 
what I knew” ?—A. That is about it, I guess. 

Q. That is about it ?—A. I told him I didn’t hardly know. Well, he 
said he knew what I knew, and there w'as plenty of others that knowed it. 

Q. And you understood each other at that time, did you ?—A. 1 didn’t 
know what he had reference to. 

Q. I thought you said just now- A. But I expect that was what 

he meant, because he didn’t talk to me in the same language that he 
talked to Mr. Murray—that Mr. Murray had talked to me. Mr. Mur¬ 
ray, as the saying is, he talked “ business” to me. 

Q. Did Mr. Murray say to you that they were going to turn Kellogg 
out on the ground of a short quorum and bribery, and he wanted you 
to make an affidavit to help that out?—A. He asked me if I would; 
yes, sir. 

Q. What did be ask you, and what was his language ? Mr. Kel¬ 
logg has put some words into your testimony which you did not use in 
your first testimony—if I am not doing you injustice. It may affect it 
a little. What did Murray say about your affidavit ?—A. Murray never 
was particular in asking me or exacting from me to make an affidavit, 
but he was very particular in always stating to me. when we would 
meet, that he -was glad we met; and he would talk to me, and he said he 
would like for me to go and see ^Ir. Cavanac, and after several conver¬ 
sations of that kind I told him 1 would walk down. 

Q. Had you not endeavored to ]>roducean impression on ^lurray that 
you had received money, without telling him tffe fact that you had ?—A. 
No, sir; I don’t think Mr. Murray thinks that I took any money. 

(b 1 <lid not ask you that. Had you not endeavored to produce the 
impression on his mind that you had ?—A. No, sir. 

(b You had not told him that you had not ?—A. No, sir. 

(b He sai<l he understood that you had, did he not ?—A. No, sir. 



316 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. lie did uot say that!—A. Mr. Murray would not say that to me. 

Q. He would not ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He did not say it to you !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did not Murray tell you that he did not believe the broken quo¬ 
rum could be established, although there was such a thing on foot ?—A. 
I don’t recollect that he did. Probably he might have said such a 
thing, but I don’t recollect it. 

Q. Probably he might have said such a thing?—A. Yes, sir; but I 
do not recollect it. 

EXAMINATION OF EICHAPD SIMMS. 

Eichard Simms (colored), a witness called by the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. Were you a member of the house of representatives of the 
Packard legislature in 1877?—Answer. Yes, sir; I was a member. 

Q. When did you first attend the meeting of that body in 1877 ?—A. 
On the first day of the session. 

Q. State whether your attendance on that body was continuous from 
that time up to the lOth, the day of the election of Senator.—A. Yes, 
sir; I attended regularly. I don’t believe I missed—in the first month 
I attended the whole month—I only missed one or two days. 

Q. What parish were you a representative from ?—A. The parish of 
Saint James. 

Q. Where is that; on the river?—A. On the river. 

Q. Above or below the city ?—A. Above the city ; 66 miles above it. 

Q. Is there another representative from that parish besides yourself? 
—A. Two others were from that parish. 

Q. Who were the other two?—A. Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Como. 

Q. State whether they also were continuous in their attendance up to 
the election of Senator.—A. They were; every day, I think. If they 
missed it was not more than one or two days. 

Q. Were you present at the election cf Senator?—A. I was. 

Q. Do you remember what time they began to ballot ? About what 
time in the day was it ?—A. Something after 12, I think. 

Q. Do you know Samuel Thomas, from Bossier?—A. Ido. 

Q. Did he die afterwards?—A. Yes; I heard of it. Not as I know of 
personally. I heard that he died. 

Q. When did he die, according to what you heard ?—A. After the 
session was over. Some time during the summer after the session. 

Q. How long did he continue to be with you there during the session 
after the 10th of January, the day of that Senatorial election ?—A. He 
was there pretty nearly every day. 

Q. Do you know whether he was there on the day of the election?— 
A. Yes, sir; he was. 

Q. Is there any fact that enables you to answer, ‘‘Yes, sir; he was”? 
—A. Just before the house was called to order the mail-carrier gave 
me a letter that came from my wife. Mr. Dickinson, my colleague, was 
sitting right by; in fact he had not gone to his seat, but sitting right 
behind me; and Thomas, of Bossier, came up. Just before the house was 
called to order I had got this letter from my wife. I had not long come in 
myself. Mr. Dickinson was there long before me. We boarded at the 
same boarding-house, and he left before I did that morning. When we 
got there to the house I had got a letter from my wife. I was sitting 





SPOFFORD AS. KELLOGG. 


317 


there reading it, and Mr. Thomas, of Bossier, passed by my desk as 
though he was going into the speaker’s loom. My desk was right by 
the door leading to the speaker’s loom. Mr. Dickinson said, “ Mr. 
Thomas, are yon going up” (to some school where his daughter was) 
“on Sunday?” Thomas says, “Yes; I believe 1 will.” Dickinson says, 
“I want to go up at the same time. We will go to Carrollton. Where 
shall we meet?” and they continued talking. I didn't pa}’any more 
attention to them. 

AVas that before or after the balloting?—A. Just before the 
ballot. 

Q. So that you heard a conversation between Dickinson and Thomas 
about going out to see their friends ?—A. Going up to a school where 
Thomas’s daughter was. Dickinson was going up to Carroltou above. 
And at the same time I was reading the letter Air. Alurray, sergeant-at- 
arms, came along, and he asked me who I got that letter from, and I said 
from my wife. He asked me how they were, and I said they were well. 
He was acquainted with my folks, because he was in the parish once. He 
used to live there. 

AVas Thomas by at the time Murray came up and said that to you ? 
AA"as he there still, or had he gone away ?—A. Yes, sir; he was right 
there; walking right in front of me. 

Q- Did Thomas leave the hall of the house after that talk before the 
vote ?—A. I don’t think he did. 

(^. How much time elapsed between that talk and the vote or the 
beginning of the vote ?—A. I could not tell; but it was not very long 
afterwards. I am positive it was not very long, because I had only read 
the letter I had got from my wife and written two other very short 
letters. 

Q. Do you know whether Thomas voted or not for Senator ?—A. Y^es, 
sir. 

Q. Did you hear him vote ?—A. I heard him vote, and I heard him 
speak to Mr. Dickinson afterwards about it. Air. Thomas and Air. Dick¬ 
inson were good friends, and they spoke about it afterwards. 

Q. Spoke about what ?—A. About the vote. 

Q. AVhat did they say about the vote ?—A. Air. Dickinson asked Air. 
Thomas, why some members said they were not going to vote for Air. 
Kellogg, but by AA'armoth talking to them they voted right along. 

Q. AA'here was that talk?—A. That talk was at the State-house, shortly 
after the adjournment. 

Q. AA"as it in the hall ?—A. Yes, sir; it was in the hall; that was 
after the vote was taken. AJyself—1 was a Warmoth man at the time, 
and Governor AVarmoth asked me, “ VA^ell, we have agreed ^that Air. 
Kellogg shall be elected unanimous, and 1 ask my friends to vote for 
him”; and therefore 1 voted for Air. Kellogg. 

Q. Do you know Seveignes, the member who was also a witness here ? 
—A. Y'es, sir. • 

(,). Have you seen him since he came here ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^). Do you know whether he voted on that day for Kellogg or not?— 
A. 1 think he did. 

(}. Do you know that he was there ?—A. Yes, sir, because his desk 
was right in front of mine. 

Y'ou are positive about his being there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

i^>. Are you sure about his voting ?—A. 1 am not positive whether he 
voted, but 1 am sure he was there. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Alurray, the witness here ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

AVas he sergeant at arms ?—A. Yes, sir. 


318 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you ever show him any money that you ^:ot during that ses¬ 
sion—I mean any money that you had ?—A. During the session of the 
legislature 

Q. During that session.—A. No, sir j I never did. It is untrue if any 
one says so. 

Q. Did you ever show him any money, and say to him that you had 
got it for voting for Kellogg, or any thing of that kind ?—A. I never 
did. 

Q. Did you ever show him any money during that session ?—A. I 
never showed him any. He might have seen me with a dollar or fifty 
cents, or something, because I remember treating, and me and him took 
a drink together once or twice. 

Q. So that if he swore that you showed him money, and said you got 
it lor voting for Kellogg, or anything of kind, it is not true ?—A. It is 
not true. 

Q. Did you carry any money with you at that time, during the ses- 
sion f—A. No, sir; when I first went to the city I went to the city with 
$100 ; and my reason for not carrying it in my pocket—I left it at the 
house where I was boarding with the landlady—the conservatives at 
that time in the city—shortly after the election of the Senator the streets 
was crowded all the time with armed men; and it was said they searched 
the pockets of men on the streets and taken away^ money and revolvers 
if they had any. That is the reason why I did not carry any more than 
a dollar or fifty cents. . I remember once I had five dollars in my pocket. 

Q. Never higher than that, and it was not safe to carry it ?—A. That 
is the reason I did not carry it. 

Q. What is your business; what do you follow ?—A. Where I am 
living I am farming—sugar, corn, and potatoes. I raise sugar. 

Q. Was there ever anybody who did it for Kellogg, or did Kellogg 
himself ever otter or hint any pay for your voting for him?—A. No, sir. 
As I said a few minutes ago, I was a Warmoth man, and Governor 
Warmoth told me the day—the morning before the ballot was taken, 
“ I advise all my friends to vote for Kellogg. We have come to the 
conclusion to make a united thing of this and all vote together.” 

Q. Did you hear of any bribery or any attempt at bribery before, 
about the time that Pinchback made that speech about it ?—A." No, sir; 

I was boarding above the Odd-Fellows’ Hall, and I used to pass every 
morning; and some of the Democrats were there that I was acquainted 
with, and they said to me, ‘‘ They say you all have received money.” 

Q. Was that at the Nicholls legislature ?—A. That was above—that 
was at the Nicholls legislature. Several of them—at least they were 
not speaking to me directi 3 '. I don’t know them personally; but Mr. 
Dickinson had been an old member of the legislature, and he was per¬ 
sonally acquainted with them; and me and him being there, they spoke 
to him more, and I heard them. That was the first time I heard of bri¬ 
bery. 

Q. That was the first time you heard of bribery among the members, 
in your hearing?—A. Yes, sir; in my hearing. 

Q. That was not among the members ?—A. No, sir; that was pass¬ 
ing along. 

(}. Did you see Murray since you came here ?—A. To the city ? 

Q. Yes.—A. To the city of Washington ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Did you ask him how he came to swear about 3 ’our showing him 
money ?—A. Yes, sir; I asked him why did he say that I showed him 
money and told him it was for voting for Mr. Kellogg. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


319 


Q. Hold on ; yoit will have to speak a little louder. Now go on and 
tell the story.—A. Since I have been here I asked him why he should 
say that I had received money for voting for Kellogg and that I showed 
it to him. He told me that he said so for the simple reason that by say¬ 
ing that it brought me here to Washington. He didn’t remember 
whether I showed him any money or not. That is what he told me. 
That is his reply when 1 asked him why he said so. 

He said that in order to bring you to Washington ?—A. He said 
that ill saying so it brought me to Washington, and he didn’t know 
whether 1 showed him any money or not. 

(>). Was there anything said by Murray about Murray’s thinking you 
could not be got here in time to testify for this session ?—A. He said to 
me that he didn’t think they would send way up there after me, but he 
had spoken to a very prominent Democrat who was a friend of mine in 
the parish, who is a lawyer now. He said there had been some talk 
with him in relation to getting me to come and testify in behalf of Mr. 
Spotlbrd ; that Mr. Post said he didn’t think I would testify or make an 
affidavit. His answer was that he didn’t thought I would make an affi. 
davit. 

(^. Did Murray pretend in this talk with you that you had showed 
him money in fact ?—A. No, sir: because he knowed it was not so. 
He didn’t pretend to me that it was. 

Q. 1 believe that 1 asked you, but if I did not I will ask you now. 
Do you know of any money being offered or any bribe of any sort to 
anybody, or did you hear of any bribe of any sort being offered to any¬ 
body, before that election ?—A. Before what election ? 

Q. The vote for Mr. Kellogg.—A. No, sir 5 I did not hear of any. I 
even was going to vote for Governor Warmoth on principle if I had 
voted for anybody. It was not a question of monej". 1 didn’t hear any. 
I was a new member of the legislature, and I didn’t know how these 
things had been managed, and I didn’t see any money. I was in the 
Bepublican caucus all the time, and I didn’t hear of anj" money being 
used there. If it was used there I didn’t know it. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You say you were i the Kepublicau caucus all the time I —A. Yes^ 
sir. 

Q. How long did that caucus sit.’—A. Well, it meets-at 10 o’clock 
sometimes, and sits until half past ten. Of course 1 could not tell you 
how long every day it sat. 

Q. But it sat every day 1 ’—A. Not every day. 

Q. Did it sit at night ’—A. During the session they did. 

Q. I mean the first week of the session ?—A. Yes; they sat at night. 

Sitting all the time f Did Mr. Kellogg make any speech before 
the caucus ?—A. No, sirj I don't remember Mr. Kellogg making a 
speech before the caucus. 

Q. Do you remember his being before the caucus at all ?—A. No, sir; 
I do not remember it. Sometimes I would be a little late, you know, iu 
the caucus. I didn’t get in until late. 

(^). You say you never showed Murray any money ?—A. No, sir. 

(}. Are you positive you did not !—A. l am positive 1 did not. 

(j). And you never got any money ?—A. I never got a dollar. 

(J. For voting for Kellogg .’—A. No, sir. 

Do you hold any office at this time ?—A. Yes, sir; I was elected 
in this last election a member of the police jury in my parish. They re¬ 
signed and I was elected. 


320 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. To wbat ?—A. To the police jury ; that is all; ‘that is io the parish 
where I lived. I got all the votes that were cast. 

Q. You say that you and Dickinson, on one occasion, had a conversa¬ 
tion with some parties about bribery and money ?—A. I say that in 
passing the Odd-Fellows’ Hall, where the Democrats had been, after tlie 
election of Mr. Kellogg, some gentlemen that I don’t know very well 
spoke to Mr. Dickinson, because they knowed him better. I had just 
been- 

Q. Was Dickinson a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What day was that ?—A. I don’t know what day it was. 

Q. Was it the day after the election ?—A. It was about three or four 
days after the election. 

Q. Three or four days after the election !—A. 1 think—I am not pos¬ 
itive now exactly how long it was after the election, but I know it was 
some days after the election. It might have been a week. 

Q. You do not know who those parties were?—A. Ko, sir; I don’t 
know really who they were. 

Q. What did they say ?—A. They said, ‘‘ Well, you fellows down there 
got $250 apiece to vote for Kellogg.” I answered to one of them, I 
said, “ Well, sir, I don’t know who says so, and I don’t know you very 
well, but,” I said, in the first place, I want to say that I didn’t get a 
cent.” 

Q. What did Dickinson say ?—A. Mr. Dickinson laughed at that, and 
said it was not true. 

Q. Have you and Dickinson had any conversation upon that sub¬ 
ject ?—A. Of what was said ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Yes, sir; right there, shortly after we left them, I said, 

If the Democrats get up anything on the Kepnblicans they want to let 
it go broadcast to the world that we got money.” 

Q. Had you and Dickinson-A. Let me answer. 

Q. Go on.—A. He said, “You don’t know as well as I do. This is 
your first term of the legislature.” He said, “ You mustn’t listen to 
everything you hear.” I got very angry at the time with the fellow— 
with the man; and I spoke very rough to him. 

Q. Have you and Dickinson had any conversation in the last four or 
five months on this subject ?—A. On the subject of the Senator ? 

Q. On the subject of receiving money ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Have you had any talk at all?—A. He lives a great ways from 
me. 

Q. Has he not been up to your parish ?—A. He came after me. 

Q. When ?—A. He came last Friday" night in the parish where I lived. 
He said that “You have a bad reputation in Washington. They say 
jMurray says you got money.” “What must be done with Murray ?” I 
said. “ I will answer Mr. Murray through the papers,” I say, “orwhatever 
can be done or said, I will be perfectly willing to go to tell the truth.” 
I said, “ I shall certainly not let anything be said that is not so.” Then 
he said to me, “I don’t know whether you will be summoned to Wash¬ 
ington or not; but if you should not be summoned, won’t you make an 
affidavit denying these facts. It would be just as well as to put it in the 
papers. Let the affidavit go to Washington.” I said, “Ko, I would go 
to the city, if necessary, and then I will find all the truth about it.” 

Q. Did Dickinson ever tell you that he had received any money, and 
that he knew that you and he had both received money ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. He did not tell you in that conversation that he had received it, 
and that you knew that both you and he had received money ?—A. Ko, 
sir. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


321 


(»>. You are sure he did not tell you that ?—A. Shortly after this 
Democrat spoke to Mr. Dickinson at the Odd-Fellows’ Hall—shortly 
after we left—Mr. Dickinson bein^ an older member than me, I asked 
him distinctly then, says I, “Dickinson, you know more about this thing 
than I do. Was there any money paid V’ He said, “Xo; he didn’t know 
of a cent or a dollar.” The only thing he got was after the election. He 
said he got a treat. After the election of Senator Kellogg he got a 
treat; and 1 didn’t get none of that, because 1 left and went home. 

(»>. You say you have seen Murray since you have been here, and that 
Murray told you his stating that you had shown him money brought you 
on here ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q, Is that what he said ?—A. He said that by his stating so it brought 
me on to Washington. 

Q. You also state that he stated that he did not know whether you 
had shown him any money or notf—A. Ko; he said that he did not 
know whether I had shown him any money or not. 

Q. Is that your conversation with Murray!—A. Yes, sir; he said to 
me that he did not know whether I had shown him any money or not. 

Q. Did not Murray say to you that you had shown him money, and 
you knew itf—A. No, sir; he didn’t say that to me. 

Q. He did not say that to you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Or anything like it ?—A. The only thing he said was what I said 
before. 

Q. That is all he said—A. That is all he said about seeing money. 

Q. Was any person present at that conversation between you and 
Murray ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you had more than one conversation with him?—A. We 
have had several conversations, as we are all stopping at the same 
boarding-house. 

Q. Was that the purport of all your conversations about money mat¬ 
ters ?—No, sir; we have got other things. 

Q. I mean about the money, the bribery ?—A. Yes, sir; it was. 

Q. That was all ?—A. He asked me what I would say when I took 
the stand in relation to it. 

Q. You told him you did not have it, and you did not show it to him ? 
—A. He knew what I was going to say. 

Q. Did you not tell him that you had shown it to him ?—A. No, sir; 
and he didn’t say that. 

Q. He did not ?—A. No, sir. 

Or anything of that kind ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. At that election for Senator, was that proceeding orderly and 
quiet ?—A. It was very quiet there until about two weeks ; very quiet 
for about two weeks. 

Senator Cameron. He means on the day that Senator Kellogg was 
elected. 

The Witness. O, yes; from the time the house was organized until 
two weeks afterward. 

(By Mr. Merrick.) What is that ?—A. I say the house kept very 
quiet from the day it was organized until about two weeks after¬ 
wards, or maybe a little longer. 

Q. On the day of the election it was a very quiet assembly at the 
time of the balloting ?—Yes, sir; very quiet. 

Q. And was dignified and orderly ?—A. Very quiet. 

Q. As quiet as this room is now ?—A. It might have been as quiet as 
this room or it might not have been. 

21 s K 


322 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Could you hear everything distinctly?—A. Some things might 
have been said that I could not hear. 

Q. Were they throwing paper balls at each other ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And shoving and knocking around ?—A. No, sir. Paper balls was 
not thrown around at that occasion 5 but paper balls were thrown when 
the Democrats and us were together. The Democrats threw paper 
balls. They always do at the time when we adjourn. 

Q. At this particular session when the election of Mr. Kellogg took 
place were they not uproarious and disorderly and throwing paper 
balls at each other?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nothing of that kind?—A. No, sir. 

Q. The election was as quiet and dignified as this committee?—A. 
Well, they may not have been as dignified as this committee. 

Q. Just as quiet ?—A. They may not have been as quiet as this com¬ 
mittee. 

Q. Was it noisy ?—A. It was not noisy. It was a peaceable audience. 
Every member seemed to be attending to his business. There was some 
talking there j but I could not say that they made more noise than this 
committee or that it was less. 

Q. You could not say that it was more or less ?—A. I know it was 
kept pretty proper, as it should have been kept. 

Q. Where were you when you first heard that Murray had made this 
statement here in Washington City ?—A. That was on last Friday night, 
about two or half past two o’clock. I keep night school after my labor 
of the day, and I had just closed up at twelve o’clock, and had writ a 
letter to Philadelphia to my sister; and I had just gone to bed and laid 
down. My father called me and said, Get up, a man is here to see 
you.” I said, “ Wait a minute, whoever you are.” My wife was sick ; 
and he said, “ You had better get up and see who it was.” I didn’t 
think it was anybody from the city or a stranger, so I wanted father to 
tell them they had better call again. He said, “No; you had better 
get up. It will surprise you.” I got up, and there was the senator, or 
he was a senator, from my district before; and he said this to me, 
“ This kind of talk will not do, and you ought to say something in re¬ 
lation to it.” I said, “ It is strange”- 

Q. I do not care about all that. It is not important. This was on Fri¬ 
day night?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where was that?—A. In the parish of Saint James, where I live. 

Q. Where did you live ; in the town or country ?—A. In the country. 

Q. How far from the town ?—A. Sixty-six miles. 

Q. From any town ?—A. Sixty-six miles from the city of New Orleans 
and about 12 miles from a little town called Donaldsonville. 

Q. That is near Bayou Sara ?—A. It is below Bayou Sara. They 
come up on a mail-boat. 

Q. How many miles from Donaldsonville?—A. About twelve, I 
think. 

Q. Up or down ?—A. It is below Donaldsonville. 

Q. Is it near General Butler’s residence ?—A. I don’t know where he 
lives. 

Q. Is there a telegraph at Donaldsonville ?—A. I don’t think there is. 

Q. Who was it that told you that Murray had so stated here in Wash¬ 
ington ?—A. It was Mr. Dickinson, who used to be my colleague in the 
legislature. 

Q. Where did he come from that day ?—A. He came from the city. 

Q. From New Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long does it take to come from New Orleans to your place ?— 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 323 

A. He cau leave at five o’clock and sometimes get there at two. It de¬ 
pends upon how long the boat stops. 

Q. What time did he get there at your place ?—A. I think it was 
nearly two or half past two or half past one; I am not certain. 

Q. He left New Orleans on that evening f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Friday evening ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you how he had learned these things ?—A. I asked 
him how he found it out, and I think he said it was in the papers, if I 
am not mistaken. I disremember how it was. 

Q. He said it was in the papers ?—A. I think he said so. I am not 
positive. 

Q. Did he show you the papers ?—A. No, sir j my brother was in the 
city. 

Q. Had he not been up to see you before that time?—A. No, sir; I 
hadn^t seen him since he had been elected to the constitutional conven¬ 
tion. Mr. Dickinson was a member of the constitutional convention. 

Q. You are positive that was Friday night, are you!—A. Yes, sir; I 
am satisfied it was Friday night. ^ 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Are you the owner of any property?—A. No, sir; no more than 
horses, buggy, and mules. I am leasing land from a large planter. Me 
and my father are in partnership. AVe have a lease for several years. 

Q. How much laud do you and your father work ?—A. We are work¬ 
ing fifty, or maybe a little more. We lease them from a planter named 
J. D. Morrison. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. AVhen were you summoned?—A. I was summoned on Sunday eve¬ 
ning. 

Q. Last Sunday ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where were you; at home ?—A. No, sir; I was in the city. 1 had 
gone to the city to answer through the city papers there. We have no 
paper up in the country. I didn’t know really that I had to go to Wash¬ 
ington, because I came" all unprepared. I didn’t bring any clothes, only 
a suit, and that I got wet on the boat. I had to take the cars to go 
down to the city then. When I got to the city on Sunday evening I 
found out I was summoned. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Who met you when you got here ?—A. In the city ? 

Q. At the cars?—A. No one met me. 

Q. You came on with the other witnesses?—A. Yes, sir; I thiik 
there was some one before me or a little after, some of them. 

EXAMINATION OF JOSEPH E. WATSON. 

JosErn E. Watson (colored), called by the sitting member, swoin 
and examined. 

By Mr. Siiellaeager : 

(Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. At the present time I am 
residing at New Orleans. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Thomas Murray ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

0. State whether you were in the State-house, where the Packard 
legislature assembled. AVhether you were there on the tenth of Jan¬ 
uary, 1877, the day that Kellogg was elected Senator.—A. I was not. 



324 


SPOFFORD Yfi. KELLOGG. 


Q. You were not!—A. No, sir. 

Q. AVhat were you doing that day!—A. I was a letter carrier in the 
New Orleans post-office; I was on that day a letter-carrier. 

Q. Do you know Tom Murray !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Tom Murray send you on that day to the desk of Thomas to 
write a letter !—A. No, sir; I never saw him on that day. I never saw 
him during the entire month of January. 

Q. Did you on that day occupy Thomas’s seat or any other seat in the 
house of representatives while Kellogg was being elected!—A. None 
whatever. 

Q. Did you on that day, or any other day, answer for Thomas, and 
vote for him for Kellogg or for anybody !—A. I did not. 

Q. You never did !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever tell Murray that you had done so!—A. No, sir; I 
never told him so. 

Q. How do you know that on that tenth of January, 1877, you were 
engaged in carrying letters! How do you fix the fact on that day!— 
A. I know that on the 1st of January, 1877, I commenced my duties 
as a letter-carrier, and that I performed my duty daily there in the 
post-office without intermission during the entire month; in fact, until 
April, when I resigned the position. I did not have leave of absence. 
1 know that we were required to report there at half past six in the 
morning, and we remained there until at least five or six in the evening, 
and then we reported again for night duty at eight o’clock, and re¬ 
mained until nine, or half past, in making night collections, and it was, 
therefore, utterly impossible for me to have been at the State-house. In 
fact, that portion of the city in which I carried letters is known as the 
44th district; it commences at Thalia street and ends at Jackson, and 
from Camp to Saint Charles. That is on the other side of Canal street— 
that is, the lower side of Canal street. 

Q. Down the river!—A. Yes, sir; and the State-house is situated 
beyond Canal street—the upper portion ; I never had occasion to go in 
that portion of the city at all; in fact, it was against the rules and reg¬ 
ulations of the Post-Office Department for a carrier to be seen outside 
of his district. He would be subject to dismissal. 

Q. Could you have gone up there to the legislature and have written 
a letter !—A. No, sir. 

Q. And have forgotten it!—A. I could not have forgotten it, and I 
could not have done so according to the rules and regulations of the 
post-office without making myself liable to be dismissed. And another 
fact; had I occupied the seat of Mr. Thomas on that day (and even ad¬ 
mitting that during my routes I may have gone there and sat in his 
seat), the uniform of the carrier would have made me so conspicuous, 
that every member in the legislature would have noticed it. 

Q. What is the uniform of the carrier !—A. We have what is known 
as the cadet-gray, trimmed with black, and brass buttons; similar to 
the uniform worn here. 

Q. Similar to the uniform worn here in Washington !—A. Yes, sir; 
the same uniform, I think. 

Q. Did you have it on then !—A. I had it on the first day I went in 
the post-office. ^ 

Q. And ever since!—A. Ever since. I had it made before I went 
into the post-office, and the first day I went in I put it on and never 
took it off when on duty. 

Q. Did Murray ever tell you whether he knew that Thomas was there 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


325 


aud voted * —A. He told me that Thomas voted j that is, in the conver¬ 
sation he and 1 had recently. 

Q. Tell us what he said about it?—A. Well, Thomas—that is, Mur* 
ri'-y—and I had a conversation just previous to the reopening of this 
case, the Kellogg-Spofiford case. He came to my house one morning 
aud left word there that that he desired to see me; I was not in and 
never paid much attention to it, but he called repeatedly aud told my 
mother that he wished to see me on something of importance; it was 
very necessary that I should see him, and that 1 should go to his house 
the next morning at seven o’clock. I went there. When I got there 
^lurray said to me, says he, “ Joe,” says he, “there is a big thing on foot, 
aud,” says he, “1 have conversed with a friend of yoursj he tells me that 
you are a very square kind of a man and that you will do what is right; 
he saj’s that your friends can depend upon you ”; says he, “you bear 
the reputation of being a good man to deal with”; says he, “ i want to 
know from you now, can you keep your mouth shut” ? I told him if I 
thought it was absolutely necessary, I thought I could. “ \Vell,” says 
he, “ the Senate is going to reopen this case, to seat Mr. Spoiford.” That 
was before the passage of the resolution j says he, “ Now, we desire to 
get up some testimony for Mr. Spofford. I sent a telegram to Mr. Spofford 
aud Mr. Spotiord, telegraphs back here to me to use my own discretion 
in getting up testimony, aud,” says he, “ I tell you if this thing works all 
right I will be a big nigger; and,says he, “you will come on and go 
along with me.” Says I, “ Yes.” Says he, “ Now you know how those 
fellows on the other side have treated us.” Says he, “ The Democrats 
burned up your store there in West Feliciana, and the only way for you 
to get straight again is to come on board now while you can.” Says 
he, “ I think you can get some money on it, and if you don’t get a posi* 
tion it is all right anyhow, you will have some money.” Says I, “Is 
there anything in it ? ” was the next thing 1 asked him. “O, yes,” says 
he, “There is some money in it; Spoftbrd is not going to show his hand 
down here.” Saj’s he, “ That doggoned old fellow, Dooley, in your 
parish, that testified before the Hotter committee, so gave the white 
people away in such a manner that they won’t give any more money 
now; they are afraid of him.” Says he, “That parish judge of yours 
just came down here and spoiled the whole thing.” Saj’s I, “ Y^es, that 
is so,” and, says he, “ I have got an appointment for ten o’clock to¬ 
morrow morning to see a man who is managing the case for Mr. Spof¬ 
ford ; you come aud we will go there.” I did not keep the appointment 
on the following day, for I never thought much of it, aud finally didn’t 
keep the appointment. Murray came to my house on the morning after 
that and remonstrated with my mother considerably ; said that he 
thought I had acted wrong; had made an appointment with him and 
had not kept it. He sent several friends after me, aud they came after 
me aud advised me to meet Mr. Murray. I saw him. On that morning 
Murray and I went to the corner of Canal and Basin street, aud met 
Captain Flood, formerly sergeant-at-arms of the house of representa¬ 
tives, and I believe he is now captain of the Nicholls Bifles. We met 
him, and we went into a little private room and we sat down and talked 
this thing over. “ Now,” said Mr. Murray, “ 3 mumust be very particu¬ 
lar, don’t say too much,” says he; “just speak the truth.” Well, I 
thought the matter over, and finally concluded to go into the agreement 
with him. lie told Captain Flood that he had sent for me; that he had 
been in my parish, or sent for me aud got me down there; that I was 
there. “ Now,” says he, “ This man is a very important witness.” After 
relating the circumstances to Cai)taiu Flood, that I had entered the 


326 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


house, &c., I started at once to make the statement as Murray had told 
it to me, but Murray touched my foot with his. We were sitting close, 
and he knocked the side of one of my feet, and that was a signal for me 
to stop, so he went on aud told the story. “ O, yes,” Captain Flood 
says, “ That is all right, you are a very important man,” says he; I 
will send a telegram to-night to Mr. Spofford. Now the substance of 
my telegram will be like this; ‘ JStatement of Watson taken. Impor¬ 
tant testimony. Answer immediately what shall be done.’” That is 
what Captain Flood said to me. What action shall be taken,” or some¬ 
thing like that. Now that’s the way I made the statement before mak¬ 
ing an affidavit or before swearing to anything like that. On the follow¬ 
ing morning, or I think two or three mornings after that, I am not cer¬ 
tain which, we met again, Murray and I, and had a second meeting with 
Captain Flood. After we had gone upstairs and made out a statement, 
in coming down-stairs Murray said, “ Here,” says he, you strike that 
fellow for $200.” ‘‘O, no,” says I, “that will be going too rapid.” 
Says I, “ Let’s work this thing gradually; I want to work it with a little 
dignity. I don’t care about being too hasty.” Says he, “ That ain’t the 
thing; you must strike him now. Strike now while the thing is 
hot.” When we came down on the banquette I told Captain Flood, at 
his suggestion, that we were a little short and wanted a little money. 
We were working the thing together. Captain Flood gave me five dol¬ 
lars and said, “ We are a little short now ; Spofford is not here ; we will 
fix you up when he comes.” Murray aud I went around on the street 
and divided the money; that is, I didn’t divide, but 1 paid for shaving 
and getting a glass of beer. He went around on the next morning to a 
friend of mine on Liberty street—Chapman. Says he, “ What kind of a 
fellow is that Watson I He has got a lot of money and he don’t divide.” 
Chapman told me this. I saw him the next morning, and, says I, “ My 
friend, you are laboring under a mistake. I didn’t get no large sum of 
money; I merely got five dollars, and I didn’t promise to divide a small 
sum like that with you ; but, however, if you want a dollar or so out of 
it, you might have gotten it. I did not promise to divide five dollars 
with you. If I had got a large amount, as you said, then we would have 
divided it.” “ Well,” says he, “ that is all right; I thought you got $10 
or $50.” “No,” I said, “I didn’t get anything of the kind.” Murray, 
also, if I am not mistaken, got one dollar from Captain Flood ; that was 
the first money we had. 

Mr. Merrick. I object to the witness’s opinion. Let him state the 
facts. 

The Witness. I will state the facts: When we started to meet Cap¬ 
tain Flood that morning Murray had no money or he said so, before we 
left the house. After we had gone in, when we came out he said, “Just 
excuse me a minute, I want to see Captain Flood privately.” He went 
back into the coffee-house, and when he came out I started to 
bid him adieu. I was going to get my breakfast. “ O, no,” he says, 
“ come and take a glass of beer.” Says I, “ You have got some money.” 
Says he, “ You don’t know everything. I told you there was something 
in this; you didn’t believe it.” We went then around to Rampart street 
at a coffee-house there, and that was a place where I had never been 
in. Says I, “ Murray, we don’t want to go in here ; it is where white 
people go.” “ O,” says he, “ we are big niggers now.” Says I, “ We 
may eventually come to be big niggers, but we ain’t big niggers yet.” 
Says he, “That is all right.” After we had got through, he took out a 
two-dollar bill and he waited for the change. I was going away, and he 
says, “ Don’t be ina hurry.” Says he, “ Two bits of this moneyis yours.’ ’ 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 327 

1 said he was very kind. I infer from that that when he went to see Cap¬ 
tain Flood- 

Mr. Merrick. I want the facts and not the inferences of the witness. 

The Witness. He gave me twenty-five cents out of that money, which 
was the first nickel he ever gave me in his life. It would have been 
rather ungenerous on my part to have interrogated him as to how he 
came by it or anything like that, but of course I had my opinion. 
So after that it was understood between him and I that we were to meet 
daily. Says he, “ Now, there are two points that we want to prove in 
this thing; first, we want to prove bribery, and in the next we want to 
prove that on the day Mr. Kellogg was elected there was no majority 
there. Now,” says he, “You know that a dead man don’t tell no tales.” 
“ Y^es,” says I, “ that is so.” “ Well,” says he, “ Y'ou know Thomas of 
Bossier, is dead ? ” “ Yes,” says I. “ Who is Thomas, of Bossier ? ” “ Well,” 
says he,” “ he was a man that was in the legislature, but don’t you un¬ 
derstand he is dead. He has died since then.” “ Now,” says I, “ sup- 
I^osiug I go to work and swear to that affidavit that you spoke of, and 
the official journals of the houseshow^ that Thomas was there, and that he 
did actually vote ?” “ O,” says he, “ they didn’t keep no journal of the 
proceedings at all.” Says he, “ Our testimony will stand, because they 
have got no official journal to proveto the contrary.” I went to the 
State-house a few days afterwards and made inquiries as to whether 
there was an official journal kept of the proceedings of the house. I was 
told that there was not; and that our statement would be considered as 
facts, because they couldn’t go behind our returns. 

So I went into the matter with Mr. Murray, and I actually thought 
that the matter was all over after Murray told me that the Democrats 
had concluded not to subpa3na me, until a few days ago, I saw in the 
public prints that Murray had attacked me, and that I had come to him, 
and that I was a man of no character, &c. I never had intended to ap¬ 
pear before the committee, and had no idea that I would have ever been 
subpceuaed. 1 thought Murray had tried this little game as an experi¬ 
ment, and saw that it failed and had to give it up. 1 gave it no atten¬ 
tion whatever, and thought it had dropped. That is the way f came 
into the business all the way through. 

Mr. Merrick. Have you any aliunde evidence now ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. No ; you bring it in. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) Did or did not jMurray tell you in any 
of these talks that he knew Thomas was there and voted ?—A. Yes, sir; 
he admitted it to me in the first interview. I was j)articular in asking 
him. Says I, “ Was he not there Says he, “ Yes, he was there.” 
Sayfe I, “ Can it be proven ? ” Says he, “ No, there were no official 

journals;! will get your statement backed up with Gary, of Saint Mary, and 
Cheatham, who was my assistant sergeant-at-arms.” That was the pro¬ 
gramme. “1 am to say that I sent Cheatham, my assistant sergeant-at- 
arms, to bring you in, and Gary” (he was a hana fide member of the 
legislature) “ is to sign an affidavit that he knew that you were there 
and that you personated Thomas, of Bossier, and voted for him.” 

I And, while on this subject, 1 saw Mr. Gary on Sunday evening before 
I left the city, and he told me that Atr. Murray came to him shortly aft¬ 
er he had seen me ; and Murray, knowing that he knew all about this 
affair, that Murray told him that it was a little job they were putting up, 
and wanted him to swear to the job. He said that was why Murray 
didn’t have him brought here to testify, because they were kind ofafraid 
of him. He said, “ You can say in your testimony that I, Gary, is the 
man that told you that Murray made known this plot to me, and that I 



328 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


made out an affidavit in which I swore that you had personated Thomas^ 
of Bossier, and that it was understood at that time that it was a con¬ 
spiracy between Tom Murray and I and this man Cheatham, who was 
assistant sergeant-at-arms. They were the men.” In my opinion, Mr. 
Murray- 

Mr. Merrick. No matter about your opinion. 

The Witness. I will give the occasion. 

]Mr. Merrick. Tell the facts. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) Was there anythingin this arrangement 
that you and Murray had, and that you talked over, about it being un¬ 
derstood that Murray was to say that he had sent you to Thomas’s desk 
to write a letter?—A. No, sirj that was never mentioned in the pre¬ 
liminary arrangement at all. 

Q. That was not mentioned ?—A. It was not considered at all. 

Q. But it was spoken of about Thomas being dead?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that “dead men told no tales ?”—A. Yes, sir; those were 
the exact words of Mr. Murray—“ dead men tell no tales.” 

Q. And that you should represent yourself as personating that man 
now dead ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And voting for him ?—A. Yes, sir ; he told me if I done so that the 
figure would be about fifteen hundred dollars; I told him then, “ Well,” 
says I, “ I should be glad to get hold of that money; the bulldozers 
burnt my store in West Feliciana Parish, and I would be glad to recover 
a little of it, and if I can adopt this modus operandi^ I will be glad to do 
so.” 

Q. How^ did he say the $1,500 was to be jirovided ; where was it to 
come from ?—A. I questioned him upon that subject. Says I, “ Will 
we get any money from Mr. Cavanac here after we have seen Captain 
Flood ?” Says I, “ Will w^e get any money from him ?” “ O, no,” says 
he, “Cavanac is not putting,up any money ; you understand that this 
thing has been managed so bad that Mr. Spofford can’t afford to trust 
his money through the hands of third parties; we must first get to 
AYashington.” He says, “You know, as w^ell as I do that not myself, or 
^one colored man that has made an affidavit for Spofford, will go there 
and swear to the truth of that affidavit unless he is first paid.” Says he, 
“ You let Spofford turn fool and pay those niggers, and you will see 
every one of them go back on their affidavits.” That is just what Mur¬ 
ray told me. 

Mr. Merrick. I guess that is the fact. 

The Witness. That is what he told me ; and I made the statement 
before Mr. Cavanac, and Mr. Cavanac- 

Mr. Merrick. You have not been asked about that. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) Was anything said about $130 ?—A. O, 
yes; I spoke to Mr. Cavanac about that; I told him w^e had families; 
we were coming on here, and we w^ould like to have money to provide 
for the families. That was Mr. Murray’s suggestion to mie. Says he, 
“Now, you being an important witness,” says he, “I don’t like to man¬ 
age this thing myself; I will make you the financial partner of the firm^ 
and you can go and make the arrangements.” So I went in one morn¬ 
ing and told him how things were; we had families to provide for, and 
we didn’t like to go away and leave them without the ordinary necessi¬ 
ties of life. Mr. Cavanac told^him, says (he, “Well, that has all been 
provided for; you boys just be quiet, and as soon as the sergeant-at- 
arms comes here, there is $130 that has been provided to give each of 
you before you leave here; $130 for you to leave here for your families. 

Q. AVhere was that ?—A. That was at Mr. Cavanac’s private office. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


329 


Q. Wbo was there, besides you and Mr. Cavanac i —A. Mr. Cavanac, 
and Murray and I—only we two; because we two were the principal 
managers in the affair, and that was a little secret. It wasconlidential. 
We didn’t let anybody else know that. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. When you say Gary, do I understand j^ou to say that Gary as¬ 
sented to his part of the scheme ?—A. Yes, sir ; Gary told me that he 
did so and so, but he said those fellows hadn’t paid him, and he was 
not going. Ue said that they had telegraphed and sent for him, but he 
was not going to work for nothing. He told me to tell Mr. Murray, or 
any one that wanted him, that they would have to see him safe before 
he came 5 but he told me that he had made out an affidavit; that he 
was going to substantiate the false statement that I had made, to the 
effect that 1 had i)ersonated Thomas, of Bossier. That was understood. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You say that Murray told you that those other people had made 
affidavits, but that if Spofford was a fool and didn’t pay them, every¬ 
body would go back on him.—A. Everybody would go back on him. 
He said they had sworn to false affidavits. 

Q. Hid he say that ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hid he tell you they were all false ?—A. Yes, sir. Says he, ‘‘My¬ 
self or not another colored man that made out these affidavits proposes 
to swear to those lies unless we are first paid for it.” Those were his 
exact words to me. Says he, “ Now, Mr. Spofford is worth two-and-a 
half million dollars; he only wants to go into the Senate as a matter of 
ambition.” Those were his exact words to me. 

Q. What were his exact words; that he and these colored men that 
have made out these affidavits did not propose to swear to them until 
they were paid for them. Hid he say “ these false affidavits.”—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Ho you mean to say that he volunteered to tell yon that those 
other affidavits were false ?—A. O, yes; he and I were perfectly con- 
lidential. 

Q. Hid he tell you that those were false?—A. Yes, sir; he knew that 
mine was false. 

Q. I am not talking about that. Hid he tell you that those affidavits 
were false ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did he tell you that ?—A. He told me so—I will tell you the 
exact time when he told me so. 

Q. Ho so, if you please.—A. It was on a certain morning when I was 
at his house writing a letter to General Badger, stating that he had 
called there the day previous to see General Badger in relation to an 
appointment. He says, “ Now you write to Badger that I went there 
yesterday morning, but that his doorkeeper refused to let me in or to 
take my card.” 

Mr. Merrick. T do not care about that. 

The Witness. You asked me- 

Mr. Merrick. I am talking about the occasion. 

The Witness. I am relating the occasion. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Tell me the date of it.—A. I disremembcr the 
date. 

Q. What month was it in?—A. It was in May. 

Last May?—A. O, no; not last May. 

Senator Cameron. This is June. 

The Witness. Well, it was last ^lay. 


330 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. [By Mr. Merrick.] Last May A. Yes, sir j I wrote the letter for 
him, and he was telling me that then. 

Q. He told you these affidavits were false?—A. Yes, sirj he told me 
the false position he took in it, and what was his object. 

Q. I am asking you whether he told you these affidavits which he said 
(to use your own language) these niggers would go back on them if 
Spofiford did not pay them” were false?—A. Yes, sirj he admitted 
that his was, and mine was, and Cheatham’s was. 

Q. Who else ?—A. And Gary’s. 

Q. Who else ?—-A. I didn’t mention anybody else. I was only speak¬ 
ing about substantiating my statements. 

Q. You spoke about these affidavits generally. You said he spoke of 
your affidavit, his affidavit, Cheatham’s affidavit, and Gary’s affidavit ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He did not speak of anybody else?—A. No, sirj because those 
were the persons we had under consideration. 

Q. I want a simple answer to my question.—A. I have answered the 
question. 

Q. He did not speak of any others?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He did not say that the others were false?—A. No, sir; he did 
not. 

Q. But he said that ‘‘ those niggers,”—those who made the affidavits 
—“ will go back on Spofford if he don’t pay them ”?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You made an affidavit ?—A. I made what I call a quasi affidavit. 
It was not what you might call a honafide. 

Q. It was an aliunde affidavit ?—A. Well, somewhat. 

Q. Why do you call it a quasi affidavit?—A. Well, it is an affidavit, 
I suppose, by implication. It is not— 

Q. It is an affidavit by implication ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you explain to the committee what an affidavit by implication 
is ?—A. That is, it implies or purports to be an affidavit; but it is not 
what I might call genuine, as the facts that are contained in it are false. 
You might call it an affidavit. 

Q. You signed it, did you not ?—A. I signed one statement, yes. One 
or two, but they both purported to be the same thing; no variation at 
all. 

Q. You signed the affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The quasi affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you swore to it?—A. Yes, sir; I made a quasi oath. 

Q. You quasi swore to it?—A. The man that I went to to qualify the 
affidavit didn’t write the affidavit. 

Q. I am not asking about that. You say you signed the quasi affi¬ 
davit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You quasi swore to a quasi affidavit?—A. Yes, sir; it was quasi 
all the way through. 

Q. It was not quasi lying though. It was a flat, blunt, straightfor¬ 
ward lie, was it not?—A. Well, no, sir. 

Q. It was not?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was there any truth in it ?—A. Truth in what? 

Q. In the (piasi affidavit.—A. Yes, sir; there was some truth in it. 
If you will give me the affidavit I will tell you. 

Q. I will give you the benefit of that. [Handing the affidavit to the 
witness.] See if that is the paper. Look at your signature; that is 
the only part you can recognize.—A. I cannot, only looking at the sig¬ 
nature ; because I wrote all of those things. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 331 

Q. Look at the siguature and tell me whether you wrote the signature 
or not.—A. Yes, sir ; I wrote the signature. 

Q. Is that the quasi affidavit, or is the other one the quasi affidavit f 
—A. I don^t know ; because I didn’t read it. 

Q. You can take it and read it.—^A. [After reading.] Yes, sir j that is 
the affidavit. I have read a portion. 

Q. Is that the quasi one, or is that the genuine one, or are they both 
quasi f —A. Both quasi; but, as I said, there are some statements there 
that are true. 

Q. Now we will go over it. In the first place, who was present when 
you made this affidavits—A. Now, you see, if that is the affidavit I 
made- 

Q. I want you to answer that question.—A. I am going to answer it. 

Q. Who was present when you made this affidavit on the 8th day of 
May, 1879, which you say you signed !—xV. I will state that I made two 
affidavits. 

Q. Concede that you did. Who was present when you made it?—A. 
Unless you will allow me to qualify my answer- 

Mr. Merrick. xVnswer my question first, and then you can qualify. 

The Witness. I cannot do so; because you asked me who was present. 

Mr. Merrick. Yes. 

The Witness. Well, I qualify that; because in one of those affidavits 
I made, it was made in Mr. Cavanac’s office, and the other one was made 
on Garondelet street, in some notary public’s office, and therefore to tell 
you who was present- 

Q. Have your own way. Which affidavit was made first—this one or 
the other one?—A. I disremember. You will have to tell by the dates. 

Q. This is dated the 8th day of May.—xV. I think that is the first one. 

Q. You think this is the first one, do you ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the name of the justice of the peace 1 —xV. Is that signed 
by a justice of the peace, or a notary public I 

Q. This is signed by a justice of the peace.—A. It is the last one. 

Q. It is signed by Buisson.—A. That was a justice of the peace. 

Q. This is the last one?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long before you made this aftidavit did you make the other 
one ?—xV. xVbout three or four days’difference. 

Q. Who was present when you made the first affidavit, and before 
whom did you make it ?—xV. Mr. Murray, Captain Flood, and the notary 
public. I don’t know his name. 

Q. The first one was made before a notary public ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was present when you made this affidavit ?—A. Mr. Cavauac, 
myself, and Mr. McGloin, a member of the constitutional convention of 
the State of Louisiana. 

Q. xVnd Mr. Buisson ?—xV. No; Mr. Buisson was not there. 

Q. Did you not swear to it before Buisson?—A. We made it out at 
his office, and then went to Buisson’s office afterwards. 

Q. xVnd swore to it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did they go with you to Buisson’s office?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who was there when you swore to it ?—A. 1 saw a miscellaneous 
crowd there. I don’t know who they were. 

Q. AVhose handwriting is that aftidavit in ?—xV. That is Mr. McGloin’s. 
He wrote it. 

Q. Did you dictate it to him ?—x\. No, sir. 

i}. You did not?—A. I did not dictate to him. I made a statement 
to him, partly by myself and partly by Mr.Cavanac, and he made it up. 



332 


SPOFFOJiD YS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You say you did not tell Murray that you personated Thomas ?— 
A. No, sir; Murray was the one that originated the idea himself. 

Q. He did 1 —A. And planned the whole thing himself. It was a for¬ 
eign idea to me. 

Q. Hid you tell Murray that you had personated Thomas ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Hid you tell Mr. Cavanac ?—A. I didn’t tell him; Mr. Murray told 
him. 

Q. Hid you not tell him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never told him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Hid you not state to the person who wrote this affidavit that you 
had personated Thomas?—A. I have already told you that in the con¬ 
versation that ensued between Mr. Cavanac and I, I fulfilled my part of 
the bargain as made between Murray and I. Murray told me that I was 
to tell Mr. Cavanac these things. He told me that he had already told 
him that, and I was to go there and repeat what he said. 

Q. Hid you repeat it?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Then you did tell him that you had personated Thomas?—A. I 
told him that- 

Q. I do not care what way. You said just now you did not tell him.— 
A. I didn’t do so voluntarily. 

Q. Who forced you to do it ?—A. I wasn’t forced. 

Q. Then you did it voluntarily?—A. I was persuaded to do it. In 
fact I did not consider that it involved any legal responsibility. 

Q. Or any moral turpitude?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Or any moral baseness ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You think a lie should be told ?—A. The Scripture tells us that 
there are times when we should not let our right hand know what our 
left hand does. There are times when the truth should be judiciously 
suppressed. 

Q. And that means there are times when you should tell a lie and 
swear to it. Is that the liepublican Scripture down in Louisiana?—A. 
That is the way we understand the Scripture. I am a minister mj^self. 

Q. For God’s sake, of what church ?—A. I belong to all the colored 
churches. 

Q. Every kind of a colored church ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You slash around, and you think that it is right to tell a lie ?— 
A. I am a Universalist. 

Q. I should judge-you were, and your practice seems to be very uni¬ 
versal. You do not believe in hell and a hereafter, do you?—A. O, 
yes; I believe there is a hell. 

Q. I thought the Universalists did not?—A. I have modified my sen¬ 
timents so far as that is concerned. 

Q. You have changed your opinions ?—A. I have certain reserved 
rights in those matters. 

Q. You have certain reserved rights ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you think you have a reserved domain in that place ?—A. 
No, sir; not exactly. 

Q. You have a reserved right there ?—A. So far as my religious con¬ 
victions are concerned. 

Q. Ho you teach, as a preacher of the Gospel, that because the Scrip¬ 
ture says you must not let your right hand know what your left hand 
does, therefore it is right to tell a lie, or to swear to a lie?—A. I don’t 
teach anything now; I used to teach religious ideas in my parish. The 
bulldozers chased me away from there. 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 333 

Q, They chased you away because you were teaching these ideas ?— 
A. No- 

Mr. Merrick. No matter about that. 

Senator Cameron. It is some matter. 

Mr. Merrick. He introduced it voluntarily. He makes a remark 
voluntarily, and yet you want to hold me responsible for asking him 
about that remark. 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. Then I suggest that you should stop him when he 
puts in a remark in answer to a question. 

Senator Cameron. It is pretty difficult to stop him. I would rather 
stop you. 

Mr. Merrick. It is evident that that was your purpose. (To the 
witness.) You used to teach religious ideas, did you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have given up that ?—A. The bulldozers- 

(^. I do not care about the bulldozers; the Senator does not want to 
hear about them.—A. Since I left my home. I have certain reserved 
rights on general matters. 

Q. You have a reserved right to lie when you please, have you ?—A. 
I have a reserved right to suppress the truth when I please. 

Q. Are you exercising that reserved right now f—A. No, sir. I did 
when I made that affidavit. 

Q. You think you have a reserved right to suppress the truth when 
you please, and you think you have the right to suppress the truth and 
to lie now—A. I say the Scripture teaches that. 

Q. I want to know if you have not now a reserved right to lie and 
suppress the truth if you choose; that is what you think f—A. No,sir. 

Q. You do not think you have ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What has become of your reserved right ?—A. Well, since I have 
been herein Washington the moral atmosphere here has seemed to purify 
my Louisiana ideas. Influences are so corrupting down in Louisiana 
that a man can’t keep straight long. 

Q. Then you are like the chameleon ; you take the color of the place 
you happen to be in ; you will not lie in Washington, but your reserved 
right to lie is unlimited in Louisiana, is it not?—A. No, sir; I think 
when I go back there I will be a reformed man. 

Q. Do you think that your visit to Washington and your breathing 
the pure atmosphere of Washington has made a perfect reformation ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are satisfied about that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You swear to it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You swear now, in the moral atmosphere of this city, that you are 
never going to swear to another lie ?—A. I have not sworn to a lie. 

Q. Is this not a lie (exhibiting affidavit.)—A. Not all of it a lie. 

Q. Is not the pith of it a lie ?—A. I don’t know that it is. 

Q. Then you did personate Thomas, did you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That is the pith of it, is it not ?—A. No more so than any other 
statement. 

Q. Let us see wiiere the lie is and where the truth is then. [Heading 
the affidavit.] “I reside in West Feliciana; am aged 20.” Is that 
true ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. “ I am and have been for some time a school-teacher.” Is that 
true ?—A. Yes, sir; that is true. 

(^. Where did you teach school ?—A. In the parish of West Feliciana. 

Q. Sunday school or common school?—A. I taught day school. 


334 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. I am a graduate of Straight University.’^—A. Straight Univer¬ 
sity ; yes, sir. 

Q. What is that? A place to teach preachers?—A. It is a college 
founded to graduate young men of limited means, who desire to do so. 

Q. “1 have been a merchant in my parish. I was never a member of 
the legislature.”—A. That is true. 

Q. “In 1877, during the vote for Senator, S. Thomas, of Bossier, a 
member of the Kellogg legislature of 1877, was sick in this city, un¬ 
able to attend.”—A. Now let me say- 

Q. Is that true?—A. Hold on. 

Q. I want to ask you a question.—A. I want to answer your ques¬ 
tion. 

Q. I ask you is that true ?—A. That S. Thomas, when I made that 
affidavit- 

Q. I ask you if that is true ?—A. If you refuse to allow me to answer 
the question in my own words, I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Merrick. I ask the committee to require him to answer my ques¬ 
tions. He is on cross-examination. 

The Witness. I do not expect to take the words out of your mouth. 

The Chairman. It is the easiest way to answer. 

Senator Ingalls. He does not refuse to answer. 

The Witness. I don’t refuse to answer. 

Mr. Merrick. He does. 

The Witness. I say I want to be permitted to use my own words. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick*) Use your own words. Is that true ?—A. When 
1 made the affidavit out the “ S.” was left out. I didn’t know what was 
Thomas’s first name, nor did the parties; so they simply wrote the name 
and left the“ S.” to be subsequently inserted. 

Q. “In 1877, during the vote for Senator, S. Thomas, of Bossier, a 
member of the Kellogg legislature of 1877, was sick in this city, unable 
to attend. They were one short of a quorum. I resemble Thomas very 
closely, and at the request of Murray, the sergeant-at-arms, directed by 
Antoine, I took Thomas’s seat in the house, and as such cast a vote for 
Kellogg as Senator.” Is that true ?—A. Mr. Murray told me- 

Q. I am not asking you that. I am asking you is that true ?—A. He 
said I resembled Thomas j that is all the answer I can give you on that 
question. 

Q. Is it true that you took a seat in the legislature and voted for Kel¬ 
logg ?—A. Ko, sirj I did not. 

Q. That is a lie, is it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You knew it was a lie at the time ?—A. I did. 

Q. And you swore to the lie ?—A. I swore to it. 

Q. “ Thomas was not there, and there would have been no quorum 
had I not represented him. I so acted during the day and acted for 
him through the same.” That is false too, is it not ?—A. Yes, sir; that 
is false. 

Q. And you knew it at the time to be false?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. And you thought it was perfectly right to swear to it ?—A. I had 
an object in view and I thought it was right to accomplish my object. 

Q. Your object was to get some money ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was your object ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And then you think it is perfectly right to swear to a lie for 
money ?—A. Just the same right to swear to a lie for moneyas the 
Democrats had to burn my store for nothing. 

Q. I am not asking you about your store; I am asking you whether 
you think it is right to swear to a lie for money ?—A. There is no such 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. * 335 

thing in Louisiana jurisprudence known as swearing to a lie, and I can 
prove it by the decisions of the supreme court of that State. 

Q. You are a lawyer as well as a preacher, are you t—A. Yes, sir. In 
the trial of Tom Anderson- 

Q. Do you think it is right to swear to a lie for money ? As a preacher 
I ask your views.—A. I am not in that business now. 

Q. You quit that business ?—A. Yes, sir; I am not in tjiat business. 

Q. You turned that all over f—A. Yes, sir. 

(,>. As a man that believes in a hell and a hereafter, as you said just 
no\y, and in a penitentiary here, do you think it is right ?—A. I think 
it right as taught by Louisiana jurisprudence. 

Q. As taught by Louisiana politicians, do you not ?—A. Yes, sir 5 es¬ 
pecially Democrats. 

Q. You have not been taught in the school of Democracy. You have 
been a Republican all the time, have you not f—A. I have been study¬ 
ing Democratic jurisprudence lately, down there, and I have got some 
new ideas. 

Q. You have been brought up in the Republican school—the Kellogg 
school ?—A. Ko, sir 5 I do not know Mr. Kellogg personally. 

Q. You have been brought up in that school. You never were in a 
Democratic convention ?—A. The last time I voted was the Democratic 
ticket. 

Q. Whom did you vote for ?—A. I voted for three members of the 
constitutional convention. 

Q. Did they pay you for it f—A. I did it on principle. I did it be¬ 
cause they were competent, and I told my Republican friends that I did 
so. I did it because I thought they were more competent men. 

Q. Who were those three meut—A. Mr. Burns, Mr. Bell, and Mr. 
Kelley. I did not vote for Semmes because I didn’t like him. He de¬ 
fended those bulldozers down there, and I would not vote for him, and 
I scratched him off my ticket, and I voted for all the others. 

Q. “I was at that time not a resident of Bossier Parish.” That is 
true f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ‘‘I had been registrar, previous to the preceding election,in West 
Feliciana Parish, and was clerk at that election.”—A. Yes, sir; that is 
true. 

Q. “Kellogg promised me thatl should have the control of the pat¬ 
ronage of my parish.” Did he? Is that true, or is that a lie ?—A. If you 
will allow me I will explain that statement. 

Mr. Merrick. Go ahead. 

The Witness. I can’t answer it unconditionally. Mr. Kellogg prom¬ 
ised myself, in connection with other Republicans, that we should 
control the patronage of our parish ; but it was not iu connection with 
this voting for Thomas at all. I brought that in iu an indirect manner. 
Mr. Kellogg told us—he had been in the habit of appointing men to po¬ 
sitions in our parish without consulting the leaders. We protested 
against that. He promised us that we should be consulted iu the future; 
that whenever we gave him competent and worthy men, he would cou- 
sultLus and appoint them. 

Q.\ When was that conversation with Kellogg ?—A. That was in 1S7G, 
I think, during the campaign. 

Q. Was it not in January, 1877 ?—A. Ko, sir; I never conversed with 
him at all. 

Q. What time in 187G ?—A. I think it was in September. I came 
down and conversed with him in relation to the supervisorship. I told 
him I wanted to resign the office, because I^thought the public sentiment 


836 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


was against a man of my color holding that position. I told him I 
would rather have a clerkship. I came and offered to resign my posi¬ 
tion and give it to B. A. Weber. 

Q. If I so represented Thomas, and this was the day before that on 
which I so acted.” Is that a lie!—A. Yes, sir ; that is false. 

Q. “ Kellogg had solicited a private interview at which this occurred.’’ 
That is false, .too 1 —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. “ 0. O. Antoine and myself married sisters.” Is that true !—A. 
That is true. 

Q. I was then addressing my present wife.” Well, is that true ?— 
A. That is true. 

Q. Have you separated from your wife since f—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Are you living with her now^—^A. Ko, sirj I am living here now. 

Q. When you are in Kew Orleans are you living with her f—^A. That 
is a private matter. 

Q. Well, I ask yon. I want to know something about your char¬ 
acter.—A. I decline to answer unless I am instructed. 

Mr. Merrick. You decline to answer whether you are living with 
your wife f 

The Witness. Yes, sir; I think it has nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Merrick. Well, you have a right to decline to answer that ques¬ 
tion. When you went to Cavanac’s office did you not tell him precisely 
what is contained in this affidavit —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You told him what is contained in that affidavit ?—A. I related it 
in the presence of the gentleman who wrote it. I did not tell it to him. 

Q. You related it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You told him you were ready to swear to it ?—A. Yes, sir. Mr. 
Havanac acted in good faith with me. He didu’X know of the conspiracy 
there was between Murray and I. 

Q. He knew nothing of the conspiracy between Murray and you ?—A. 
I don’t believe he did so far as he was concerned; but Murray did. 

Q. You deceived Oavanac, then ?—A. I didn’t deceive him. 

Q. Did not Mr. Oavanac tell you that there was no money, and that he 
wanted you to tell the truth ?—A. I consider that the conversation that 
I had with Mr. Oavanac is private as between two gentlemen, but if you 
will insist on it I will give it. 

Q. I want it all. Here is Oavanac, sitting right here. State it.—A. 

I will do so. I asked Mr. Oavanac; says I, “ Kow, I make this state¬ 
ment as a Eepublican.” O, well, we know that,” says he. Says I, 
^‘I am not making this matter a question of money; but we have been 
badly treated by our owu party, and we want to know what cousidera- 
tions we are going to receive.” Says I, “ For myself, I want a position— 
to work.” Says he, “As far as I am concerned there is no money in 
sight; but,” says he, “ I will tell you this.” Says he, “ When Mr. Spof- 
ford gets in, and he don’t take care of you men, then,” says he, “ there 
is no gratitude in men.” “ Well,” says I, “ I want the position of assist¬ 
ant sergeant-at-arms that James Duncan Kennedy had under the Ke- 
publican administration.” Says he, “ O, well, you can get that; Jonas 
is in there now, anyhow, and you can get that right now. That is all 
right.” 

Q.*Why did you not come on and get it!—A. Because I didn’t feel 
like it. 

^ Q. You wanted it; did you not !—A. Well, yes. 

Q. Oavanac told you Jonas was there, and you could get it right now; 
and you wanted it, and yet you did not come.^—A. When I say “ right 
row,” I don’t suppose he meant instantly, without any further prelim- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 337 

inary notice, or anytliinj? like that. I understood the word “ instantly,” 
or “ iinniediately,” as all thinkinjr men do. 

Q. After writiii" that affidavit, did you not write a letter to Cav- 
anac ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In which you told him the itepublicans knew what you had done f— 
A. No, sir; 1 defy him to produce any letter to show that. 

Q. “ I have iiothinj^ to hide in this matter.”—A. 1 told him that. 

Q. It is known among Itepublicans that I propose to pursue the 
course which I have made known to you”-A. Yes, sir. 

(^. “And nothing can swerve me from my intentions.”—A. Yes, sir; 

1 did. 

Q. That was some days after you wrote the affidavit A. Y>s, sir. 

Q. What changed your mind and caused you to turn around ? You 
were bought to swear to a lie; and now what brought you to swe>ar to 
this ?—A. I never was bought to swear to a lie. 1 take exception to 
that statement. 

Q. ])id you not swear to a lie ?—A. I was not bought to do it; I did 
that the same as I do anything else—it was optional with me. 

Q. Y^ou made this affidavit upon an agreement for money; I am there¬ 
fore right in saying you were bought to swear to this affidavit, and you 
say this affidavit is a lie; therefore, you were bought to swear to a lie. 
Ten days afterwards you write to Cavanac and say the Iiei)ublicans 
know of the course you propose to i)ursue and you have nothing in the 
world to hide.—A. The liepublicans did know of the course I was going 
to pursue. 

Q. My question is, what has induced you to change your course, which 
you declared to him you were going to hold on to?—A. The stings of 
conscience. 

Q. Is it possible ?—A. Y>s, sir. 

Q. Kothing else but the sting of conscience ?—A. Nothing else in the 
world. 

Q. No greenback plaster around where you supposed the conscience 
to be ?—A. None whatever. When I made that affidavit I was labor¬ 
ing in a kind of moral turpitude, and since that my conscience has been 
revived. 

(^). Did you ever have those paroxysms of moral turpitude while you 
were })reaching f—A. No, sir. 

Q. It was clean good advice then ?—A. Y>s, sir. 

Q. How often do you have tfiern ? Are they monthly?—A. This is 
the first time I ever had one in my life. 

Are yon sure you are not laboring under one now?—A. No, sir; I 
am not laboring under one now. 

Q. How can you tell when you are laboring under them; are you un¬ 
conscious ?—A. No, sir ; I knew it. 

(,). You know it ?—A. Something like a man when he is in a vision or 
something. 

Q. Are 3011 sure you are not in a vision now?—A. O, no; I am pos¬ 
itive now. 

(^. The moral atmosphere of this place has cleared that thing all up ?— 
A. Cleared it all up. 

(,). You are working in the custom-house, are you not ?—A. No, sir ; 
not working there. 

(^. You resigned when you left ?—A. No, sir. 

Have you not been working there since you made this affidavit ?— 
A. No, sir; 1 went to work there in the custom-house. 

22 S K 


338 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Have you not been to work in the custom-house since you made 
this affidavit'?—A. Yes, sir; I doffit know whether it is since or before. 

Q. This affidavit bears date the 8th of May. That was just a little 
more than a month ago.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have been working in the custom-house since that, have you 
not*?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you sure that it was not the working in the custom-house that 
waked you up from this moral turpitude *?—A. No, sir; because I have 
been suspended since that. 

Q. For what; stealing?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Cameron. Let him state what he was suspended for. 

Mr. Merrick. Of course. 

The Witness. I went into the parishes of Plaquemine and Saint Ber¬ 
nard to talk with my people about this exodus movement. I received a 
leave of absence of three days from General Badger; and when I got 
there I was detained three days beyond the time, so I was suspended. 
When I reported for duty, the surveyor told me that I had staid beyond 
the time, and that I would nave to report to General Badger to see about 
it. I called on General Badger, and reported to him, and he told me he 
would take the matter into consideration. I was suspended until he 
investigated the case. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) And he is investigating that now ?—A. I don’t 
know what he is doing. 

Q. You are suspended then, temporarily ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. I suppose you will get in when you return to New Orleans ?—A. I 
have no idea. I don’t expect to go back there. 

Q. You do not expect to go back to New Orleans?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Where are you going ?—A. I will go back there simply to get ready. 
I am expecting to go to Kansas. 

Q. You are going to Kansas?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When were you suspended ?—A. I was suspended on—I disremem- 
ber—it was week before last. 

Q. You were suspended week before last; are you sure ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. When you went back the surveyor told you you must go to Gen¬ 
eral Badger ?—A. He said he was not authorized to assign me to duty 
before he received further instructions about it. 

Q. Then when you went to General Badger and stated this simple 
case—that you had been required to stay three days over your time— 
General Badger told you he would investigate it ?—A. He told me he 
would see about it; he was very busy; and I have not seen him since. 

Q. Hid he tell you he would give you an answer when you got back 
from Washington ?—A. I never had any conversation in relation to it 
since with him. 

Q. You did not understand that ?—A. No, sir ; I left there quite in¬ 
dignant, because I didn’t think he had treated me with courtesy. 

Q. What particular time was it that you made up your mind to testify 
that what you had sworn to in your affidavit was false?—A. As soon 
as my conscience pierced me. 

Q. When did that occur?—A. I can’t remember the exact time. 

Q. Give us the exact time.—A. I can’t tell you. 

Q. These movements of conscience are sometimes so violent that they 
last in a man’s memory for a long while. Yours, I suppose, was very 
decided, was it not ?—A. I don’t understand the question. 

Q. The movement of your conscience was very decided ?—A. At what 
time ? 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


339 


Q. When it did move?-—A. O, 5x8; very decided. 

Q. Generally it does not move?—A. I am a stable man, as a general 
thing. 

Q. Your conscience is very stable ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When it did move, and it called upon you to repudiate your oath 
as a falsehood, it was all of a sudden ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tell us when that occurred ?—A. I disremeinber. 

Q. You disremeinber such an event as that ?—It occurred shortly 
after I had taken that affidavit. 

Q. EIow long after? Two days?—A. xVbout fifteen minutes after¬ 
wards, ten minutes afterwards. 

Q. Now the affidavit is dated on the 8th of May, and this letter to 
Cavanac in which you tell him that you are going to adhere to your 
course and nobody can swerve you from it, and you have nothing to 
conceal, is dated on the 20 th of May ?— A. Very well. 

Q. Tell us how that is.—A. I said nothing in that letter as to what 
course I was going to pursue. 

Q. What did you mean by this expression that you stated in your 
letter, “1 have nothing to hide in this matter. It is known among Re¬ 
publicans that I propose to pursue the course which I have made known 
to you, and nothing can swerve me from my intentions’^? The course 
3'ou had made known to Cavanac was to adhere to what was stated in 
that affidavit as true. You say you and he dealt fairly with each 
other?—xV. Well, letters like those has no legal binding, I don’t sup¬ 
pose. 

Q. I do not know whether they do or not. But you say fifteen min¬ 
utes after you made that affidavit your conscience performed this office 
of charging on you and pricking you, and you then determined to go 
back on the affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why did you write that letter to Cavanac, and thus ])ile lie upon 
lie, if that was the fact ?—A. I was exercising one of the gifts of a free 
American citizen. 

Q. Which is to lie as much as he pleases?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are exercising that gift here to-day, are you not ?— A, No, sir; 
I didn’t say that. 

Q. You exercise all your rights at all times ?— A. No, I don’t, because 
I am not permitted to exercise it by the Democrats of Louisiana. 

Q. Except the rights that you are not permitted to exercise by the 
Democrats of Louisiana, you exercise all your rights whenever you 
choose ?—xV. Very few and far between. 

Q. Am\ one of your reserved rights being to lie when you please, you 
are exercising that right now ?—xV. No, sir; I am not. I am telling the 
truth as I am standing. I had no intention to swearing to a lie upon a 
dead man. 

Q. You had none when you made that affidavit?—xV. None whatever. 

Q. Did you mean to tell the truth wdieu you made that affidavit ?— 
A. I meant to subsequently deny the allegations contained in that affi¬ 
davit. 

Q. Did you not lie upon a dead man wdieu you made that affidavit?— 
A. There may have been a hidden motive. 

Q. What hidden motive did you have ?—A. I said when I made it out 
my intention was to disavow the allegations made in that affidavit sub¬ 
sequently. 

Q. Your intention was to disavow the allegation ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is a new move. You had not spoken of that before in your 
testimony. You intended to disavow the allegations ? Then you really 


340 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


did not ex})ect to ^et the money that you have sworn you expected to 
"et, because you intended to disavow and thus defeat the condition upon 
which the money was to be paid you ?—A. Even had 1 got the money I 
would have exposed the i)lot. 

Q. Did you intend to expose it before you got the money ?—A. I have 
answered you. 

Q. Did you intend to expose it before you got your money or some¬ 
body else’s money"?—A. I don’t know that I was to get anybody else’s 
money. 

Q. "According to this you say you were to get a certain sum of money.— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, I want to know what consideration you had for giving up that 
sum of money f—A. I had none whatever. 

Q. None except the pricking of your conscience?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Now, I will go back, and I want you to tix the time when you 
changed your mind ?—A. I have answered that once. 

Q. Have you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Fifteen minutes after it was made '?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. I then read to you your letter, showing you that ten days after¬ 
wards you had not made up your mind to do it.—A. I am aware of tliat. 

Q. Y^ou told Cavanacyou had not made up your mind to do it ?—A. I 
didn’t tell him ; I wrote him a letter. 

Q. Y^ou wrote him a letter telling him you were going to stick to it, 
and you had nothing to conceal, and you were going to pursue the course 
made known to him, did you not ?—A. I said 1 was going to pursue the 
course made known to him. 

Q. Did you not ?—A. Well, I may have had reference to two or three 
different courses. 

Q. What course did you refer to "?—A. I said the course made known 
to him, 1 had been told by Mr. Murray and others at the time I wrote 
that letter that parties had informed Mr. Cavanac that I had obtained a 
position in the custom-house, and that in consequence of that position I 
would disavow the affidavit. 

Q. That is true?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Then you wrote to him and told him that nothing of that sort 
would control you, and that you intended honestly to pursue the course 
made known to him ?—A. iNIade known to him by me ? 

Q. Made known to him by you. “ The course which I have made 
known to you.” That is wliat it is. “ J have made known to ?/ow.” 
That is, the course marked out in that affidavit.—A. All I desire to say 
on that subject is, that the affidavit as made out were not facts, 
with the exception of those portions that I verify to. These technicali¬ 
ties that you are referring to- 

Q. 1 do not care what you desire about it; I wan’t to know the fact, 
when you determined to testily before this committee that that affida¬ 
vit was a lie. Here is your letter on the 20th, declaring that you did 
not on that day so intend. Can you tell when you determined to change 
your mind?—A. No, sir; perhaps you know more about that than I do. 

Q. I don’t know anything about it. God forbid that I should know 
anything about your conscience. You say that Murray was in Cav- 
anac’s office the day you signed that affidavit. Was he?—A. No, 
sir; Murray was there just fifteen minutes later—or before. Murray 
told me not to make out an affidavit before Mr. Cavanac, before he seen 
me. 

Q. I ask you if Murray was there?—A. I am telling you. 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


341 


Mr. Merrick. I do not want anything of this kind. I do not ask you 
that. 

Senator Cameron. Go on and state what Murray said. 

The WITNESS. Murray .said, says he, “ Don’tyou inakeout that atfidavit 
until I have seen you.” When he saw me I had made out that affidavit. 
Says he, “ You have done just what I told you not to do.” Says he, “ Cava- 
nac would have bid for you, but you were too hasty.” Says he, “ Cavanac 
would have bid 8500 tor that.” Says he, “You were in too big a haste.” 
That is the words he said to me. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. VYhere was that f—A. In front of the State house. 

Q. When ?—A. Shortly after I made that affidavit—the 8th or 9th of 
the month, 1 think it was. 1 met him and he told me then. 

EXAMINATION OF EOBERT B. JOHNSON. 

Robert B. Johnson (colored), a witness called by the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. What is your name?—Answer. Robert Benjamin Johnson. 

Q. Were you a member of what is called the Packard legislature iu 
1877 ?—A. 1 was. 

Q. From what parish ?—A. The parish of Terre Bonne. 

Q. Who was your colleague?—A. H. M. Johnson. 

Q. I wish you would state whether you ever told Murray, or showed 
him money, and said you had got paid for voting for Kellogg, or 
anything of the kind.—A. I don’t believe Murray said he got any money 
from me. If he did, he daresn’t si)eak it here. If he did, I will make 

him-if he was in the penitentiary for that it would be a better 

place for him. 

Q. Did you tell him any such thing?—A. No, sir; I did not, and I 
will defy him to speak it here. 

Q. Did you ever show him any money ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever get any money for voting for Kellogg ?—A. No, sir; 
not a nickel. 

Q. Did anybody ever offer you any ?—A. No, sir, 

Q. Do you know anybody else that ever was ofiered any money?— 
A. No, sir; I don’t. 

Q. Were you present at the time that the vote was taken for Senator ? 
—A. I was. 

Q. On the 10th of January ?—A. I was. 

Q. Do you remember what time of the <lay the vote commenced ?— 
A. I disremember at what hour it taken place. 

(The witness here shook his fist at Murray.) 

The Chairman. Witness, any quarrel you may have with IMurray 
you must settle outside. 

The Witness. I don’t wish to treat the committee with any contempt, 
but I’ll treat him with contempt if I get him out. The dirty scoundrel! 
If he’d worked as I’ve worked—I’ve not been in the city of New Orleans 
since the legislature adjourned. I’ve got a family to support, and my 
family’ is now under de wedder. I makes more dan what this commit¬ 
tee can afford to pay me to come here to Washington. I don’t work 
around the city of'^New Orleans dere, and pack up lies. De dirty 
scoundrel! De whelp ought to be iu de penitentiary. Dat’s my talk. 


342 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


The Chairman. Stop yonr quarreling with Murray. Answer the 
question of the counsel, and proceed with your testimon 3 \ 

Mr. Merrick. We don’t want any performance. 

The Witness. I did not want any performance. He called me up on 
a f)oint-blank lie. I knowed nothing about it—loafing round the city of 
New Orleans there and not done a nickel of work, and I out in the 
country. 

(By Mr. ShellABARGER :) 

Q. Hid you say you were not acquainted with Thomas, the member 
from Bossier?—A. I only was slightly acquainted with the members— 
with any of them—only my colleague that came from the parish that 
1 did. in fact, I not a native from de State of Louisiana. I came down 
dere in 1869. Eber since dat I has been in Louisiana. It is always known 
by the white people; dey gave me a good name. I has always tried to be 
industrious—neber boddered in politics Tore 1878, I think it was; and 
I neber intend to bodder with it any mo’, ’cause I can make a better 
livin’ outside, and have a better name, and be more ’spected; and de 
idea of Mr. Murray- 

Mr. Merrick. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask you- 

The Witness. I tell you he’ll repent. 

The Chairman. Never mind about Murray. Answer the question of 
the counsel according to your own judgment of what is right. Have no 
quarrel with Murray here. 

The Witness. I desire to treat the committee with all (‘ourtesy that 
is due in the world ; but when a scoundrel like dat comes here to tes¬ 
tify to such a thing as that- 

Q. (By Mr. Shellbarger.) Have you had any conversation with Mur¬ 
ray since you came here?—A. Yes, sir. The low pup! I got in de room yes¬ 
terday, and I asked him—I said, “ AVhy did you go to work and testify be¬ 
fore taking an oath of it, I had received money from Mr. Lewis to vote for 
Senator Kellogg ”? Says he, “ Well, I jess wanted to get you boys here. 
I knowed that you were always lean.” “ No,” says I,“ you’re a liar. I’m 
a man that shifts ’round for rny own living.” ‘‘ Well,” says he, “ we won’t 
have no fuss.” Says he, “If Kellogg don’t tend to you up here, you 
drop him and come to me.” Says he, “ I’ll give you all the money you 
want.” At dat time I got so angry I walked away from him. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick: 

Q. What is your first name?—A. My name is Eobert B. Johnson. 

Q. You have carried on pretty high here this morning ? 

The Witness. I tell you my carrying on is- 

Q. Do you know anything- A. I give- 

Q. Wait a moment. Do you know anything more as to what Murray 
said about you this morning than you did the day you talked to him ?— 
A. I can’t understand what you are speaking of. 

Q. You cannot understand that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You complained that Murray had told something about you. That 
has made you so indignant that you cannot contain yourself, and you 
have acted splendidly. Now, tell me this : Do you know anything now 
that Murray has said about you in his testimony that you did not know’ 
on the day you talked to him in Washington City?—A. Yes, sir; I 
hab heard it all since I came up in de building. 

Q. Did you not know it when you were talking to him in Washington 
City?—A. No; I did not. 

Q. You did not know it then ?—A. No, sir; I did not. I haven’t seen 
Mr. Murray for over eighteen months. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 343 

Q. That may be; but you saw him here the other day, in Washing¬ 
ton, you say ? 

By Mr. ShellABARGER : 

Q. When did you arrive here ?—xA. I arrived here this morning. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) You got here this morning ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you first learn of Murray having spoken of you f—A. I 
learned—but what it was I didn’t know. 

Q. Did you not know what it was when you were talking to him ?— 
A. ]^o, sir. 

Q. You did not know anything about it ?—xA. No, sir. 

Q. When did you first learn ?—A. I learned it when I came up in de 
building here. 

Q. In here?—xA. Yes, sir ; it was about ten or eleven o’clock. 

Q. Who told you about it ?—A. Mr. Brown. 

Q. That was the first you learned of it ?—xA. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you certain you have had a conversation with Murray since 
you got here ?—A. I asked him, says I, “ What was that you went and 
swored and taken an oath that I had received money from Kellogg, or 
at least from Louis Souer '? ” 

Q. When was that that you talked to Murray ?—xA. I told you that 
was this morning, now. 

Q. Then you said to Murray, “ What was that you swore about my 
having received money from Mr. Kellogg or Mr. Souer?” Is that what 
you said to him ?—xA. I answered dat question. 

Q. Is it what you said to him ?—xA. That is what I said to him. 

Q. Have you learned of his having said anything else than that about 
you !—A. I didn’t learn. 

Q. Did he not teil you ?—A. Wait till I place you right in your argu¬ 
ment. 

Q. Go on.—A. I didn’t tell him he swored that I received money from 
Mr. Louis Souer. If I said that, I will correct my own statement. 

Mr. Merrick. That you have a right to do. 

The Witness. Yes, sir. I asked him what was that he swored to— 
he taken an oath to ? 

Q. (By Mr. ‘Merrick.) About what?—xA. About my receiving money. 

Q. What did he say ?—xA. Well, he goes on to tell me : “ Weil,” says 
he, “ I just wanted to get do boys here.” 

Q. Did he not tell you that he had sworn to your receiving money 
from Souer?—A. No, sir ; he did not. 

Q. He did not tell you that ?—A. No, sir ; he told- 

Q. Then when you asked him what was that he had sworn to about 
your receiving money from Souer, you knew at that time that he had 
sworn to something of that kind ?—A. Something of dat kind. 

(^. AVhy was it that your indignation was not as great down there as 
it is up here?—A. Because I didn’t find out what the substance of it 
was. I didn’t know what he swore to. 

Q. You knew that ho had sworn to something. Did you not see the 
papers ? 

(The witness here turned his back to the counsel and the chairman.) 

Mr. Merrick. I do not know whether that is intended for you or for 
me, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Turn around and face the counsel, witness. 

The Witness. Well, ask me something else. 

(^. (By Mr. Merrick.) Y'ou knew at the time you asked him that he 



344 


SPOFFORD yS. KELLOGG. 


had sworn that yon had received money, did you not?—A. Are you 
speaking to me, sir ? 

Q. I am speaking to you and I am expecting an answer.—A. All 
right; what is it? 

Q. Did you not know at the time you spoke to him that he had sworn 
that you had received money for voting for Kellogg ?—A. Ko, sir; I 
did not. 

Q. Why did you ask him about that, then ?—A. I told you once that 
I had heard that he had taken on oath to something of that effect, and i 
asked him about it. 

Q. Well, you have only heard the same thing since; that is all. Why 
was your indignation not as great when you first heard it as you have 
made it appear to be here to-day ?—A. What do you know about my in¬ 
dignation at that time. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not know anything about it. It seems that you 
are very anxious to jump across the table to get at Murray now. 

The Witness. I tell you if you put him outside on that green there. 
I’ll show you how anxious I am. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) You had him outside on that green when you 
first talked to him ?—A. You put him out there now, and you will see 
how quick I will get there. 

Q. Was there anybody between you and him this morning when you 
were talking to him ?—A. The dirty pup. 

Q. Was there anybody between you and him this morning when you 
were talking to him ? Were you not alone ? Could you not have had 
your fight then, and could you not have carried on with him then just 
as you have done now before the committee ?—A. I want to understand 
you—that my action Tore de committee now is not intended to bulldoze 
de committee. (Great laughter by spectators.) 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, you will have to preserve order or we can¬ 
not proceed with the investigation. If order is not preserved I shall have 
to ask the sergeant-at-arms to clear the room. (To the witness.) Now, 
Johnson, you were summoned here before this committee to testify. I 
want no demonstration of anger towards anybody. Deliver your testi¬ 
mony truthfully as you have sworn you will do, and do not go to mak¬ 
ing any demonstration here to create an uproar. 

Mr. Merrick. And don’t bulldoze the committee. 

The Chairman. Answer the questions that are asked you calmly and 
deliberately, and observe at all times the oath that you have taken. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Now, as you have said that I do not know any¬ 
thing about your indignation (and it is true), I want to ask you some¬ 
thing about it. Did you when you were talking to Murray this morning 
feel the same indignation and the same pugnacious desire that you have 
manifested now?—A. Let me answer dat question. 7* 

Q. I ask it, and you have a right to answer it?—A. Well, if you have 
any other questions to put to me, I desire you to do so. 

Q. 1 am putting but one at a time?—A. Well, I don’t propose to an¬ 
swer dat question any furder. You kin do just what you please with 
me; I don’t propose to answer de question any furder. 

Mr. Merrick. I have asked the question, and I have a right to an 
answer. This is all acting. I may be entirely in error about that, but I 
want to test it and see if it is not. 

The Witness. De committee kin do what dey please with me. I 
don’t propose to answer it. I am at dere service. 

The Chairman. What is the question ? 

Mr. Merrick. My question was whether his indignation when he 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


345 


spoke to Murray about wbat Murray had testified—when he spoke to 
him this moruiug—was as great as it is made to appear here to be to¬ 
day. 

The Chairman. Personally, I would prefer that you should withdraw 
that question. 

Mr. Merrick. I withdraw the question at the slightest intimation of 
its improi)riety. (To the witness.) Do you mean to say that you never 
showed Murray any money ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Never at all ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Which one of the combinations did you belong to? The Kellogg 
combination or the Warmoth combination ?—A. In organising de house 
to elect a speaker, I then belonged to de Warmoth combination, ^cause 
he were my preference for being speaker. 

Q. Did you attend the caucus meeting ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present on the day the vote was taken f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it an orderly and peaceable assembly?—A. For Senator? 

Q. Yes.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was an orderly and peaceable assembly, was it ?—A. Very peace¬ 
able. 

Q. And you say you never received any money for voting for Kellogg ? 
—A. 1 have not received a dollar. 

Q. You are not occupying any public position ?—A. No, sir; and I 
hab not occupied but one in my life; and I tell you dat 1 don’t care 
’bout occupying any ino’. 

Q. Politics is bad work ?—A. Yes, sir; it’s a dog’s life. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Where do you live ?—A. I live now in Terre Bonne. 

Q. What do you do ?—A. I am butchering now. I am running three 
or four butcher carts in my parish, selling beef to de hands dat work on 
de places—de plantations. Eber since I have been down here, I’ve always 
been in some kind of trade, either cotton or something of that kind. 

EXAMINATION OF llOBERT F. GUICHABD. 

Robert F. Guichard, a witness called by the sitting member, sworn 
and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. In the city of New Orleans 
at ])resent. 

Q. How long have resided in Louisiana ?—A. Since 18G5. 

Q. Where were you born ?—A. I was born there, but I left in 1858, 
and was educated abroad and returned in 18G5. 

Q. State whether you sustained any official relation to the Packard 
house of representatives ?—A. I was, sir, their chief clerk—of the Pack¬ 
ard legislature. 

Q. I wish to call your attention to what purports to be the journal of 
that house. Here is one of the copies. I wish to ask you now, first, 
when you were elected clerk ?—A. On the first day of the session. 

Q. State w hether there was a. quorum of the house ?—A. Yes, sir; 
there wms a quorum. 

Q. There was a quorum present?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know that fact independently of the journal, and by your 
observation and knowledge of the presence of the members ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 


346 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. State how the presence of the quorum was first officially ascer¬ 
tained f—A. By the calling of the roll by the secretary of state. 

Q. Does that appear to be recorded in the journal ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State whether you have looked through this journal with refer¬ 
ence to the matter of ascertaining whether there is any error or mistake 
of record that has come to your attention.—A. I have compared it with 
my own, and there are no errors in it that I can see, so far as I did com¬ 
pare it. 

Q. Have you another journal here —A. Yes, sir. I have got my own 
journal here. This (referring to the documents shown him) is simply the 
journal that was published every week and given to the members for 
their personal use. I have the original journal of the house. 

Q. You have the original journal of the house here A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How much, time does that journal that you have with you cover ?— 
A. It covers from the first day to the last day. 

Q. State whether it is a faithful record, so far as it purports to be a 
record, of the doings of the body.—A. It is. 

Q. Is there anything, so far as you now know, that is left out of the 
journal that would, by the rules of the body, be proper to be recorded — 
A. Ho, sir; there is nothing left out that I can recollect. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I will ask at the proper time, either now or 
whenever it is right, to put in evidence the journals of the house. We do 
not desire to encumber your record, Mr. Chairman, or increase the print¬ 
ing, and it is perhaps not necessary that it should go to the period long 
after, or perhaps not at all after, the 10th of January. If Mr. Merrick 
wants any more, of course I shall not object. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 do not want any more. I thought you had offered 
those the other day. I have been using them, and I supposed they 
were in. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I will put in evidence the journal- 

Mr. Merrick. Of the senate and of the house ^ 

Mr. Shellabarger. Of the senate and the house both—for the first 
two weeks of the session. 

Mr. Merrick. That will do. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. How I ask Mr. Guichard’s attention to the day of the election for 
Senator.—A. Before that; I have also got another journal that I com¬ 
pared that was in possession of one of the members, which corresponds 
also with mine. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. How long does that run ?—A. This one runs from the first of Jan¬ 
uary until the 29th of March—into the extra session. 

Q. But it runs from what ?—A. Those are simply duplicate copies of 
the same thing. Then we had a weekly journal that was distributed 
every week to the members. 

Q. You said you had another copy which correspond with this ^ —A. 
This is mine. 

Q. It is a copy of the same thing ?—A. Yes, sir j mine is the original. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Hand me back the journal of the house for the 10th. You have 
another copy there before you. Turn to the 10th of January, and state 
whether, as a matter of fact, the roll-call appears there on the 4th page 
under the head of the 9th day^s proceedings, 10th of January, 1877.’’ 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 347 

State whetber the roll-call occurred which is recorded there—sixty-three 
answering to their names.—A. Yes, sir; I have got that here. 

Q. Did sixty-three members answer to their names at that roll-call ?— 
A. Y^es, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. hich is that?—A. The roll-call of the 9th day, or January 10th. 

Q. The 9th day of the session ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Have you scrutinized recently that roll-call for the purpose of see¬ 
ing whose the names are that are recorded there as answering ? And, if 
you have, state wdiether they were there.—A. I am positive that every 
name I have here were there, because if they had not been there I 
would not have marked them as being present. 

Q. Had you lacked a quorum on the preceding day ?—A. Yes, sir; 
we had lacked a quorum the whole day preceding it. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. What day was that?—A. That was Tuesday. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Was the lack of the presence of a quorum a matter of solicitude 
and anxiety, so as to direct your attention to the presence of the mem¬ 
bers ?—A. Yes, sir; it was. ^ 

Q. So that you are enabled to state that there was a quorum, sixty- 
three members, at that roll-call?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now turn over the page. There is a record on page 5 of sixty-six 

members present. That is in the vote- A. Isn’t that in the call of 

the house in joint session ? 

Q. Yes; that is a call of the house in joint session.—A. Yes, sir; sixty- 
six. 

Q. How many senators answered to their names there ?—A. Seven¬ 
teen. 

Q. Did you hear them all answer?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it any part of you duty to give attention to the presence of 
senators in the roll-call of senators?—A. It was not exactly a part of 
my duties; but, at the same time, as I was interested in the election, 
and the clerk of the senate had his yeas and nays book right next to 
me, I looked over his shoulder while he called them out; and the sena¬ 
tors were sitting right in front of us; and I was personally acquainted 
with every one of them, and I knew that they were present. 

Q. So tliat seventeen senators were present and sixty-six members of 
the house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then, on the next page is recorded the vote of the two bodies— 
seventeen senators and sixty-six representatives.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present at that roll-call ?—A. I called it myself. 

Q. You called the roll of the house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who called the roll of the senate?—A. The clerk of the senate. 

Q. Wliich was called first?—A. The senate roll was called first. 

Q. Who called that ? What is his name?—A. Lamauiere. 

Q. Is he still living?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does he live?—A. In New Orleans. 

Q. Can you state from your own knowledge whether each of the 17 
Senators who are recorded as voting for Kellogg did in fact vote for 
him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You knew each man?—A. I knew each man individually. 


348 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. 'Now come to the call of the house; you called that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did you keep a tally ?—A. In calling the house, of course I 
checked off those that were present. In the vote for Senator I marked 
opj)Osite each man voting as his name was called whoever he voted for. 

Q. You marked opposite to each name ?—A. The candidate that he 
voted for. 

Q. So that, for example, when Hahn was called, you marked opposite 
that name on the roll “ Kellogg ”?—A. I marked “ Kellogg,” or a “ K.” 

Q. And so through the roll-call ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you that roll-call here ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that it you have before you?—A. No, sir; this the journal, but 
I have it here. 

Q. I wish you would introduce it.—A. I have it here (producing it). 

Q. I wish you w’ould call that roll. That is, read the roll as it appears 
there, so that it will be got down, and state what is set opposite to each 


name as you go down.—A.— 

Barrington, of Ouachita. Kellogg. 

Bird, of East Baton Kouge. Kellogg. 

Brown, of Caddo..•. Kellogg. 

Burton, of Carroll. Kellogg. 

Brown, of Jefferson. Kellogg. 

Blair, of Morehouse..*. Kellogg. 

Brewster, of Ouachita. Kellogg. 

Bosley, of Red River. Kellogg. 

Brooks, of Saint Mary. Kellogg. 

Blackstone, of Orleans, 7th rep. dist.. Kellogg. 

Carville, of Iberville. Kellogg. 

Como, of Saint James..... Kellogg. 

Drury, of Assumption.. Kellogg. 


Q. Let me interrupt you. After Como, is Cole there ?—A. Yes, sir; 
Cole. 


Q. You did not read that ?—A. Cole, of Saint John Baptist, Kellogg. 
Q. And next?—A. Drury, of Assumption. 

Q. What is opposite to that ?—A. “ Kellogg.” 

Q. Go on ?—A.: 

Davidson, of Iberville. Kellogg. 

Dayries, of Pointe Couple. Kellogg. 

Drew, of Rapides, first voted for Pinchback, but before the 

tallies were made he changed his vote from Pinchback to.. Kellogg. 
De Lacy, of Rapides, voted blank and before the votes were an¬ 
nounced he changed his vote from blank to. Kellogg. 

Then come— 

Dickinson, of Saint James, voted. Kellogg. 

Dinkgrave, of Madison . Kellogg. 

Desmarais, of Saint Landry. Kellogg. 

D’Avy, of Saint Landry.... Kellogg. 

Detiege, of Saint Martin. Kellogg. 

Dejoie, of Orleans, 14th representative district.. Kellogg. 

Early, of West Feliciana. Kellogg. 

Estopinal, of Saint Bernard. Kellogg. 

Fobb, of Ascension. Kellogg. 

Gardere, of Orleans, 7th representative district. Kellogg. 

Gaude, of Lafourche... Kellogg. 

Gantt, of Saint Landry.. . Kellogg. 

Gary, of Saint Mary.... Kellogg. 































SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 349 

Gracien, of Orleans, 13tb representative district. Kellogg. 

Ilabn, of Saint Charles. Kellogg. 

Hill, of Ascension. Kellogg. 

Hughes, of Assumption. Kellogg. 

Holt, of East Baton Kouge. .. Kellogg. 

Holt, of W^est Batou liouge. Kellogg. 

Heath, of Webster. Kellogg. 

Johnson, of He Soto. ... Kellogg. 

Jones, of Pointe Couple. Kellogg. 

Johnson, of Terre Bonne. Kellogg. 

Keeting, of Caddo. Kellogg. 

Lane, of East Baton Rouge ... Kellogg. 

Leonard, of Caddo. Kellogg. 

Lewis, of Natchitoches, first voted blank, and then changed 

his vote before the vote was announced to.. Kellogg. 

IVIagloire, of Avoyelles. Kellogg. 

Martin, of Lafayette. Kellogg. 

]\Iilon, of Plaquemines... Kellogg. 

Moore, of Orleans, 7th representative district.. Kellogg. 

McMillen, of Carroll.. Kellogg. 

Ronton, of Catahoula. Kellogg. 

Romero, of Iberia. Kellogg. 

Roby, of Natchitoches. Kellogg. 

Souer, of Avoyelles . Kellogg. 

Swazie, of West Feliciana. Kellogg. 

Snaer, of Iberia. Kellogg. 

Seveignes, of Lafourche. Kellogg. 

Slielton, of ^lorehouse. Kellogg. 

Semmes, of Saint James. Kellogg. 

Stewart, of Tensas. Kellogg. 

Thomas, of Bossier. Kellogg. 

Tolliver, of Concordia.. . Kellogg. 

Washington, of Concordia. Kellogg. 

Watson, of Madison. Kellogg. 

Warmoth, of Plaquemines. Kellogg. 

Walker, of Tensas. Kellogg. 

Total, 06. 


Q. That was recorded at the time as the roll-call proceeded ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. As you read it to-day A. As I read it to day that was the actual 
vote cast. 

Q. Was Seveignes there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How do you know?—A. Because every time that I called the roll, 
I stood up at the time to call it, and I looked at each member when I 
called it. 

Q. Do you know Seveignes?—A. Yes, sir; I know him very well. 

Q. Do you know Thomas, of Bossier ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Did you hear him vote ?—A. Yes, sir; he was there and voted. 

Q. I wish you would state now whether at any time during that day, 
before that roll-call was entered upon, there was any sending out, unof¬ 
ficially, without an order of the house, for absentees ?—A. During the 
day previous we had been unable to get a quorum ; and I cannot very 
well recollect, but I think that 1 ordered the sergeant-at-arms myself to 
see that we did have a quorum when we called the house that day. 
When we adjourned the house it was alter midnight, and I was very 





































350 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


l)articular to see that we had a quorum on that day j because 1 knew 
that that was the day for joint session, and we were bound to have a 
quorum j and I think, if 1 recollect aright, that 1 did give him some 
orders for members. He had been brought up before the house for re¬ 
fusing to go after absent members ^ and he said that if he was given an 
order he could better bring them, because he was afraid of the Nicholls 
police. He said if he went without an order, these members might 
think he was acting of his own accord, and it might get him into some 
trouble. Then when he got back with them I think he said something 
about getting a receipt; 1 think I gave him a receipt, or somebody else 
did for me. 

Q. Hid that occur during the night?—A. That occurred during the 
night, and before the roll-call of the house; yes, sir. 

Q. It is this that I mean—on page 4.—A. The roll-call of the house—to 
get a quorum; we sent him out just before the house met, so that I could 
get a quorum. 

Q. So that when the roll-call of the house proper was made there 
were sixty-three?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who were the persons that were absent at that roll-call which 
shows 63, and who came in before the first vote recording 66, which was 
the call of the house in joint session? Can you give .me the names of 
the absentees without going over it ? Can you give the names of the 
three that were absent?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Those who appear in the roll-call of the house in joint session ?— 
A. I think that General McMillen- 

Q. McMillen is one. That is right. Well, we need not detain the 
committee about that. That is a mere matter of comparing the figures, 
unless som^ebody wants to ask about their coming in. Have you the 
roll-call of the senate in that book?—A. No, sir; not in that book. I 
have got the votes—the names—in my ofiicial journal; because, when 
they were in joint session, we took the minutes the same as if it was in 
the house. 

Q. Well, go over them and state whether Allain was there.—A. Ba¬ 
ker, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Humont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Landry, 
Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Young, Blunt—seven¬ 
teen. 

Q. That is right. Whom did they vote for?—A. They voted for Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg. 

Q. Do you know when the senate first obtained a quorum, of your 
own knowledge?—A. They had a quorum the first day they met. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You say the senate had a quorum the first day they met ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did they keep up that quorum all the time ?—A. Not all the time 
not during the whole session. 

Q. How many members are there in the senate ?—A. There are 36. 

Q. And it takes 19 to make a quorum?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They did not have a quorum on the day of the joint convention ? 
—A. No, sir; they had no quorum on the day of the joint convention. 

Q. Was not the sergeant-at-arms sent out on the day of the joint con¬ 
vention by you to get members ?—A. He might have been in the morn¬ 
ing; yes, sir. 

Q. After the roll-call was he not sent out ?--A. I think most likely 
when 1 commenced calling the roll I might have told him to go out and 
get absent members, to be positive of having a quorum; because I 








SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 351 

knew the senate had to come into joint session, and if we did not have 
a quorum, then most likely our election would be contested. 

Q. Did you not tell him to go out and get ten f—A. I may have 
done so. 

Q. In the course of that day?—A. Not in the course of that day. 

Q. Do you remember, when the roll call was being made, saying to him 
to go out and get ten men to make a quorum ?—A. After the house had 
been in session ? 

Q. Yes.-»-A. No. 

Q. I mean after the house—not after going into joint session.—A. I 
tell you we had adjourned that house after midnight. During the day, 
early in the morning—because I didn’t go to bed that night, maybe only 
about an hour; I just laid on m 3 Mounge in my office—earlj^ in the 
morning of Wednesday I might then have told him to see that we had 
a quorum, because I knew it was my duty to see that we had a 
quorum, because, under one of the rules of the house, the chief clerk 
is responsible for seeing that a quorum is in the house. As he had been 
already arraigned before the house I told him then myself, or I would 
have to arraign him. 

Q. He had been arraigned two or three times?—A. Yes, sir; two or 
three times, for not bringing in a quorum. He said he could not go out 
in the streets to get the members up; and maybe the.y would not want 
to come, and they would make a fuss, and the Nicholls police might get 
him; and he wanted to show an order that he must go after them. It 
was on his suggestion that 1 gave him the order. 

Q. What time did the house meet on Wednesday morning?—A. I 
believe we met about eleven o’clock, or half past eleven. 

Q. What time did they go into joint session ?— A, About twelve, or a 
few minutes after. 

Q. During that same morning, at some time, do you not remember 
saying that you needed ten men to make a quorum ?—A. I may have 
toid him so before the roll was called; but I am positive that after the 
roll was called I had 63 members—previous to the coming in of the 
senate. 

Senator Hoar. His answer to your last question was a little indefi¬ 
nite. I wish you would make it plain. You ask him if he recollects 
telling him that “ we need ten men.” 1 do not know whether he means 
to say he does not recollect it or not. 

The Witness. I say that if it was before I called the roll, most prob¬ 
ably 1 did, because 1 think 1 did, but, after once the roll was called, I 
am sure I did not. 

Senator Hoar. The question was not whether it was most probable 
you did, but whether you recollect doing it or not—as a matter of best 
recollection.—A. Yes, sir; I think I did. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Before the house went into session, you told 
him to go and get ten men ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect that he brought in five of them, and then his 
coming back and yon telling him that you had a quorum ?—A. I don’t 
recollect about that. He may have come in. 

Q. What is your best recollection ? Do you recollect telling him that 
you had a quorum ? It was a matter between you and him, as you had 
to look after him.—A. The moment I got through calling the roll, and 
I saw I had a quorum, my business was through. 

Q. Did you not tell him, however, when he came and made return to 
the order given him to get ten men, and he said he could get but five— 


352 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


did you not tell him, “All right j I have a quorum now”?—^A. Most 
likely I did. 

Q. Is that your best recollection ?—A. My best recollection is niy roll, 
because I was very particular iu calling that roll, and I am positive that 
I had a quorum, and that every member in the room knows I had a 
quorum. 

Q. When you gave him an order, of course he had to make a report 
to you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, what is your recollection of your reply when he made his re¬ 
port back to you on the order given him to get these ten men—was it 
not that you had a quorum ?—A. I expect that I may have told him that. 
I don’t recollect of using that word, and I don’t recollect his coming to 
me. 

Q. It was his duty to come and make a report if you gav^e him an 
order, was it not ?—A. He may have made it to one of the assistant 
clerks at the desk. 

Q. You have no recollection of it?— A. No, sir. 

Q. Either vague or distinct?—A. I have a kind of vague recollection 
of it, I think, but I am not positive. 

Q. That is what I want to get at. You have a vague recollection of 
his coming, and of your saying you had a quorum ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By ]\Ir. Shellabarger : 

Q. Where uas Murraj^ when the roll was being called?—A. When 
the roll was being called, I do not know. Whenever I called the roll I 
knew about where each member sat; and the first thing I did in call¬ 
ing his name was to raise up my head and look right square at him and 
see exactly how he voted. And when everybody in the house did keep 
a tally—and to prove that my record was right; because, although there 
was no candidate at the time, still, if you will turn over the record, you 
will see that in an hour afterwards we had four aspirants for the short 
term ; they each had their friends, and each wanted to have his friend 
elected, and each kept a tally. 

Q. Did yon take a recess?—A. Yes, sir ; and after the recess you will 
see that we had a quorum, even then. I certainly, then, could not have 
marked a man as v^otiug for any individual if ho had not done it, be¬ 
cause the opposing party w^ould know it at once. They would rise up 
to see who voted, as I did. 

Q. When did you hear it first charged that there was no quorum of 
the house present ?—A. The first I heard of it being charged that there 
was no quorum of the house present was in some speeches I got the other 
day from Washington—that I saw in the debate, where they charged 
that there was no quorum, and there was no journal. That was the 
first I knew of it. 


LEGISLATIVE JOURNALS. 

Mr. SuELLABARGER offered in evidence the following legislative jour¬ 
nals, which were admitted by the committee, viz : 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 353 

Official journal of the proceedings of the senate of the State of Louisiana for the week ending 

danuarg G, 1877. 

[By authority.] 

FIRT DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

Sknate Cham BEK, New Okleaxs, January 1, 1877. 

In pursuance w ith the provisions of articles seventeen of the constitution of the 
State, the senate, a branch of the general assembly of Louisiana, met in the senate 
chamber at the date aforesaid, in the city of New' Orleans. 

At tw'elve o’clock m. lion. C. C. Antoine, lieutenant-governor of the State and pres¬ 
ident of the senate, called the senate to order. 

The president ordered the secretary (Mr. Bechtel) to call the roll of the members of 
the senate elected in 1874. 

The follow ing senators answ'ered to their names, to wdt: 

Messrs. Allain, Breaux, Burch, Dumont, Gla, I^andry, Tvvitchell, Young—8. 

Absent—Eustis, George, Goode, Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Robertson, Steven, White— 0. 

The president here ordered the secretary to call the roll transmitted by the secretary 
of state, in accordance w ith the provisions of section 44 of act 08, session of 187*2, 
approved November 28, 1872, of the senators elected at the election held November 
7th, 187G. 

The following senators-elect answered to their names, to wit : 

Messrs. Blunt, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Hamlet, Harper, Sutton, Stamps, Wakelield, 
Wheeler, Weber—11. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducross, jr, Ellis, Garland, Mitchell, Richardson, Texada, 
Zacharie. 

The follow ing named senators then came forward and w'ere sw'orn in by the pres¬ 
ident of the senate: 

Messrs. Blunt, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Hamlet, Harper, Sutton, Stamps, Wakefield, 
Wheeler, Weber—11. 

The president declared a quorum ]>re8eut. 

I’rayer was ottered by the Rev. W. S. Alexander. 

On motion of St nator Allain, the senate went into the election of ottlcers. 

Nominations being in order. Senator Gla nominated Mr. L. Lamaniere, jr., for secre¬ 
tary of the senate. 

There being no other nomination, the president ordered the roll to be called, result¬ 
ing as follows: 

For Mr. Lamaniere, jr.: 

Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, 
Harper, Landry, Sutton, Stamjts, 'rwitchell, Wakelield, Weber, Wheeler, '^oung—10. 

Absent and not voting—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eutis, Garland, (icorge, 
Goode, Grover, Kelly, Mit hell, Ggden, L’ichardson, Robertson, Steven, Texada, 
White, Zacharie—17. 

Mr. I.,. Lamaniere, jr., was declared elected secretary of the senate. 

The election of assistant secretary of the senate being in order. Senator Cage nomi¬ 
nated William H. Green, 'riiere being no other nomination, the president ordered the 
roll to be calle<1, resuliing as follows : 

For William H. Green: 

Messrs. Allain, Brunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, 
Harper, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Tw'itchell, Wakelield, Wheeler, Young—18. 

Mr. Weber voted blank.- 

Absent and not voting—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, (leorge, 
Goode, Grover, Kelly, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, lexada, 
White, Zacharie—17. 

Mr. W. H. Greeji, having received a majority of the votes cast, w'as declared elected 
assistant secretary of the senate. 

Tlieeleciion of a minute-clerk being in order— 

Senator Gla nominated ,1. A. Greene. 

The roll being called, resulted as follows : 

For J. A. Greene : 

Messrs. Allain, Blunt^ Breaux, Burch, Bryan<-, Cage, Demas, Dumout, Gra, Hamlet, 
Harper, Laudry, Sutton, Stamps, Twdtchell, Wakefield, \Vheeler, \Veber, Young—10. 

Absent and not voting—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Kelly, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Texada, White, 
Zacharie—17. 

Mr. J. A. Greene, having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared 
elected minute-clerk of the senate. 

Nominations for assistant minute-clerk being in order. Senator Young nominated 
Isaac A. Abbott, who received the following vote, to wit 

ii:3 s K 


354 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


Messrs. ARain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Leinas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, 
Harper, Lander, Sutton, Stamps, Twitcliell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Young—18. 

Absent and not voting—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Kelly, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Texada, White, 
Zacharie—17. 

Senator Weber voted blank. 

Mr. Abbot was declared e'ccted assistant minute-clerk of the senate. 

Senator Hamlet moved to proceed to the election of an assistant sergeant-at-arms, 
and nominated S. W. Wood for said position. 

The following-named senators voted for Mr. Wood: 

Messrs, xVllaiu, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumon, Gla, Hamlet, Har¬ 
per, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, Young—19. 

Absent and not voting—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Kelly, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Texada, White, 
Zacharie—17. 

Mr. Wood was accordingly declared elected assistant sergeant-at-arms. 

Senator Hamlet, nominated G. H. Griffin as chief enrolling-clerk of the senate. The 
roll being called, resulted as follows: 

For G. H. Griffin: 

Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, 
Harper, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, Young—19. 

Absent and not voting—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros,Jr., E.lis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Kelly, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Texada, White, 
Zacharie—17. 

Mr. G. H. Griffin was declared elected chief enrolling-clerk of the senate. 

Senator Harper nominated Lewis Jackson as doorkeeper of the senate. 

The roll being called, resulted as follows: 

For Lewis Jackson: 

Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, 
Harper, I^andry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, Young—18. 

Senator Weber voted blank. 

Absent and not voting—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Kellj', Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson,'Steven, Texada, White, 
Zacharie—17. 

Mr. Lewis .Jackson was therefore declared elected doorkeeper of the senate. 

The following officers, to wit, Lamanicre, W. H. Green, J. A. Greene, Abbott, Badger, 
Woods, and Griffin, were duly sworn in by the president of the senate, and at once en¬ 
tered u})on the discharge of their duties for the year 1877. 

The secretary was directed by the president to inform the other branch of the gen¬ 
eral assembly of Jjouisiaua that the senate was duly organized and ready to proceed to 
business, if the other branch, to wit, the house, was also duly organized. 

The secretary, on returning, reported to the president of the senate that the house had 
not organized, and was in no condition to receive his mess ige. 

By Senator Burch: I move that the president of the senate appoint a committee of 
five on rules, and that the rules of the senate of the session of 1876 be the rules of this 
senate until otherwise ordered by the senate. 

Adopted. 

Senator Twitchell offered the following concurrent resolution : 

liesohed. That a committee of three be appointed to act with a committee from the 
house to act under the provisions of articles 1540 and 1552 of the Revised Statutes. 

Lies ov'er under the rules. 

The president informed the senate that he had appointed A. . Badger sergeant-at- 
arms of the senate, in lieu of William Mulford, who had resigned during the adjourn¬ 
ment of the senate, subject to the approval of the senate. 

On motion of Senator Burch, the action of the president was approved. 

Senator Cage moved that the president appoint a committee of three to inform the 
governor of the State that the senate was duly organized and ready to proceed to busi¬ 
ness. 

Adopted. 

In accordance with the motion adopted, the president appointed the following com¬ 
mittee, viz: Messrs. Cage, Wheeler, and Allain. 

By Senator Burch : I move that the senate committee on elections and qualifications 
remain as it now stands until the regular standing committees are appointed for this 
session. 

Pending discussion thereon. Senator Cage, on behalf of the committee to wait on the 
governor, reported the committee had performed its duty, and that the governor had 
DO communication for the senate at present. 

The motion of Senator Burch recurring, the senate refused to adopt the same. 

Senator Harper, by unanimous consent, introduced the petitions and j^apers in the 
contested cases of George Y. Kelso, from the twenty-third senatorial district, and Percy 
Baker, from the twentieth senatorial district. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 355 

Ou motion of Senator Twitchell, the whole subject-matter was laid on the table, sub- 
ioct to call. 

A notice of contest was tiled with the secretary of the senate by Mr. Ernest Alix, 
coutestiujjj the seat of F. C. Zacharie, senator-elect from the second senatorial district. 

The seiiate, on motion of Senator Blunt, duly seconded, went into executive session. 

Executive session having been raised, the roll was called, and the following senators 
answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, 
Har|>er, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, Young—IS. 

Absent--Mes8r8. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garand, George, Goode, Grover, 
Hamlet, Kelley, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Texada, White, Zach 
arie—Irf. 

No quorum. 

Senator Twitchell moved that the president of the senate be authorized to send for 
absent members and appoint such sergeants-at-arms as he may deem necessary for the 
j>urpose. 

Adopted. 

On motion of Senator Blunt, the senate took a recess for thirty minutes. 

At the expiration of the recess, the roll being called, the following senators were 
present: 

Messrs. Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Landry, Sutton, Steven, 
Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—14. 

Absent—Messrs. Allain, Boatner, Breaux, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Demas, Garland, 
George, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Tex¬ 
ada, White, Wheeler, Weber, Zacharie— 22. 

No quorum present. 

The ])resident ordered the sergeant-at-arms to go after absent members. 

Mr. Garland, senator-elect from the tenth senatorial district, was brought before the 
senate by the sergeant-at-arms. 

Mr. Garland protested against his being brought before the senate. 

The president informed liitn that it was in order for him to qualify as a senator from 
the tenth senatorial district to ])roperly represent the interests of his constituents. The 
president also stated that it was not compulsory on him to qualify. 

Mr. Garland declined to (pialify, and stated that he desired further time to consider 
thereon. 

The president stated that inasmuch as he was not sworn as a senator and failing to 
qualify as such, he was not subject to the orders of the senate as a member of said 
body. 

The president ordered a call of the senate, resulting as follows : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, 
Harper, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Steven, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, 
Young—19. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Hamlet, Kelly, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Texada, White, Zacharie—17. 

A quorum jiresent. 

Senator Harper moved that the cases of G. Y. Kelso and Percy Baker, contestants, be 
taken up from the table and acted upon, and called the previous (piestion. 

Senator Demas rose to a point of order, that it reipiired a two-tliirds vote to take up 
a jiaper from the table. 

Tlie president decided the jioint not well taken. 

Senator Weber appealed from the decision of the chair. 

Senator Landry moved to lay the appeal on the table. 

On call of the yeas and nays resulted as follows: 

Yeas—Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harj>er, Landry', 
Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—19. 

Nays—Demas, Weber, Wlieeler—-9. 

Blank—Steven—1. 

Ab.sent and not voting—Boatn'^r, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly', Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Texada, White, Zacharie—1C. 

The ajipeal was laid on the table. 

On motion of Senator Harper, the paiiors in the Kelso case were read. 

Senator Hari>er moved that Mr. G. Y. Kelso be admitted as a senator from the twenty- 
third senatorial district, subject to contest. 

The main (jnesfion was ordered. 

A majority of the senators having voted in the aflirmative, Mr. George Y. Kelso was 
adiniitiMl as a member of the senate. 

Senator llarjier called up the case of Percy Baker, contestant from the twentieth 
senatorial district. 

The papers were read. 


356 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Harper then moved that Mr. Percy Baker be admitted as a senator from the 
twentieth senatorial district, subject to contest. 

The main question was ordered. 

On the final vote Messrs. Demas and Weber called for the yeas and nays, as follows r 

Yeas—Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Landry, Sutton, 
Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—14. 

Nays—Allain, Demas— 2. 

Blank—Steven, Weber, Wheeler—3. 

Absent and not voting—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Mitchell, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Texada, White, Zach- 
arie—17. 

A majority of the senators having voted in the affirmative, Mr. Percy Baker was ad¬ 
mitted as a senator from the twentieth senatorial district. 

Senator Twitchell moved that Senators Kelso and Baker be sworn in as members, 
and they accordingly came forward and were sworn in. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

House of Representatives, 

Xtiv Orleans, January 1, lb77. 

To the honorable president and members of the senate: 

I am directed by the house of representatives to inform your honorable body that 
the house of representatives of the State of Louisiana is organized by the election of 
the following officers, viz: Hon. Michael Hahn, speaker; R. F. Guichard, chief clerk; 
Thomas Murray, sergeaut-at-aims. 

I am also directed to ask the concurrence of your honorable body in the following 
house bill, No. 1, entitled an act to establish an additional district court to be entitled 
the superior civil court for the parish of Orleans; to define and regulate its jurisdic¬ 
tion and modify and regulate that of the several (listrict courts of said parish, hitherto 
and now existing; to reduce the expenses of tax-payers and of justice in the city of New 
Orleans; to abolish the sixth and suxierior district courts for said parish; to further 
regulate corporations and their proceedings and dissolution, and protect the assets 
thereof; to regulate juries and jury commissioners relative to said superior civil court, 
and increase the salary of said commissioners, and confer additional powers on the 
third district court for the parish of Orleans. 

Also, concurrent resolution asking the assistance of the President of the United 
States to keep order and x>eace within the State. 

WILLIAM VIGERS, 

Assistant Clei'k. 

By unanimous consent, the concurrent resolution asking the assistance of the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States to keep order and peace within the State was taken up, and, 
on motion of Senator Burch, was concurred in. 

By unanimous cousent, Senator Burch called up house bill No. 1, entitfed an act to 
establish an additional district court, to be entitled the superior civil court for the 
parish of Orleans, to define and regulate its jurisdiction, and modify and regulate that 
of the several district courts of said parish hitherto and now existing ; to reduce the 
expenses of taxpayers and of justice in the city of New Orleans; to abolish the sixth 
and superior district courts for said parish; to further regulate corporations and their 
proceedings and dissolution, and protect the assets thereof; to regulate juries and jury 
conimissioLers relative to said superior civil court, and increase the salary of said 
commissioners, and to confer additional powers on the third district court for the 
parish of Orleans. 

There being no objection, the bill was read the first time- 

The constitutional rules were suspended, the bill was read the second time and 
adopted on its second reading. 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-fifths affirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was x)laced on its third reading and final xiassage. 

Ihe bill finally passed by the following vote: 

Yeas—Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Ham¬ 
let, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamxis, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Young—20. 

Nays—Wheeler—1. 

Absent and not voting—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grove, Kelljq Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

The bill finally passed, title adopted, and notice of concurrence ordered sent to the 
house. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate took a recess until 10 a. m. tc-morrow. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


357 


KECKSS. 


1 lie recess liaving ex])irecl,the senate reassembled at 10 a. m., and was called to 
<iider by lion. C. C. Antoine, lieutenant-governor of the State of Ijouisiana and presi- 
dant of the senate. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Landry, Stamus, Twitchell, Wakefield, 
>> heeler—0. 



No quorum. 

Oil motion of Senator Burch, the senate took a recess for thirty minutes. 

After recess the roll was called, and the following senators answered to their names: 
I’resent—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breanx, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Dumont, Gla, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, 
Young—20. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Dneros, jr., Denias, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robe 


A quorum present. 


‘obertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—10. 


MESSAGES FROM THE GOVERNOR. 

State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

Xeiv Orleans, Jan nary 1, 1877. 

To the honorable the ])res’dent and members of the senate : 

The following executive messages were receiv'ed. 

I return for your consideration an act entitled an act to amend section one of an act 
entitled an act to •• mend and re-enact sections one, seven, forty-nine, tifty-six, sixty-one, 
sixty-six, seventy-five, and seventy-seven of an act entitled an act to provide a revenue; 
to levj' and collect tax(>s ; to prescribe certain iienalties and forfeitures ; to ju’ovide for 
the creation and removal of revenue officers, and to deline their duties; to punish cer¬ 
tain crimes and misdemeanors; to create lims and mortgages in favor of tlie State in 
certain cases; to regulate the manner of the ]»ayment of moneys from the treasury; 
to juesciibe certain duties of justices of the ]>eace. State and parish officers; to provide 
for the collection of back taxes or licenses, and re])eal all acts inconsistent therewith, 
approved March 11,1871, and relative to fees of the auditor of i)nblic accounts, approved 
March (>, 1872. 

The general purpose of this bill is to be commended, and if it were not fatally defect¬ 
ive in its provisions I would sign it. The fees and commissions now allowed by law to 
tax-collectors are extravagantly high, and they ought to be reduced. Nevertheless, a 
pro])er regard for the public service and the necessity for a speedy and an efficient col¬ 
lection of the revenues should ])revent the reduction of such fees and commissions to an 
amount sufficient to defraj^ the cost of collection. This bill, which is unecpial in its 
provisions, reduces the compensation to collectors in certain districts in New Orleans 
80 low that the collectors in those districts could not ]»ay for the necessary clerk hire 
out of their receipts for fees. 

I trust that the general assembly will repass the measure in a more carefully prepared 
and eiiuitable form. 

WM. P. KELLOGG, 

G aver nor. 

State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

Xew Orleans, Jan nary 1, 1877. 

To the honorable the president and members of the senate : 

I return to yonr honorable body, in which it originated, an act entitled an act requir¬ 
ing the auditor of ])ublic accounts of the State of Louisiana to issue warrants on the 
State treasurer in favor of the constitutional officers of the State for the payment of 
their salaries; requiring the several State tax-collectors to receiv^ said warrants from 
the tax-payers of the State in payment of the general fund tax lor the current year; 
requiring the auditor of public accounts and State treasurer to receive said warrants 
from the tax-collectors in their settlements, Ac. 

I can see no just reason for giving preference to one class of creditors over others. 
The act seems to have been passed in contemplation of a state of facts not now exist- 
ing. 

The revenues of the past year have been sufficient to meet the expenditures, and, as 
a matter of fact, 1 am informed that the constitutional officers have been paid their 
salaries. 

WM. P. KELLOGG, 

Gorernor. 


358 


SPOFFORP VS. KELLOGG. 


State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

Xew Orleans, January 1, 1877. 

To the honorable president and members of the senate: 

I return with my veto an act to exempt from State and parish taxes lands overllowed 
by the grand levee and Bonnet Carre and other crevasses now existing. 

The law would confer too much power upon the tax-collector. It is not necessary. 
The existing laws under which the board of assessors in the parishes can reduce assess¬ 
ments, wdth the approval of the auditor, are sufficiently effective for the relief contem¬ 
plated by this bill. 

WM. P. KELLOGG, 

Governor. 

State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

Neiv Orleans, January 1, 1877. 

Senators and members of the house of representatives of the State of Louisiana: 

In transmitting this the closing message of my administration I again congratulate 
you upon the bountiful crops with which Providence has crowned the agricultural in¬ 
dustry of the State. While other communities have been scourged by pestilence or 
visited by serious disasters, the health of this State has been exceptionally good, and 
neither overflow nor other public calamity has befallen us. 

My term of office as governor of Louisiana will expire in a few days. I shall resign 
the onerous duties which that position has imposed upon me with only this regret, 
that circumstances have notpermitted me to accomplish more for the good of this State. 
The difficulties encountered can scarcely be overstated. During the first years of my 
administration an organized plan of tax resistance prevailed, and the existence of the 
government was repeatedly threatened by armed insurrection, which finally became 
of so formidable a character as to render necessary an appeal to the general government 
for aid in its suppression. The tranquillity of the State has since been disturbed by a 
revolutionary effort to seize cobtrol of the organization of the lower house of the gen¬ 
eral assembly, and by an attempt to displace the executive authorities by false and 
frivolous articles of impeachment, adopted in violation of plighfed faith. Through all 
these embarassments I have also had to contend against systematic calumny and mis¬ 
representation abroad, and have seen with regret the ready acceptance which the 
slanders directed against the Republican party in this State have met with from those 
who profess to believe in the principles of that party as maintained in other States. 
Conscious of right, I have struggled on, endeavoring to give peace and prosperity to 
the State, and at the same time protect the right of those by whose votes mainly I was 
called to the executive chair. 

The recorded facts will show that when I entered upon my duties the bonded and 
floating debt of the State was $24,090,407, with contingent liabilities amounting to 
$21,090,500. The laws authorizing this contingent debt have all been repealed, and the 
debt of the State now is: 


New consols outstanding. $9, 318, 342 

Old fundable bonds, $4,059,300, which funded at sixty cents will be. 2, 435, 580 

Old fundable warrants outstanding, $173,000, which funded at sixty cents 

will be... 102,000 

Total consolidated interest-bearing debt, when funding is completed, ex¬ 
clusive of interest coupons due prior to January, 1874, and interest war¬ 
rants issued therefor, amounting in all to about $100,000 . 11, 855, 922 


Taxation for State purposes, when this administration entered into power, was 
twenty-one and a half mills on the dollar, with an equal, or even greater, taxation in 
most parishes for parish purposes. Taxation for all State purposes, including schools, 
is now limited by constitutional amendment to fourteen and a half mills, and by law 
of the State the rate of parish taxation can in no case exceed the rate of State taxation. 
Constitutional amendments limit the expenditures of the State government to the actual 
revenues received and render null and void all warrants issued in excess of revenue. The 
rate of taxation in thecity of New Orleans at the corninenceiuent of my term of office was— 
State, including schools, twenty and one-half mills ; city, thirty mills ; total, fifty-one 
and one-half mills. The rate of taxation in thecity of New Orleans for the present year 
is—State, including schools, fourteen and one-lialf mills; city, fifteen mills; total, 
twenty-nine and one-half mills. Constitutional amendments limit the city debt to the 
highest amount attained previous to the passage of these amendments, and prohibit 
under severest penalties the issuance of any warrant or evidence of indebtedness, ex¬ 
cept against money actually in the treasury. The total expenditures of the preceding 
State administration for the support of government from 1869 to 1872 inclusive were 
$11,622,005. The total expenditures for the support of government during the four 
years of my administration have been $4,209,825, a saving of $7,412,180. The legislature 





SPOFFOIU) VS. KELLOGG. 350 

of ISfifi-NV-’?, composed exclusively of opponents of the Republican party, api)ro})riatetl 
Sl7,l*Jl),r>r>4, an excess of appropriation over revenue for those years of sUh/oO,;');") I. 

Dnrinj; tlie i)ast summer our new consols were admitted upon the New York Stock 
Exchane;e, and are now quoted amoni; other iiminestione*! bonds in the markets of this 
country aiid of Europe. As the nature of these bonds an«l the •guarantees by which 
they are surrounded become more widely known, they cannot fail to appreciate in value. 
The interest on all bonds funded np to date has been promptly met at maturity. 
Payment of the interest falling due .January 2,1877, is announced. Political ditlicultits 
have rendered the collection of taxes somewhat slow, and it has not been thought desirable 
to hasten the funding of the bonds which still remain to be converted. The interest 
fund is intact, and cannot be diverted for any purpose. It is believed the delinquent 
taxes to come in will be sutlicient to pay the interest on every outstanding bond, and 
also on those that yet remain to be fnnde<l. 

It is a matter of history that the measures by which the debt of the State has been 
reduced and taxation and expenditures have been lowered and linuted were carried 
into ertect by the Republican party with the aid of many conservative business men 
of the community, against the united efforts of the political party opposed to the pres¬ 
ent State administration. The justice and necessity of these provisions are now, I 
believe, admitted by all, and their validity is unquestioned. I regret to note that at 
the recent election other constitutional amendments reducing the salaries of otlicials, 
limiting the expenses of the general assenibly, and abolishing supertluous offices have 
been defeated by votes cast apparently by both political parties. The inference re¬ 
mains that no party organization, as such, can be entirely trusted to carry out meas¬ 
ures in the public inteiest which tend to reduce the rewards and emolnmentsof polit¬ 
ical success, and that further measures of relief in this direction, if attained at all, 
must proceed, as heretofore, from the co-operation of moderate and conservative men 
with that organization which manifests most clearly a desire to advance the general 
welfare. 

The assumption that Southern States cannot ])rosper under goveruments elected in 
strict accoidance with the re<iuiremeut8 of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth 
amendments to the Constitution of the United States is disproved by facts. The as¬ 
sessment-rolls of the different parishes of the year 1875, tiled in the office of the State 
auditor, give instructive statistics of the agricultural productions of that year. From 
several of the ]»arisbe8 conqtlete returns were not made. It is fair to assume, as they 
are tax returns, that none of them err on the side of overstating results. lu lifty- 
three out of fifty-seven parishes, with a cultivated area of one million nine hundred 
and thirty-four thousand nine hundred and seven acres, and an uncultivated area of 
ten million nine hundred and thirty-four thousand nine hundred and seven acres, the 
products of the year are shown to have been three hurdred thousand bales of cotton, 
one hundred thonsaml hogsheads of sugar, two hundre<l and thirty-five thousand bar¬ 
rels of molasses, one hundred and seventy-five thousand l)arrels of rice, and over six 
million bushels of corn. Rtdnrtis for the year just closed have thus far been received 
from only forty-eight out of fifty-seven ]>arishes, but careful computations ]>lace the 
probable yield at four hundred and fifty thousand bales of cotton, one hundred and 
eighty-six thonsaml hogsheads of sugar, three hundred and sixty-four thousand bar¬ 
rels of molasses, and two hundred and seventy thousand barrels of rice, with more than 
sufficient corn to 8n])ply all home denuunls. These statistics do not include cypress 
lumber, moss, and other imtural pro<lnc's, nor do they include many other items which 
go largely to make np the agricultural wealth of the State, as, for instance, oranges and 
other fruits; tobacco, one variety of which is cultivated to a considerable extent in 
several ])arishes; oats and other cereals, which in the hill <listri(;ts are successfully 
raised; and neat-cattle and vegetables, in the rearing of which the State is almost self- 
supporting. All these cousidere*!, it is safe to say that the value of the products ot the 
State during the ])resent year will range from Afty-tive to sixty millions of dollars. 
Hy whom have the.'-e results been ])roduced ? N<»t to any appreciable extent by white 
lai)or. It is one •)! the lamentable legac’es of slavery that by a large class of the. white 
]M)})nlation the cultivation of the soil is regarded as a badge of degrailation. The cot¬ 
ton and sugar .and rice, which maintain the commerce of New Orleans and afford sup¬ 
port to the great bulk of the population of our chief city, are the [)roducts ot the tree 
colored labor. 

The fact is in<lisputable that the agricultural districts of the State are rapi<lly gain¬ 
ing in pros[)erity, while the <‘ity <d' New Orleans, the chie.f center of turbulence and 
political (liscord, is daily declining in wealth. Our cotton crop is c(|ual to that of the 
most prosperous years before the war; the sugar crops have largely increased ; the rice 
crops have nearly trebled within the last few years. N(* country in the world, no State 
in the Union with similar advantages of salubrious climate, offers eiiual inducements 
to immigration. The rich sugar lands on the Teche and elsewhere yield one hundred 
and fifty to two hundred dollars an acre, ami are taxeil npoii^ low assessments not 
more th.'in tive to ten dollars an acre, while lands in Western States, assessed a hun¬ 
dred per cent, higher, are not onc-lonrth as productive. The State is deficient only in 


360 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


a healthy public sentiment that will aid in enforcing the laws and protecting all citi¬ 
zens in their rights. 

With peace firmly established and a general acceptance of the results of the war, 
such as prevails in some sections of the State, except when disturbed by organized 
revolutionary movements set on foot by the controlling few who tyrannize over the 
conservative sentiment of the community, Louisiana would offer an unequaled field 
for the unemployed capital and ill-paid labor of other communities. In no other State 
of the Union is the capitalist so fully insured against excessive taxation as in this State 
under the recently-adopted constitutional amendments. In no other State can equal 
returns be obtained for an equal amount of capital invested in agricultural pursuits. 

It would be gratifying to me if, in reviewing the events of my four years’ term of 
office, I could point to railroads built, steamship lines established, telegraphic com¬ 
munication extended, fertile lands redeemed from overflow, natural resources devel¬ 
oped, and, above all, harmony and good feeling established on a firm basis between the 
two races by an honest accpiiescence in the consequences of emancipation and en¬ 
franchisement. I do not think these results are far distant, but it would be encourag¬ 
ing to note more rapid progress in each direction. In some parishes of the State, nota¬ 
bly those which are most prosperous and peaceful and strongly Republican, kindly 
relations exist between whites and blacks. The colored people have become, to a large 
extent, either the owners of the lauds they cultivate or jointly interested with their 
white employers in the products of their labor. This of itself establishes a community 
of interest and of sentiment between the two classes. It was one of the recommenda¬ 
tions strenuously urged in the first message I had the honor to address to a legislature 
of Louisiana that the laborers should be given every opportunity to acquire capital 
by fair means, that they should be guarded from imposition, and encouraged to invest 
their earnings in some permanent form, thus becoming capitalists in interest, and, by 
consequence, capitalists in sentiment, and, above all, that they should be protected in 
the exercise of the ballot, the guarantee and safeguard of their rights. In tliis way, it 
seemed to me, antagonism between labor and capital would be avoided and harmony 
would be established between the races. Wherever this policy has been carried out 
peace and good government prevail, the parish debts are light, the parish taxes are 
small, and the products of the soil yield a bountiful return for the capital and labor 
invested. In these parishes, also, it is found that the colored people, justly treated 
and protected, willingly accept the political leadership of those upon whom in former 
years they were accustomed to rely. At the last election in this State a number of 
/prominent native-born white citizens of Louisiana, itleutified in every respect with the 
past history of their section, but who had frankly accepted the changed condition of 
affairs brought about by the war, were elected to responsible official positions by col¬ 
ored voters on Republican or independent tickets. The hangings, whippings, maltreat¬ 
ment, and murders resorted to in other portions of the State to influence political re¬ 
sults are demonstrated to be not only crimes against civilization and humanity, but 
political blunders, bringing with them their own correctives through the election laws 
of the State, which were called into existence to prevent or remedy just such acts. 
Terr years or more of emancipated slave labor in the Southern States have shown that 
the colored people, as a race, when justly treated and protected in their rights, are 
valuable members of the community, industrious, peaceful, and docile to a fault. 
The only authentic instances in history wherein they have manifested o[)posite tend¬ 
encies have been where, once freed, the attempt has been made to remand them to 
slavery.’ 

In the communications I have had the honor to lay before the general assembly heretofore 
I have scarcely alluded to political questions. There has been much in our political history 
during this time to call for comment, but I have preferred to confine my recommendation, 
chiefly to measures calculated to advance the material interests of the State, trusting that 
time and returning prosperity would soften asperities and harmoniously adjust the changes 
relations of capital and labor and the politi 3al status of the two races. 

Recent events, however, seem to require that I should now refer at some length to mat¬ 
ters of State and national policy. Grave national issues depend upon the solution of politi¬ 
cal problems closely affecting the peace and prosperity of Louisiana. It has become a ques¬ 
tion for the nation to decide whether the violent and illegal means which have been 
systematically put forth in this and other Southern States to prevent, if possible, a fair ex¬ 
pression of the will of the whole people at the ballot-box shall be allowed to prevail. The 
nation is confronted with the possibility of a Presidential election hinging on the votes of 
States not long since m rebellion against the national authority, within whose borders the 
three constitutional amendments which embody the leading issues decided by the war have 
been virtually set aside by armed violence, intimidation, and murder. 

This is really the practical question to be determined. It is sometimes thinly dis¬ 
guised as a struggle against corrupt governments and for reform, a pious warfare of 
intelligence and virtue against ignorance aud vice. The results aimed at, however, in 
each of the States in question appear always to be the same—the vesting of all politi¬ 
cal control in the hands of an aristocratic oligarchy, irrespecLive of the will of the 


SPOFP'ORl) VS. KELLOGG. 


381 


majority ot the })eo|)le, and the practical nullitication of the constitutional measures 
which accord to the emancipate<l slaves the ri«>;hts of citizens. 

Two years aj^o, iti our neij^hhorinj; State of Mis.sissippi, there was a Republican State 
administration. It had been elected by a large and umiuestioned majority of the peo¬ 
ple; it was not oppressive I taxation was light; there was no appreciable public debt; 
the State was prosperous. That government has been swept out of existence. The 
freedmen ot Mississi[>pi are to-day represented in Congress just as they were when 
slaves before the w.ar, with only this (litterence, that their emancipation has increased 
the representative strength of their white masters. The State of Louisiana, on a fair 
A'ote, is as largely Republican as wa.s Mi.ssi.ssipi)i. Yet within the past eight years rive 
organized attcnij)ts have been made in the interest ot the s.anie class to overcome the 
will of the majority ; four times by violence and once by fraud. The success of any 
one ot these efiorts would h.ave i)laced the State of Louisiauiain the same position that 
M'ssissippi now holds. There can be no mistake as to theattitude of the opjtonents of 
the Republican party in Louisiana towards the Constitutional amejulments. It is 
clearly cut and well detined. The proof does not r<\st u[)on evidence of violence in any 
one or inore ])arishes, or at any one election. It is legibly written all over the history 
of the State since the termination of tiie war. The legislature of convened 

under the reconstructio* policy of President.John.son, and composed exclusivelj’of white 
citizens, many of them still i)rominent aspirants for political otlice, tabled the four¬ 
teenth amendment by a unanimous vote in both houses, ami passed laws consigning 
the freedmen to virtual j)eonage. One of the lirst public eiforts to giv'e ]>ractical effect 
to the new amendment when finally adopted by the country was met bj’ the terrible 
iiiassacre of July, ISfid. No word of condemnation of that crime has yet been heard 
Iron) the opponentsof Republican principles in this State. It is justified and apjtroved. 
The judge of the criminal court, who lefu.sed to chai'ge the grand jury in relation to 
the niurders then committed, has ever since been b ennially re-elected to the same 
otlice by the majority of the voters of the city of New Orleans. 

In the spi’ing of 18b8 the interposition of militaiy power under the direction of Con¬ 
gress enabled the colored people to exercise' their newly-conferred right of suffrage, 
and to elect a Re|)Jiblican State government. Whatever may be the errors or short- 
cotnings justly chaigeable against that administration (which enteied upon its duties 
under ciicum.stanccs of gieat difliculty), it is matter of record that no di.spositioti was 
shown to wjiit and judge it fairly by its acts, or to accord to it moral sup]u>rt in any 
etiort for the gei eral welfare. It was at once denounced as ausnipation, thrust upon 
the people by Fedeial bayonets, and the young men of the State w'ere invited by pub¬ 
lic resolution to form themselves into clubs and arm for its overthrow. Afew'inojiths 
later in that same year the candidate of the national Democratic party for the Vice- 
Presidency of the Lnited States declaied the Constitutional amendments void and 
the reconstruction acts a nullity, and called upon the President to use the Army of the 
United States to sup])ress the usurping Southern governments established iinder those 
enactments. As a natui’al conseciuence of this declaration and of the scenes of violence 
which followed, scarcely moie than live thousand out of the forty-eight thousand colore<l 
men in Louisiana who ha<l voted in the spring fora Rejniblican governor were permitted 
to cast their votes in the fall for a Republican President. These are matters of noto¬ 
riety. It is not necessary to tiace in detail the snbse(jnent history of ci)lore<l suffrage 
in this State, through the fusion fi’auds of 187*J, the massacies of Colfax and Coushatta, 
the White League riots of September, 1874, and the later outrages attending the last 
electiou, w’liich have shockeil the moral sense of the whole country. Viewed sepa¬ 
rately or together, these crimes di.solose one motive ; their accomplishnieut has tended 
to i>ro< nre one end. Their perpetrators are shielded by imblic seutiment; their de¬ 
fenders are rew’arded by election to public otlice in communities w’here hostility to Re¬ 
publican principles predominates. 

It is a painful fact in the history of the State that w hen a number of white citizens 
were arrested, tried, and convicted before a jury in the United States circuit court of 
the murder ot more than a hundreil surrendered, defencele.ss colored men at Colfax 
Court-House, the most iulluential residents of New Orleans foriiied associations for their 
relief. The entertainments given for the benetit of the so-called Gi'ant Parish suffer¬ 
ers” were the most popular of the season No terms of opprobrium wore found too 
strong for the United States circuit judge who, acting under a strict sense of duty, held 
that the proceedings taken under tue reconstruction acts of Congress against these ac¬ 
cused peisons w'ere legal and valid, and no jiraise too extravagant to be bestow'ed upon 
the associate justice of the Supreme Courtotjthe United States, wdio, acting, it is to bo 
liresumed, umler an eciually strict siiise of duty, declared those proceedings unconsti¬ 
tutional and void. The Grant Parish massacre is still regai'ded as a justifiable asser¬ 
tion of w hite supremacy. 

It is argued with plausibility that the disorders admitted to pi’evail in some of the 
Southern .States are the icsult of the inefficiency of the Republican State authorities 
and their inability to enforce the laws and bring the guilty parties to justice. In Au¬ 
gust last the executive of this State oflicially dii’ected the attention of the State cen- 


362 


SPOFFORI/ VS. KELLOGG. 


tral committee of ti e opposing party to the organized violence exercised in certain 
parishes of tlie State toward prominent Republicans. The chairman of tliat commit¬ 
tee replied that the parishes named were presided over by Republican officials, whose 
duty it was to bring evil-doers to justice under the State laws, and that if there was 
any truth in these charges, it was conclnsive proof that the Republican party was re¬ 
sponsible for the disorders which had occurred in this State. Similar arguments are 
continually repeated. It is pointed out that in Georgia and Alabama and other South¬ 
ern States, wffiich have been “ redeemed,” as it is called, from Republican rule, peace 
prevails and political murders are comparatively unknown. The very statement of 
this proposition carries with it confession of guilt. It discloses the fact that the dis¬ 
orders in the South are created by the opponents of Republicanism for the purpose of 
obtaining control of the government, and that until they obtain possession of the offi¬ 
ces, wffiether they have such a miijority of the legal voters as would justly entitle them 
to those offices or not, political turmoil will continue. 

The first case of successful prosecution for political crime has yet to occur in Louisi¬ 
ana. Instances are unhappily not wanting where bold efforts made to enforce the laws 
have been promptly followed by the assassination of judges, prosecuting officers, and 
sheriffs. It may here be recalled that during the local election for State officers and 
Congressmen in 1874, the State central committee of the opposition passed a formal 
resolution pledging their influence to secure a discontinuance of political violence 
throughout the State tipon certain conditions, which being complied with, opens acts 
of violence against Republicans almost immediately ceased. No local tribunals can 
prevent or punish political offenses whilst the controlling public sentiment amongst 
the more influential citizens sanctions or at least connives at those disorders. There 
seem to me but three ways by which peace can be maintained and the laws of the 
State and of the United States can be enforced in Louisiana against political offenders: 

1. The surrender of the State government to the minority who controlled its desti¬ 
nies before the emancipation of the slaves. 

2. The acceptance by that minority in good faith of the Constitutional amendments 
which express the issues decided by the war. 

3. The enactment bj’^ Congress of such appropriate and valid legislation as will se¬ 
cure the enforcement of those amendments against organized, insidious, and deep- 
seated hostility. 

The first of these plans I believe would be subversive of freedom and of the principles 
upon which a republican form of government is based. I shall be unfeignediy glad if I 
am called upon to welcome as my successor in office one whose fidelity to the principles 
on which, in my opinion, the future peace and prosperity of the community depend 
has been abundantly proved, and whose tried integrity and experience in the public 
service entitle him to full confidence. I will ask you to accord to him earnest support 
in maintaining the laws and advancing the material interests of the State, and in se¬ 
curing and protecting the humblest citizen in the rights guaranteed to him by the Con¬ 
stitution of the countrv. 

WM. P. KELLOGG, Governor. 

On motion of Senator Twifchell, the governor’s valedictory message w^as referred to 
a special committee, and 1,000 copies ordered printed in pamphlet form for the use of the 
senate. 

A special committee of the house of representatives, IVIessrs. Leonard of Caddo, 
Warmoth of Plaquemines, and Tolliver of Concordia, appearing at the bar of the sen¬ 
ate, announced that the house of representatives was then ready to organize in joint 
session for the purpose of counting officially the votes that were cast at the late elec¬ 
tion, November 7, 1876, for governor and lieutenant-governor of the State. 

Senator Lurch offered the following resolution : 

Whereas the senate having been notified by the house of representatives of their 
readiness to meet in joint sowssion to count and declare the vote in the late general 
election held November 7, 1876, for governor and lieutenant-governor for the State of 
Louisiana : Therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the senate proceed forthwith this day to the chamber of the house of 
representatives, then and there to count the votps cast for governor and lieutenant- 
governor in the late election held November 7, 1876, and proclaim the result in accord¬ 
ance with aiticle forty-eight of the constitution of the State. 

Pending which, on motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate adjourned until 11.30 
a. ni. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

(Secretary of the Senate. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


363 


SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. 


Senate Chamber, 

Xew Orleans, January 2, 1877. 

The aeiKite met pursuant to a<lJournment, and was called to order by lion. C. C. An¬ 
toine, lieutenant-^ov’ernor of the State of Louisiana and president of the senate. 

The roll was called, and the fidlowinj; senators answered to their names: 

^ Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Caj^e, Demas, Dumont, 
Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Waketield, Wheeler, 
Weber, Young—‘21. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

The president announced that there was a quorum present. 

By unanimous consent, Senator Burch called up the following resolution : 

Whereas the senate having been notified by the house of representatives of their 
readiness to meet in joint session to count and (leclare the vote in the late general elec¬ 
tion held November 7, 1876, for governor and lieutenant-governor for the State of Lou¬ 
isiana: Therefore, be it 

liesolved, That the senate proceed forthwith this day to the chamber of the house of 
representatives, then and there to count the votes cast for governor and lieutenant- 
governor in the late election, held November 7, 1876, and proclaim the result in accord¬ 
ance with article forty-eight of the constitution of the State. 

Which was adopted. 

The senate ordered the secretary to inform the house of re[)reseutatives of its action, 
to the effect that the senate was now ready to meet the house in joint session for the 
purpose aforesaid. 


IN JOINT SESSION. 

Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieutenant-governor of the State of Louisiana and president 
of the senate, took the chair, and directed the secretary of the senate to call the roll of 
the senate in joint session. 

The following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Dumont, 
Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, 
Weber, Young—‘21. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk of the house to 
call the roll of the house, when the following members answered to their names: 

I’resent—Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jeffer¬ 
son, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstono, 
Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davi«l8ou, Dayries, Drew, DeLacy, Dickinson, 
Dinkgrave, Dcsmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Bardere, Gaude, 
Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of 
West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, 
Kennedy, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milou, 
Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveigues, Simmes, Stewart, 
Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—68. 

A quorum present.^ 

The joint session being composed of twent 3 ’-one senators and sixty-eight members 
of the house, then proceeded in joint assembly to count anil declare the votes cast at 
the general election held on the seventh day of November, 1876, for governor and lieu¬ 
tenant-governor, in accordance with article forty-eight of the constitution. 

The president of the setiate having stated the object of the joint session, then ap¬ 
pointed Senators Burch, Twitchell, and Dumont as tellers on the part of the senate. 

The speaker of the house appointed Messrs. Korn, Carville, and Hill jis tellers on tho 
part of the house. 

The joint t<dlers then proceeded to examine and count the returns of tho votes cast 
in the several parishes of this State, which are as follows: 

Compiled returns of an election held for gov'ornor and lieutanant-governor in tho 
State of Louisiana on tho seventh day of November, A. D. 1876, under a writ of elec¬ 
tion dated September 16, A. D. 1876, ordering same, and pursuant to the provisions oi 
act No. 1)8, to regulate the conduct and to maintain tlie freedom and purity of elections; 
to prescribe the mode of making returns thereof; to provide for the election of return 
ing officers, and defining their [)owers and duties ; to ])rescribe the mode of entering 
on tho rolls of the senate and house of representatives; and to enforce article lOJ of 
the constitution, approved November ‘20, A. D. 1872, to wit: 


364 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


FOK GOVERNOR. 


Parishes. 

Ascension. 

Assumption.. 

Avoyelles. 

Baton Rouge, East. 

Baton Rouge, West..., 

Bienville. 

Bossier. 

Caddo . 

Calcasieu. 

Caldwell. 

Cameron. 

Carroll. 

Catahoula.. 

Claiborne. 

Concordia. 

De Soto. 

Feliciana, East*. 

Feliciana, West. 

Franklin. 

Grant t. 

Iberia. 

Iberville. 

Jackson. 

Jefferson, left bank_ 

Jefferson, right bank... 

Lafayette. 

I.iafourche. 

Ijiucolu.. 

Livingston. 

Madison. 

Morehouse. 

Natchitoches. 

Ouachita. 

Orleans.. . 

Plaquemines. 

Pointe Coupde. 

Rapides. 

Red River. 

Ricliland.. 

Sabine.. 

Saint Bernard. 

Saint Charles. 

Saint Helena. 

Saint James. 

Saint John the Baptist 

Saint Landry. 

Saint Martin. 

Saint Mary. 

Saint Tammany. 

Tangipahoa. 

Tensas. 

Terrebonne. 

Union. 

Vernon. 

Vermillion.. 

Washington. 

Webster. 

Winn. 


Total 


* All polls rejected in this parish, 
t No legal election in this parish. 


S. B. 

F. T. 

Packard. 

Nicbolls. 

2, 052 

1,219 

l,6d4 

1,697 

1,502 

1,480 

1, 403 

800 

908 

444 

226 

958 

1,646 

601 

2, 630 

1,719 

85 

1,308 

209 

486 

52 

246 

2,416 

607 

793 

849 

427 

1,404 

2, 461 

366 

712 

620 

624 

238 

101 

715 

1,438 

931 

2, 283 

965 

35 

4.56 

687 

141 

1, 006 

718 

653 

639 

1,867 

1,690 

324 

1,080 

121 

392 

2, 573 

300 

419 

408 

2, 077 

1,433 

739 

353 

14,693 

24, 062 

1,732 

727 

1,971 

1,096 

1,739 

1, 639 

830 

415 

117 

197 

23 

907 

691 

335 

1,229 

229 

516 

652 

1,984 

984 

1,287 

757 

2, 407 

3, 630 

1, 090 

1, 032 

2, 398 

1,455 

.549 

649 

558 

860 

3,192 

486 

1,962 

1,402 

87 

1,505 

179 

471 

270 

915 

163 

519 

666 

4.55 

78 

556 

74,624 

71,198 































































SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


FOR LI E UTEN A XT- GOVERNOR. 


Ascension. 

AsvSiiinption. 

Avoyelles. 

Raton Rouge, East... 
Baton Rouge, West... 

Bienville. 

Bossier.. 

Catldo. 

Calcasieu. 

Caldwell. 

Cameron. 

Carroll.. 

Catahoula. 

Claiborne. 

Concordia. 

De Soto. 

Feliciana, East*.. 

Feliciana, West.. 

Franklin. 

Grant t.. 

Iberia.. 

Iberville. 

Jackson. 

Jefferson, left bank... 
Jefferson, right bank , 

Lafayette. 

Lafourche.. 

Lincoln. 

Livingston. 

Madison. 

Morehouse... 

Natchitoches. 

Ouachita. 

Orleans. 

Phuiuemines.. 

Pointe Coup«5e.. 

Rapides. .. 

Red River.. 

Richland. 

Sabine. 

Saint Bernard. 

Saint Charles. 

Saint Helena.. 

Saint James.. 

Saint John the Baptist 

Saint Landry. 

Saint Martin. 

Saint Mary’s. 

Saint Tammany. 

Tangipahoa. 

Tensas. 

Terrebonne .. 

Union.. 

Vernon. 

Vermillion. 

Washington.. 

Webster.. 

Winn. 



365 

c.u. 

L. A. 

utonie. 

Wiltz 

2,054 

1,213 

1,085 

1,007 

1,408 

1,485 

1,403 

707 

Oil 

442 

225 

058 

1,044 

001 

2,040 

1,004 

80 

1, 304 

207 

487 

50 

240 

2, 404 

500 

703 

844 

427 

1,404 

2, 454 

371 

713 

GIG 

023 

238 

101 

715 

1,437 

920 

2.203 

054 

41 

450 

088 

140 

1,075 

043 

052 

040 

1,804 

1,()03 

321 

1,081 

121 

302 

2,571 

350 

414 

401 

2, 082 

1,428 

730 

340 

14,580 

24,050 

1,742 

717 

1,000 

1,008 

1,870 

1,028 

830 

410 

no 

100 

23 

007 

038 

385 

1,220 

220 

517 

050 

1,082 

084 

1,280 

757 

2, 3t)0 

3j ()3o 

1,080 

1,035 

2, 300 

1,457 

540 

OU 

558 

850 

3,203 

471 

1,073 

1,300 

80 

1,504 

170 

471 

208 

012 

105 

514 

005 

454 

78 

540 

74,000 

71,093 


Total 


* All poles rejected in this parish, 
t No legal election in this i)ari8h. 



































































366 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Burch, on behalf of the joint tellers of both houses, presented the following 
report: 


General Assemrly, State of Louisiana, 

New Orleans, January 2, 1877. 

To the honorable senate and house of representatives in joint session convened : 

Your joint committee having made a canvass of the returns jn’esented to them by the 
board of returning officers, pursuant to law, find the following result, which they desire 
to present to the honorable senate and house of representativ^es in joint session con¬ 
vened : 

For governor : 


Stephen B. Packard. 74,624 

Francis T. Nicholls. 71,198 

For lieutenant-governor; 

C. C. Antoine. 74,669 

L. A. VViltz. 71,093 


J. HENRI BURCH, 

M. H. TWITCHELL, 

A. J. DUMONT, 

Tellers on the part of the Senate. 
WILLIAM KERN, 

J. M. CARVILLE, 

G. H. HILL, 

Tellers on the part of the House of Eepresentatives. 

Wherenpo i the presiding officer of the senate proclaimed that Stephen B. Packard, 
having obtained the largest number of votes polled, in pursuance of the law, and by the 
power vested in him by the constitution of the State of Louisiana, is hereby declared 
duly elected governor of the State of Louisiana for the constitutional term of four years 
from the second Monday in January, 1877. 

That C. C. Antoine, liaving obtained the largest number of votes polled, in pursuance 
of the law, and by the power vested in him by the constitution of the State, is hereby 
declared duly elected lieutenant-governor of the State of Louisiana for the constitu¬ 
tional term of four years from the second Monday in January, 1877. 

On motion of S»mator Twitchell the senate then withdrew from the house of repre¬ 
sentatives and returned to the senate chamber. 

On call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Dumont, 
Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, uttoi, S tamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, 
Wel)er, Young—21. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

A quorum present. 


NOTICES OF BILLS. 

Senator Burch gave notice that he would, at some future day, introduce a bill enti' 
tied an act to repair the old State-house at Baton Rouge, for the purpose of making 
said building the permanent asylum for the deaf, dumb, and blind of this State. 

RESOLUTION. 

Senator Burch offered the following resolution : 

Resolved by the senate of the State of Louisiana, That —— copies of the valedictory 
message of liis excellency Governor Kellogg, be ordered printed, in pamphlet form, for 
the use of the senate, and that the governor be requested immediately to transmit to 
our Senator and Representatives in Congress those portions of his message which refer 
to the political condition of the State, and the necessity of national legislation for the 
enforcement in this State of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to 
the Constitution of the United States. 

By unanimous consent, the resolution was taken up and adopted. 

Senator Twitchell called the following resolution, introduced by him yesterday : 

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to act with a committee from the 
house to act under the provisions of articles 1540 and 1.552 of the revised statutes. 

On the adoption of the resolution the yeas and nays were demanded by Messrs. Weber 
and Breaux, resulting as follows: 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 367 

Yeas—Allain. Blunt, Burch, liryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Duinout, Hamlet, Harper 
Kelso, Landry, utton, ta'.n,).s, rvvitoS loll, Walotijld, Waeeler, Young—IS. • 

Nays—Breaux, Gla, Weber —X 

Absent—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Kelly, 
Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

The resolution was adopted. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate went into executive session. 

Executive session having been raised, the roll was called, as follows: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Donias, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, tamps, S utton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, Young—18. 
Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Cage, Ducros, jr., Dumont, Ellis, Eustis, Garland 



There being no quorum, on motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate took a recess, 
until b p. m. 

The senate resembled at 6 p. m. 

(Senator Landry in the chair.) 

On a call of the roll, the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Burch, Demas, Dutnont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, 
Landry, Sutton, stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield—14. 

Absent, Messr . Boatner, Breaux, Brj'ant, Baker, Cage, Ducros, jr., h^llis, Eustis, Gar¬ 
land, George, Goode, Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Wheeler, 
Weber, White, Young, Zacharie—2*2. 

No quorum. 

(The president resumed the chair.) 

Senator Burch moved that the reading of the first day’s proceedings of the senate be 
postponed until to-morrow. 

Carried. 

On motion of enator Twitchell, the senate adjourned until to-morrow at 12 o’clock, 

m. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 
Secretary of the Senate. 


THIRD DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Senate Chamber, 

Neic Orleans, January 3, 1877. 

The senate met i»ur8uant to adjournment, at 12 o’clock m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieu¬ 
tenant-governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

On call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

I’resent—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Djiiias, Dumont, Gla, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, 
Young—20. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, teven. White, Zacharie—lb. 

The j)rcsideut announced a quorum present. 

Prayer by Rev. W. S. Alexander. 

On motion of Senator Stamps, the reading of the journal of the first day’s proceedings 
was dispensed with. 

Senators Weber and Wheeler made some corrections in the journal, and the president 
ordered the corrections to be made. 

On motion, the journal was adopted as corrected. 

On motion, the reading of the journal of the second day’s proceedings was dispensed 
with and the journal adopted. ^ 


NOTICES OF BILLS. 


By denator Demas: 

Of an act entitled “An act to repeal act No. 46, session of 1874.” 

By Senator Bryant: . , . ^ ^ t • • ir 

Of Jill act entitled **Aii act making eacli pansli iu tlie State of Louisiana a solf-sup* 

porting school district.” 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS. 

By unanimous consent, Senator Dumont introduced the following bill 

enate bill No. 1, entitled “An act to amend and re-enact sections 134,977,998,1 021, 



368 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1028,1029,1031,1172,1936,1964, and 3891 of tlie revised statutes of Louisiana, and to 
authorize and empower the attorney-general, assistant attorney-general, district at¬ 
torneys, and district attorneys j>ro tempore to administer oaths in criminal cases, and to 
repeal all conllicting laws, and to authorize the governor to assign the assistant at¬ 
torney-general to perform certain duties in certain cases.” 

The bill was read the lirst time. 

The roll was called on suspension of the constitutional rules, to place the bill on its 
second reading, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Allain, Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Lau- ' 
dry, Sutton, Stamps. Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

Nays—Breaux, Demas, Wheeler, Weber—4. 

Absent—Boatner, Baker, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zachaiie—16. 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-htths affirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was placed on its second reading. 

On motion of Senator Breaux, the bill was read in detail. 

On motion of Senator Dumont, the bill was considered engrossed. 

On motion of Senator Young, the bill was taken up for consideration. 

On motion of Senator Cage, the bill was made the special order for to-morrow imme¬ 
diately after the reading of the journal. 


MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 


' House of Representatives, 

New Orleans, January 3, 1877. 

To the honorable president and members of the senate : 

I am directed by the house of representatives to ask the concurrence of the senate 
in house bill No. 3, an act for the relief of the widow of B. PI. Diukgravu', late tax-col¬ 
lector of the parish of Ouachita. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Chief Clerk of House of liepreseniatires. 

% 

Senator Burch asked unanimous consent to introduce a bill. 

Objection being raised, the roll was called, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Allain, Blunt, Burch, Brjmut, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamiis, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber—18. 

Nays—Breanx, Whceler—2. 

Blank—Young—1. 

Absent—Boatner, Baker, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zachaiie—16. 

The senate- rules were suspended. 

Senator Burch then introduced the following bill: 

Senate bill No. 2, entitled an act to authorize the attorney-general and district at¬ 
torneys and other prosecuting officers of the State to chailenge jurors in criminal 
cases for certain causes. 

The bill was read the first time by its title. 

On motion, the bill was read in detail; 

Senator Burch moved to suspend the constitutional rules to place the bill on its sec¬ 
ond reading. 

The roll was called, resulting as follows: 

Yeas—Allain, Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, 
Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield—15. 

Nays—Breaux, Demas, Wheeler, Weber, Young—5. 

Absent—Boatner, Baker, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Plustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zachaiie—16. • 

When the secretary, in calling the roll, had reached the name of Senator Wheeler, 
he rose and asked the president if he was allow.ed to explain his vote. Permission be- 
iiig granted, he proceeded to do so; when Senator Burch rose to a point of order, that 
according to rule twenty-three of the senate the senator had no right to ex^ilaiii his 
vote. 

The president decided the'point of order not well taken. 

The % ote was then announced, and the senate refused to suspend the constitutional 
rules. 

By unanimous consent Senator Twitchell introduced the following bill: 

Senate bill No. 3, entitled an act forbidding the organization and maintenance of 
any military orgaiiization, company, or body not mustered into the militia of the State, 
and defining said illegal bodies as riotous and unlawful assemblies in certain cases j 
making it a misderneaner to violate this act and providing a punishment therefor, and 
providing for the disbandment of such illegal bodies. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


369 


Read first time. 

Senator 1 witcliell moved to sus|iend the constitutional rules to idace the bill on its 
second reading. 

The yeas and nays were demanded, resulting as follows: 

Allain, Blunt, Burch, liryant, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Ilarocr, Laudrv, Sutton, 
Stamps, Twitchell, Wuketield— 1 : 1 . 

Nays—Breaux, Cage, Demas, Wheeler, Weber, Young—0. 

T,Oucros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, (iarlaud, George, Goode, Grover, 
kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacahrie—17. 

The senate refused to suspend the rules. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Twitchell introduced the following bill: 

Senate bill No. 4, entitled an act to authorize the governor of th^ State to assume 
charge of the capitol buildings, and to empower him to maintain peace and order 
therein and in its vicinity. 

The bill was read the first time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-fifths affirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was read a second time liy its title. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the bill was read in detail. 

On motion, the bill was considered engrossed. 

Senator Twitchell moved to suspend the consiitutioual rules, to [dace the bill on its 
third reading. 

The roll was called, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Allain, Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, l^uniout, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, 
Kelso, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

Nays—Breaux, Wheeler, Weber—6. 

Absent—Boatner, Baker, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Girland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—17. 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-tifths athrmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was placed on its third reading and final passage, its title was adopted, 
and it was ordered to be sent to the house for concurrence. 

By unanimous consent, Senator Hamlet called up house bill No. d, entitled an act for 
the relief of the widow of B. H. Dinkgrave, late tax-collector of the parish ofOuachita. 

The bill passed its first reading. 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-fifths affirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill passed its second reading. 

On motion of Senator Hamlet, the bill was adopted on its second i-eading. 

On motion of Senator Hamlet, the constirutional rules were suspended by a four- 
fifths affirmative vote of the senate, the bill was placed on its third reading and final 
passage, its title was adopted, and notice of concurrence ordered sent to the house. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Allain introduced the following resolution : 

liesoli'ed, 'fhat a committee of three be appointed by the president of the senate to 
investigate the artairs of the metropolitan police boanl, with power to report by bill 
or otherwise, and that said committee be empowered to send for persons and jiapers 
and to administer oaths. 

Lies over under the rules. 

By unanimous consent, Senator Stamps introduced the following bill: 

Senate bill No. 5, entitled an act suplementary to act No. 45, approved March S, 
1S76, and to confirm, extend, and define the jurisdiction of the second judicial district 
court for the ])arish of Orleans, sixth and seventh municipal districts, giving said 
court original and exclusive civil, criminal, probate, and in certain cases appellate juris¬ 
diction ; to [irovide for the drawing and impaneling of grand and petty juries in said 
court; to regulate the practice and provide for certain expenses in said court; to pro¬ 
vide for a crier of said court aud his payment; to provide for the keeping of prison¬ 
ers in said districts; to provide for the transfer in certain cases and records to said 
court; to provide for the absence, sickness, or recusation of the judge of said court ; to 
provide for a library for said court, aud to define and extend the territorial limits of 
the seventh municipal district, city of New Orleans. 

The bill was read the first time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-fifths affirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was jdaced on its second reading and referred to the committee on judi¬ 
ciary’, when appointed. 

.UKSS.VGE FROM THE COVEKNOR. 


The president laid before the senate the following communication from the gov¬ 
ernor : 

St.\te of I.oi’isi.vNA, Executive Department, 

Xew Orli’ans, January 6, 1877. 

To the honorable i»resident and members of the senate : 

In view of the fact that the State of Louisiana has old and unsettled claims against 
24 S K 


370 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


the United States, eiinrin*^ to the State under acts of Congres.s approved March 2, 
1849, and September 28, 1850, I have thought it proper to employ Mr. L. C. Cone, a 
skilled agent and attorney at Washington, District of Columbia, to effect a settlement 
of the claims for a reasonable percentage of the amount which he may recover for the 
State, with a proviso that the contract shall bo subject to the approval ot the general 
assembly, and that the State shall not be liable for any costs or charges in the event of 
his failure to recover. 

I inclose a copv of the contract and ask your ratification thereof. 

WM. P. KELLOGG, 

(iovernor. 


State of Louisiana, Executivk Department, 

eiv Orleans, December 6, 1876. 

Whereas under the acts of Congress of March 2, 1849, and September 28, 1850, and 
the acts amendatory thereto, grantingswamp and overfiowed lands to theseveral States 
of the Union, the State of Louisiana has an old and unsettled claim against the United 
States for land inuring to the State under said acts ; and 

Wliereas of thtse lands claimed a very large proportion had been sold by the 
United States before the passage of the aforesaid acts, and certificates to the State have 
been refused to the remainder, because of their supposed conflict with Spanish grants, 
])rivate land grants, railroad grants, and military, timber, and naval reservations, and 
sales by the United States made subsequent to the date of said acts of Congress ; and 

Whereas several of the States entitled under f he said acts have found it necessary 
to employ skilled agents and attorneys at Washington to settle their claims under said 
acts ; and 

Whereas, the residue that will inure to the State of Louisiana under said acts is 
such as the State has heretofore been unable to obtain by reason of conflicting claims 
under the aforesaid divers sales, grants, and reservations ; and 

Whereas by reason of the intricacies of the work, the former agents of the State 
have not only failed to effect final settlement, but entirely abandoned the attempt; 
and 

Whereas this labor can only be thoroughly done by some person skilled in the ex¬ 
amination of land records, and acquainted with the laws, decisions, method and rul¬ 
ings obtaining in the United States Land Office, and having full faith that T. C. 
Cone is thoroughly competent for the business; and 

Whereas the claim of the State of Louisiana, after a lapse of twenty-five years, is 
still unsettled : 

Now, therefore, b lieving the State’s claim to some of these lands to be valid, and 
that it is for the interest of the State to effect a speedy settlement of the same, I, 
William P. Kellogg, governor of the said State, do by these presents constitute and 
appoint T. C. Cone, of Washington, D. C., agent and attorney of this State to prosecute 
said claims to a final issue; provided, however, that it is so understood that he is to 
make no charge w^hatever against the State for services or expenses of any kind ex¬ 
cept tw'enty-five per cent, in kind of all lands, money, or scrip that may be confirmed 
or awarded to the State by his labors and exertions, which amount it is hereby agreed, 
in behalf of said State, shall be his fee for the services he performs. It is further dis¬ 
tinctly understood that this contract is entered into subject to the approval of the 
State legislature. 

WM. P. KELLOGG. 

By the governor: 

P. G. Desi.onde, 

Secretary of State. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Demas introduced the following resolution : 

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the chait, to inquire from the 
governor whether, by his order, any duly-elected members of the general assembly 
were refused admittance to the halls of the legislature; and whether there had been 
any military interference on the day appointed by law for the meeting of the legisla¬ 
ture. 

That the committee also inquire from the secretary of state whether he has refused 
to issue certificates of election to any member or members of the general assembly re¬ 
turned elected by the board of returning officers. 

Under a suspfcusion of the rules the resolution was adopted by the following vote : 

Yias—Allaiu, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gia, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, Young- 

Nays—None. 

Absent and not voting—Boatner, Ducros,jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland. G orge, Goode, 
Giover, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—16. 

On motion of Senator Young, the senate went into executive session. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 371 

Executive session liavinj; been raised, the roll was called and the following senators 
answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Breanx, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, 
Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Wakefield, Weber, Young—Id. 

Absent—Messrs Boatner, Blunt, Ducros, jr., Demas, Ellis, Eustis, G;irland, George, 
Goode, (xrover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Twitchell, Wheeler, 
White, Zaehaiie—‘.iO. 

No (juorum. 

On motion of Senator Hamlet, the senate took a recess until 6 p. m. 

JJKCF.SS. 

At 6 p. jn. the senate reassembled, Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieuteuaut-goveruor and pres¬ 
ident of the senate, in the chair. 

On call of the roll the following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Breaux, Burch, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, 
Stamps, Walu?tield—11. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Blunt, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Ducros, jr., D iuias, Ellis, Etis- 
tis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, 
Steven, Twitchell, Wheeler, Weber, White, Young, Zacharie—25. 

No quorum. 

Ou motion of Senator Harper, the senate adjourned until to-morrow at twelve o’clock. 

L. LAMANIERE, .Jk., 
Secretary of the Senate. 


FOURTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Senate Chamber, New Orleans, 

January 4, l’i77. 

The senate met pursuant to adjournment at twelve o’clock m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, 
lieutenant-governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

Ou call of the roll the following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, 
Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Waketield, Wheeler, Weber, Young 
—19. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Du:ros, jr., Demas, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—17. 

A quorum present. 

Prayer by Rev. W. S. Alexander. 

Reading of the journal. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the further reading of the journal was dispense! 
with, and the journal adopted. 

SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY. 

Senator Burch called up the special order, which was senate bill No. 1, entitled an 
act to amend and re-enact sections 134, 977, 99S, 1021, 102'^, 1029, 10:11, 1172, 19:16, 1964, 
and 3891, of the revised statutes of the State of Louisiana, and to authorize and em- 
jiower the attorney-general, assistant attorney-general, district attorneys, and district 
attorneys tempore to administer oaths in criminal cases, and to repeal all conflicting 
laws, and to authorize the governor to assign the assistant attorney-general to perform 
certain duties in certain cases. 

The bill was read the third time. 

Ou motion of Senator Dumont, the bill linallj' passed, title adopted, and it was or¬ 
dered to be sent to the house for concurrence. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

Senator Burch presented a petition from J. .1 Monette, contesting the seat of Mr. P. 
A. Ducros, jr., senator elect from the third senatorial district. 

On motion of Senator Demns, the further reading of the papers was dispensed with, 
and they were referred to the commit ce on elections and qualifl:atious, when ap¬ 
pointed. 



372 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


NOTICES OF BILLS. 


By Senator Hamlet: 

Oif a bill for the relief of certain parsons, residents of the parish of Ouachita. 

By Senator Demas: 

Of a bill for the relief of the sufferers from the overflow in the jiarishes of Siint 
Charles and Saint John the Baptist. 

By Senator Wakefield : 

Of a bill to abolish the office of division superintendent of public education. 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Senator Cage offered the following resolution : 

Resolved by the senate, That the sergeant-at-arms of the senate be. and he is hereby 
directed to procure for each member of the senate, for their use, a copy of the late edi¬ 
tion of the revised statute laws of the State of Louisiana, which shall be paid for out 
of the contingent fund of the senate. 

Lies over under the rules. 

Senator Demas offered the following concurrent resolution : 

Resolved by the senate (the house of representatives concurring). That a special com¬ 
mittee of five be appointed by the president of the senate, to act with a similar com¬ 
mittee of the house of representatives, to proceed at once and examine the Bonnet 
Carre levee, and report as soon as jDracticable by bill or otherwise. 

Lies over under the rules. 

Senator Allain called up the following resolution introduced by him yesterday : 

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the president of the senate to 
investigate the affairs of the metropolitan police board, with power to report by bill 
or otherwise, and that said committee be empowered to send for persons and papers 
and to administer oaths. 

Senator Blunt moved to lay the resolution on the table. 

On which the yeas and nays were demanded, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Blunt, Breaux, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Wheeler, Young 

—10. 

Nays—Allain, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, 
Weber—10. 

Absent—Boatuer, Baker, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—16. 

There being a tie vote, the president voted in the negative, and the motion to table 
was lost. 

Senator Young moved to refer the resolution to its appropriate committee. 

Senator Allain moved to lay the motion to refer on the table. 

Senator Burch rose to a point of order, that inasmuch as the senate had adopted the 
rules of last session until new rules could be prepared, the standing committees of the 
last session were still in existence. 

The president decided the point'well taken. 

The motion to lay on the table recurring. Senator Harjier called for the yeas and 
nays, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Allain, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Demas, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber—8. 

Nays—Blunt, Baker, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Sutton, Twitchell, Young 

Absent—Boatner, Cage, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Stamps, White, Zacharie—18. 

No quorum voting. 

The president ordered a call of the senate. 

The following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Dumont, 
Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, 
Young—20. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Stevens, Stamps, White, Zacharie—16. 

A quorum being found present, the secretary again called the roll on the motion to 
table the motion to refer, resulting as follows: 

Yeas—Allain, Breaux, Burch, Cage, Demas, Hamlet, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber—9. 

Nays—Blunt, Bryant, Baker, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Twitch- 
ell, Young—11. 

Absent—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Kelly, 
Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Stamps, White, Zacharie—16. 

The senate refused to table the motion to refer. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


373 


MKSSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

House of Representatives, 

yew Orleans, Januarij 4, 1877. 
To the honorable president and members of the senate : 

^ I am directed by the house of representatives to ask the concurrence of the senate 
in the following house bills, viz: 

House bill No. 5, an act making an appropriation of $200,000. or so much thereof as 
may be necessary, for the maintenance of the militia of the State during the year 1877, 
and providing for the disbursement of tJie same. 

Joint resolution No. 1, requesting our Representatives and instructing our Senators 
in Congress to oppose the bill looking to the closing of the Bayou La Fourcbe and the 
locking of the same, etc. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Cleric of the House of liejiresentatives. 

The motion of Senator Young to refer the resolution to its appropriate committee 
recurring. Senator Young called the previous (piestion. 

The main question was ordered and the resolution was referred to its appropriate 
committee. 


SENATE HILLS ON SECOND READING. 

Senator Burch called up senate bill No. 2, entitled “An act to authorize the attorney- 
general and district attorneys and other prosecuting officers of the State to challenge 
jurors in criminal cases for certain causes.” 

The bill was read the second time. 

On motion of Senator Burch, the bill was considered engrossed. 

Senator Burch asked for a suspension of the constitutional rules to put the bill on 
i+s third reading. 

Objections being raised. Senator Harper moved that the constitutional rules be sus¬ 
pended. 

The yeas and nays were demanded, resulting as follows: 

Y"eas—Allain, Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stam]>8, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Young—18. 

Nays—Breaux, Wheeler—2. 

Absent—Boatner, Baker, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—16. 

The constitutional rules being susi)ended by a four-fifths attirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was placed on its third reading and final passage. 

On the final passage of the bill the yeas and nays were demanded by Senators Stamps 
and Harjier, resulting as follows: 

Yeas—Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Ca^e, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso 
Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell' VVakefield, Weber, Young—17. 

Nays—Breaux, Wheeler—2. 

Absent—Allain, Boatner, Baker, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Gro¬ 
ver, Kelly, Ogden, Riehard.son, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—17. 

The bill finally passed, title adopted, and ordered sent to the house for concurrence. 

Senator Twitchell called up senate bill No. 3, entitled “An act forbidding the organ¬ 
ization and maintenance of any military organization, company, or body not mustered 
into the militia of the State; defining such illegal bodies as riotous and unlawful as¬ 
semblies in certain cases ; making it a misdemeaaor to violate this act, and j)rescribing 
punishment therefor, and j)rovidit)g for the disbandment of such illegal bodies. 

The bill was read a second time. 

[Senator Young in the chair.] 

On motion, the bill was read in detail. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the bill was considered engrossed. 

Senator Twitchell asked for a suspension of the constitutional rules to place the bill 
on its third reading. 

Objections being raised, the roll was called, resulting as follows: 

Yeas—Allain, Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Har¬ 
per, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, Young—20. 

Nays—Breaux—1 

Absent—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Kelly, 
Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

[The president resumed the chair.] 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-fifths aftirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was placed on its third reading and final passage, its title was adopted, 
anil it was ordered to be sent to the house for concurrence. 


374 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


HOUSE BILLS ON FIRST READING. 

Senator Yonug called op house bill No. ,5, entitled “An act niakin^ an appropriation 
of $200,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the maintenance of the militia 
of the State during’ the year 1877, and providing for the disbursement of the same.” 

The bill was read the first time by its title. 

Senator Young moved a susi>ension of the constitutional rules to place the bill on its 
second reading. 

The roll was called, resulting as follows: 

Yeas—Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper^ 
Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wheeler, Young—16. 

Nays—Allain, Breaux, Kelso, Wakefield, VVeber—5. 

Absent—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Kelly^ 
Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-fifths affirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was placed on its second reading. 

On motion, the bill was read in detail. 

On motion of Senator Young, the bill was adopted on its second reading. 

Senator Young moved a further suspension of the constitutional rules to pnt the- bill 
on its third reading. 

Senator Weber demanded the yeas and nays, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Allain, Blunt, Burcb, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Har¬ 
per, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wheeler, Young—17. 

Nays—Breaux, Kelso, Wakefield, Weber—4. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

The constitutional rnles being suspended by a four-fifths affirmative vote of the sen¬ 
ate, the bill was placed on its third reading and final jiassage. 

Senator Young moved that the bill tinaliy pass. 

Senator Allain called for the yeas and nays, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Blunt, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage. Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Landry, Sut¬ 
ton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wheeler, Young—15. 

Nays—Allain, Breaux. Demas, Kelso, Wakefield, Weber—6. 

Abseuf—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Kelly, 
Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—15. 

The bill finally passed, title adopted, and notice of concurrence ordered sent to the’ 
house. 

On motion of Senator Demas, the senate went into executive session. 

Executive session having been raised, the following senators answered to their 
names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Dumas, Dumont, Gla, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, 
Young—20. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Cage, Ducros, jr., EllD, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—16. 

A quorum present. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate adjourned until to-morrow at twelve 
o’clock m. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr. 
tSecretarij of the Senate. 


FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Senate Chamber, 

New Orleans, January 5, 1877. 

The senate met, persuant to adjournment, at twelve o’clock m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, 
lieutenant-governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

On call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burcb, Cage, Demas, Dumont, 
Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, 
Young—20. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Groy^er, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Wheeler, White, Zacharie—16. 

A quorum present. 

Prayer by the Rev. W. S. Alexander. 

Reading of the journal. 

On motion of Senator Cage, the further, reading of the journal was dispensed with 
and the journal was adopted. 



SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG 


375 


In accordance with a resolntion adopted on the third day of the present session, rel- 
ativ'e to the appointment of a special committee to wait on the <;overnor and secretary 
of state, the president of the senate appointed the following-named senators, Uemas 
Wheeler, and Wakefield. 


Rl^.SOLUTIOXS. 

Senator Demas called up the following concurrent resolution introduced by him yes¬ 
terday : 

Resolved by the senate, the house of representatives eoncurring, That a special committee 
of tiv'e be ai)pointed by the president of the senate, to act with a similar committee of 
the house of representatives, to proceed at once and examine the lionnet Carre levee, 
and report as soon as practicable by bill or otherwise. 

Senator Blunt offered the following amendment, which was accepted ; 

Provided, That it shall be done at no expense to the State. 

Senator Young moved as a substitute that the whole subject-matter be referre<l to ils 
appropriate committee. 


A MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 


House of Repp.esentatives, 

yew Orleans, January 5, 1S77. 

To the honorable [iresident and members of the Senate: 

lam directed by the house of representatives to ask the concurrence of the senate 
in the following house bill, viz 

House bill No. 7, an act entitled an act to repeal an act entitled an act to provide 
money compensation in lieu of stationery to members of the general assembly, and 
to provide stationery for the secretary of the senate, the clerk of the house of repre¬ 
sentatives, and committees of said houses. 

Abo, to inform the senate that .t he house has concurred in senate bill No. 4, an act 
authorizing the governor of the State to assume charge of the capitol building, Ac. 
Respectfully, 

ROBERT F. GUICHARl), 

Chief Clerk House of Representatives. 


P.ESOLUTIOXS. 

By unanimous consent, Senator Demas withdrew the resolution. 

Senator Cage called up the ft Bowing resolution introduce(i by him yesterday: 

Resolved, That the sergeant-at-arms of the senate be, and he is hereby, directed to 
])rocure for each member of the senate, for their use, a copy of the late edition of the 
revised statute laws of the State of Louisiana, which shall be paid for out of the con¬ 
tingent fund of the senate. 

Which, on motion, was adopted. 

Senator Blunt demanded that his name bo recorded in the negative on the adoption 
of the above resolution. 

Senator Cage called np house joint resolution No. I, requesting our Represent itives 
and instructing our Senatius in Congress to oppose the bill looking to the closing of the 
Bayou Lafourche, and the locking of thesame, Ac. 

The joint resolution was read the iirst time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended by a four-lifths atlirm itive vote, • o oiut 
re.solution ])assed its second reading. 

On motion of Senator Cage, the joint resolution was adopted on its second reading. 

Senator Cage asked for a further sus))eusion of the constitutional rales to put the 
joint resolution on its third reading and tinal pas.sage. 

No objection being raised, the constitutional rules were susp'iude;! and the joint reso¬ 
lution was read the third time. 

The joint resolution tinally passed, title adopted, and notice of concurrence ordered 
sent to the house. 

By unanimous coiusent, Senator Bryant offered the following I’csolution: 

Resolved, That the senate aiipoint a committee of three to inspect the Hard Times, 
Buck Ridge, and Point Pleasant levees; that said committee be instructed to report 
at as early a dav as jiossible. 

Resolved, further, That this resolution bo referred to the committee on lands and 
levees, when ajipointed. 

Lies over under the rules. 

Senator Allain pre.seuted a copy of a notice of contest served on Mr. F. C. Z icharie, 
senator-elect from the second senatorial district, by Mr. Ernest Alix, contesting his 
seat, which was referred to the committee on election and qualitications. 


376 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate "went into executive session. 

Executive session having been raised, the roll was called, and the following senators 
answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Demas, Du¬ 
mont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, 
Young—19. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, AVeber, Wheeler, AV^hite, Zacharie—17. 

A (luorum present. 


MESSAGE ri’vOM THE HOUSE. 


House of REruESENTATi ves, 

New Orleans, January 5, 1877. 

To the honorable president and members of the senate: 

I am directed by the house of representatives to inform the senate that the house has 
concurred in senate bill No. 1, with amendments. 

Resi)ectfully, 

ROBERT F. GUrCHARD, 

Chief Clerk House of llepresentatires. 


NOTICES OF HILLS. 


By Senator Demas: 

Of a bill entitled an act for the rebuilding of the Bonnet Carre levee, in the parish 
of Saint John the Baptist. 

By Senator Hamlet: 

Of a bill for the clearing out of Young’s Bayou, in the parish of Ouachita. 

Also, of a bill to re enact and amend the city charter of the city of Monroe, Louis¬ 
iana. 

By Senator Landry: 

Of an act to anthorize the police jury of the parish of Ascension to locate certain 
roads in said parish. 

Also, of a bill for the relief of R. Prosper Landry, of Ascension. 

By unanimous consent, Senator Burch called np senate bill No. 1, entitled an act to 
amend and re-enact sections 184, 977, 998, 1021, 1028, 1029, 1031, 1172, 1936,1964, and 
3891 of the revised statutes of the State of Louisiana, and to authorize and empower 
the attorney-general, assistant attorney-general, district attorneys, and district at¬ 
torneys j)ro tempore to administer oaths in criminal cases, and to repeal all conllicting 
laws, and to authorize the governor to assign the assistant attorney-general to per¬ 
form certain duties in certain cases, with the following amendments from the house: 

AMENDMENTS TO SENATE HILL NO. 1. 

Section two, page two, lines twenty-seven and twenty-eight, after the word “time” 
strike out “ and at chambers,” and intert “ either during any term, general or special, 
or during vacation.” 

Section two, page three, line seven, after the word “times” strike out “in open 
court or at chamber,” and insert “ either during any term, general or special, and during 
vacation.” 

Section three, page four, line fourteen, after the word “as” strike out “heroin and 
above provided,”and insert “provided in this act.” 

Section five, page five, line nine, after the word “State” insert “ whenever there 
has been no previous change of venue or application on behalf of the State.” 

On motion of Senator Buich, the senate concurred in the house amendments. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Harper introduced the following bill: 

Senate bill No. 5, entitled an act to repeal section-of an act entitled an act to 

provide money compensation in lieu of stationery to members of the general assembly, 
and to provide stationeiy for the secretary of the senate, the clerk of the house of 
representatives, and the committees of said houses, approved June 7,1876. 

The bill was read the first time. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Harper called up house bill No. 7, entitled an act to 
repeal an act entitled an act to provide money compensation in lieu of stationery to 
members of the general assembly, and to provide stationery for the secretary of the 
senate, the clerk of the house of representatives, and the committees of said houses. 

The bill was read the first time. 

The constilutional rules were srspeuded by a four-fifths affirmative vote, and the bill 
was placetl on its second reading. 



SPOFFORD V8. KELLOGG. 


377 


On motion ot’Semitor lUnnt, the bill was read in detail. 

Senator Harper moved to adopt tbe bill on its second reading. 

Senator Young called the previous (piestion, whereupon Senator Allain demanded 
the yeas and nays, resulting as follows: 

Yeas—IJreanx, liryant, Cage, Demas, Harper, Landry, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, 
Weber, Yonng—10. 

Nays—Allain, llaker, Blnnt, Burch, Dnmont, Gla, Hamlet, Kelso, Stam])s—0.'' 

Absent—Boatner, Dncros, jr., Breanx, Ellis, Enstis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Wheeler, White, Zacharie—17. 

The main question was ordered, and the bill was adopted on its second reading. 

Senator Harper moved that the bill be made the special order of the day for to-morrow, 
immediately^ after the reading of the journal. 

Senator Allain called the yeas and nays, resulting as f >llows: 

Yeas—Baker, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Hari)er, Kelso, Landrv, Sutton, Twitchell, Young 
— 10 . 

Nays—Allain, Blunt, Burch, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Stamps, Wakefield, Weber—0. 

Absent—Boatner, Breaux, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Enstis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Wheeler, White, Zacharie—17. 

Senator Allain rose to a point of order, that it requires a two-thirds vote to fix a bill 
as a special order. 

I'he president decided the point well taken. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate went into executive session. 

Executive session having been raised, the roll was called, and the following senators 
answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Burch Bryant, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Yonng— 
11 ). 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Dncros, jr., Ellis, Enstis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Wheeler, White, Zacharie—17. 

A (|uorum present. 

The president submitted the annual re])ort of the attorney-general of the State of 
Louisiana, which was received, and on motion of Senator Hamlet was laid on the table 
subject to call. 

On motion of Senator Young, the senate adjourned until to-morrow at 10 a. m. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jh., 

, Secretari/ of the Heuaic. 


SIXTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Sknatk Chamukk, 
yew Orleans, January (>, lb77. 

The senate met pursuant to adjournment at 12 o’clock ni., Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieu¬ 
tenant-governor and ^iresident of the senate, in the chair. 

On a call of the roll the followins: senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Bureh, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, 
Young—19. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson. Steven, Weber, White, Zacharie—17. 

A quorum |)resent. 

Prayer by the Rev. W. S. Alexander. 

HEADING OF THE JOURNAL. 

On motion of Senator Wakefield, the further reading of the journal was dispensed 
with, and the journal wnis adopted. 

On motion of Senator Y'oung, the senate w^ent into executive session. 

(Senator Allain in the chair.) 

Executive session having been raised, the roll was called, and the following senators 
answ’ered to their names: ^ 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, 

Young—19. ^ ^ 1 

Ab.sent—Mes.srs. Boatner, Breaux, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, W'hite, Zacharie—17. 

A quorum prtseut. 



378 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


INTRODUCTION OF BILLS. 

Accordinfj to previous notice, Senator Hamlet introduced the followinof bill: 

Senate, bill No. 6, entitled an act for the relief of Presilla Jackson, Adeline Bynone, 
Araand .Johnson, and Eliza Pinkston, of Ouachita Parish. 

The bill was read the tirst time. 

The constitutional rules were suspended by a four-fifths affirmative vote, and the 
bill was placed on its second reading and referred to the committee on claims, when 
appointed. 


RESOLUTIONS. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Gla introduced the following resolution : 

Whereas the laws of the State of Louisiana relating to an organization and sup¬ 
port of a system of public education require of the secretary of each school district to 
file with his division superintendent, on or before the twentieth da.y of September in 
each year, reports of number of persons, male and female, in his district; number of 
schools and the branches taught; number of pupils and the average attendance of the 
same in the schools; number of teachers employed and the average compensation paid 
per week, distinguishing males from females ; the length of the school in days and aver¬ 
age cost of tuition per week for each scholar; the aggregate amount paid teachers dur¬ 
ing the year and the balance of teachers’ funds in the treasury ; the text-books used 
and the nvmber of volumes in the district library, and value of apparatus belonging to 
the district; number of school-houses and their estimated value ; the amount raised 
wnthin the year, by taxes, for the erection of school-houses; the amount for teachers’ 
fund and for other purposes of this act, stating separately the amount for each ; the 
amount of public funds received fiom the parish treasury and from other sources, stat¬ 
ing what and how much from each; and such other information as he may deem use¬ 
ful ; and 

Whereas the above-mentioned requirements of the law are not annually complied 
with : Therefore, 

Beit resolved lyy the senate, That the president of the senate appoint a committee of 
three members, whose duty it shall be to investigate the cause of the foregoing dere¬ 
liction of duty. Said committee shall have power to send for persons and papers, 
and shall report the result of their iuvestigatious duriug the preseut session of the 
senate. 

Lies over under the rules. 


MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 


House of Representatives, 


New Orleans, January 6 , 1877. 

To the honorable the president and members of the senate : 

I am directed by the house of representalives to inform your honorable body that 
:)he house has concurred in the following senate bills, to wit: 

Senate bill No. 3, entitled an act forbidding the organization and maintenance of 
any military organization, company, or body not mustered into the militia of the 
State; deiiuiug such illegal bodies as riotous and unlawful assemblies in certain cases ; 
making it a misdemeanor to violate this act, and prescribing punishment therefor, and 
providing for the disbandment of such illegal bodies. 

Also senate bill No. 2, au act to authorize the attorney-general and district attor¬ 
neys and other officers of the State to challenge jurors in criminal cases for certain 
causes. * 

Respectfully, 


ROBERT F. GUICFARD, 
Cleric of the House of Representatives. 


By unanimous consent. Senator Stamps presented a petii on from H. V. Werthern 
praying for relief; which, on motion, was referred to the committee on finance, when 
appointed. 

Senator Stamps moved to adjourn until Monday at 9 a. m. 

Senator Blunt moved to amend by striking out “nine o’clock” and insertiii'T^ “ten 
o’clock.” 

Adopted. 

The persident announced that the senate stood adjourned until Monday, at 10 a. m. 

L. I.AMANIERE, Jr., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 379 

Official journal oj the proceedings of ]the senate of the State of Louisiana for the week ending 

January 13, 1877. 

[By authority.] 

SEVENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Skxate Chamhkr, 

New Orleans, January 8, 1877. 

The senate met pursuant to afljournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieuten¬ 
ant-governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, 
Y'ouug—‘20. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Ducros,jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—IG. 

A (luorum present. 

Prayer by the Rev. W. S. Alexander. 


>rESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 


House of Representatives, 

New Orleans, January 8, 1877. 
To the honorable president and members of the senate: 

I am directed by the house of representatives to ask the concurrence of the senate 
in the following house bills: 

House bill No. 13, an act making an appropriation of .$188,000 out of the general 
found in the State treasury, or received in the treasury during the year 1877, for the 
payment of the mileage aiul per diem of members, salaries of othcers and employi^s and 
contingent expenses of the general assembly of Louisiana for the regular session of 
1877; directing the auditor of i)ublic accounts to issue warrants to the chairman of the 
committee on contingent expenses of the house and to the chairman of the committee 
on auditing and supervising the accounts of the senate, on the treasurer, and making 
such warrants receivable for State licenses; directing the treasurer of this State to 
receive such w^arrants in settlement with tax-collectors, and to provide for the dis¬ 
bursement of the amount appropriated. 

House bill No. 11, an act to amend and re-enact section 12'29 of the revised statutes 
of the State of Louisiana. • 

And house bill No. 14, an act to revise, amend, and re-enact sections 1079, 1680, and 
1684 of the revised statutes; to abolish the odices of master and wardens of the \>ort 
of New Orleans, and to transfer their duties, fees, and emoluments to the board of har¬ 
bor-masters; to transfer to the board of harbor-masters certain duties of the superin¬ 
tendent of wharves, wharfingers, and assistant w'harfmgers in the city of New Orleans ; 
to lix a compensation for the performance of their duties, and to abolish and prohibit 
said offices of superintendent of wharves and landings, wharliugers, and assistant 
wharfingers, and to repeal all laws inconsistent therewith. 

Very resi)ectfully, 

ROBERT F. Gl.TCHARD, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 


READING OF THE .JOURNAL. 


On motion of Senator Twitchell, the further reading of the journal was dispensed 
with, and the journal was adopted. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Burch introduced the following concurrent resolu¬ 
tion : 

Resolved, That a joint committee, to consist of five members of the senate and seven 
members of the house, be appointed by their respective presiding otlicers, whose duty 
it shall be to take charge of and conduct the inauguration ceremonies of the incoming 
governor and lieutenant-governor. 

Which, on motion, was adopted. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Twitchell called uj) house bill No. 13, entitled an act 
making an appropriation of .$158,000, out of the general funds in the State treasury, 
or received in the treasury during the year 1877, for the payment of the mileage and 
per diem of members, salaries of otlicers and employes, and contingent expenses of the 
general assembly of liOuisiana, for the year 1877; directing the auditor of public ac¬ 
counts to issue warrants to the chairman of the contingent expenses committee of the 


380 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


bouse, and to the chairman of the committee on auditing and supervising the accounts 
ofthe senate, on the treasurer, and making such warrants receivable for State licenses ; 
directing the treasurer of the State to receive such warrants in settlement with tax-col¬ 
lectors, and to provide for the disbursement of the amount appropriated. 

The bill was read the first time by its title. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the constitutional rules were suspended, and the 
bill was placed on its second reading. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the bill was read in detail. 

Senator Twitchell moved that the bill be adopted on its second reading. 

On which the president ordered the roll to be called, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, Harper, 
Kelso, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler—16. 

Nays—Demas, Weber, Young—3. 

Absent—Boatner, Bryant, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Eichardson, Eobertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—17. 

The bill was adopted on its second reading. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the constitutional rules were suspended by a four- 
fifths affirmative vote, and the bill was placed on its third reading. 

On the final passage of the bill, the president ordered the roll to be called, resulting 
as follows: 

Yeas—Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Hamlet, Harper, 
Kelso, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler—16. 

Nays—Demas, Gla, Young—3. 

Absent—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Kelly, 
Landry, Ogden, Eichardson, Eobertson, Steven, Weber, White, Zacharie—17. 

The bill finally passed, title adopted, and notice of concurrence ordered to be sent to 
the house. 

By unanimous consent. Senator Allain called up house bill No. 14, entitled an act to 
revise, amend, and re-enact sections 1679, 1680, and 1684 of the revised statutes; to 
abolish the offices of master and wardens of the port of New Orleans, and to transfer 
their duties, fees, and emoluments to the board of harbor-masters; to transfer to the 
board of harbor-masters certain duties of the superintendent of wharves, wharfingers, 
and assistant wharfingers in the city of New Orleans; to fix a compensation for the 
performance of their duties, and to abolish and prohibit said offices of superintendent 
of wharves and landings, wharfingers, and assistant wharfingers, and to repeal all laws 
inconsistent therewith. 

The bill was read the first time. 

EXECUTIVE SESSION. 

On motion of Senator Harper, the senate went into executive session. 

Executive session having been raised, the roll was called and the following senators 
answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, 
Hamlet, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, 
Young—20. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Kelly, Ogden, Eichardson, Eobertson, Steven, White, Zacharie—16. 

A quorum present. 

In accordance with the concurrent resolution adopted for the appointment of a joint 
committee on inauguration, the president appointed the following senators on the part 
of the senate: Senators Burch, Wheeler, Dumont, Landry, and \Vakefield. 

MESSAGE FEOM THE HOUSE. 

House oe Eepresentatives, 

New Orleans, January 8, 1877. 
To the honorable president and members of the senate: 

I am directed by the bouse to inform your honorable body that they liave concurred 
in senate concurrent resolution relative to inaugural ceremonies, and have appointed 
the following-named gentlemen a committee on the part of the house to conduct the 
same, in connection with a similar committee of your honorable body, viz: L. A. 
Snaer, of Iberia, chairman ; Barrington, Cole, Souer, De Lacey, Gaudet, and Heath, and 
ask that your honorable body concur in house concurrent resolution relative to meet¬ 
ing in joint session at 12.30 p. m. for the purpose of inaugurating the governor and 
lieutenant-governor elect. 

Eespectfully, 


EOBEET F. GUICHAED, 
Chief Clerk House of llepresentatives. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 381 

By iiDauimoiis consent, Senator Burch called up the following house concurrent reso¬ 
lution : 

Resolved, That the house of representatives, the senate concurring, meet in joint ses¬ 
sion at 12.30 p. m. for the purpose of inaugurating the governor elect. 

Which, on motion, was adopted. 

On motion the senate took a recess until 11 a. m., January 9, for the purpose of at¬ 
tending the inauguration ceremonies of the governor and lieutenant-governor elect 
of the State of Louisiana. 


RECESS. 

The recess having expired, the president of the senate called the senate to order at 
11.30 a. m., January 9, 1877. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Burch, Cage, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, 
Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—12. 

Absent—Messrs. Baker, Boatner, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Demas, Dncros. jr., Dumont, 
Ellis, Enstis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Harper, Kelly, Ogden, Rich¬ 
ardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, White, Zacharie—24. 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate adjourned until twelve o’clock m. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


EIGHTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Sexate Cha.mrer, 

New Orleans, January 9, 1877. 

The senate met pursuant to adjournment at twelve o’clock m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, 
lieutenant-governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—Ifi. 

Absent—Messrs. Baker, Boatner, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Enstis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richard.sou, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, 
White, Zacharie—20. 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the president of the senate ordered the sergeant-at- 
arms to go after absent senators. 

Senator Bryant in the chair. 

On motion, the senate took a recess until January 10, at 11 a. m. 


RECESS. 


Senate Chamrer, 

New Orleans, January 10, 1877. 

The recess having expired, the secretary o^ the senate called the senate to order, and 
called Senator Burch to the chair. 

On a call of the roll, the following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant. Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 

Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield,\oung—-10. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Lustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, \Veber, \\ heeler. 
White, Zacharie—20. 

No quorum. 

[The president of the senate resumed the chair. 1 ^ i ^ +i,^v 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the secretary was directed to read rule tweh e of the 

senate. ^ ^ c -a ^ 

Senator Twitchell moved a rigid enforcement of said rule. 

On7ilotLi of Senator liiirch, the senate adjourned ^ 

Secretary of the Senate. 



382 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


NINTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Senate Chamber, 

Neiv Orleans, January 10,1877. 

Tlie senate met imrsuaut to adjournment at 11.50 a. m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieutenant 
governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, DucrOvS, jr , Demas, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Kichardeon, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, 
White, Zacharie—20. 

No quorum. 

[Senator Cage in the chair.] 

On motion of Senator Burch, the senate took a recess for the purpose of proceeding 
to the hall of the house of representatives, according to the requirements of the stat¬ 
utes of the United States, to elect a United States Senator. 

JOINT SESSIONS. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair, and directed the sec¬ 
retary of the senate to call the roll of the senate. 

The following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, 
Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—17. 

Absent—Boatner, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, White, Zach- 
ar e —19. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk of the house to 
call the roll of the house, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, David¬ 
son, Dayries, Drew, DeLacy, Diukgrave, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, 
Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, 
Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De 
Soto, .Joues, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Mar¬ 
tin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Routon, Romero, Roby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, 
Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker 
—66. 

The president of the senate then announced that there was a quorum present of the 
duly elected members of both branches of the sixth general assembly of Louisiana, and 
was now in joint session convened. 

The president of the senate then ordered the secretary to read the journal of the sen¬ 
ate of yesterday’s proceedings, as follows: 

EIGHTH day’s PROCEEDINGS. 


Senate Chamber, 

New Orleans, January 9, 1877. 

The senate met pursuant to adjournment at 12 o’clock m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieuten 
ant-governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

On call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

Absent—Messrs. Baker, Boatner, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, 
White, Zacharie—20. 

No quorum. > 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the president of the senate ordered the sergeant-at- 
arms to go after absent senators. 

Senator Bryant in the chair. 

On motion, the senate took a recess until January 10 at 11 a. m. 

Senate Chamber, 

New Orleans, January 10, 1877. 

The recess having expired, the secretary of the senate called the senate to order and 
called Senator Burch to the chair. 

On a. call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


383 


Present— Messr.i. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Ca<;e, Dmnoiit, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sntton, Twitchell. Waketield, Yonn<;—1(5, 

Absent—Me-.srs. Boatner, Bivanx, Demas, Dncros, jr., Ellis, Enstis, Garland, Georjje, 
Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, 
White, Z ich.ric—20. 

No (piornm. 

[The president of the senate resumed the chair.] 

On motion ot Senator Twitchell, the secretary was directed to read rule twelve of the 
senate. 

Senator Twitchell moved a rigid enforcement of said rule. 

Adopted. 

On motion of Senator Bnrch, the senate adjonmed until 11.bO a. m. 

L. LAMANIERE, .Jk., 

Secretary of the Senate. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then directed the clerk to read yesterday’s 
proceedings of the house of repri seiitatives, as follows: 


KitJUTH day’s puockkdings. 

House of Rkphesentativks, 

Xew Orleans, January D, 1S77. 

The house met pursuant to adjournment. Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called, and the following members auswerel to their names : 

Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Blair, Brewster, B sley. Brooks, Blaek- 
stone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, 
Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt 
of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Keetiug, 
Lane, Moore, McMillen, Romero, Souer, Swazie, Suaer, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, 
Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Walker—44. 

No quorum being present, the sergeant-at-arms was instructed to bring in the abseu- 
t« es. 

On motion of Mr. Souer, the names of the following absentees were ordered to be re¬ 
corded in the journal: 

Messrs. Aldige, Aycock, Barrington, Bird, Bridger, Burton, Bowden, Brown of Jell'er- 
son, Barron, Barrett, Brady, Brown of Veinon, Buck, Bush, Berrj^ Bell, Briggs, Cock- 
erharu, Durden, Dayries, Delavigne, Drew, DtT.iacy, Duke, Estopinal, Fitz]iatrick, Fojr- 
ster, Gaude, Gantt, Gaskins, Gillespie,Huntington, fleath. Hill of Orleans, H. M. John¬ 
son, Robert Johnson, Jonas of Orleans, Kennedy, Kelly of Winn, Kellj' of Orleans, 
Kern, KidrI, Leeds, Leonard of Cad<lo, Lemare, Lewis. Lea, Long, Leonhanl of Orleans, 
Magloire, Martin, Milon, Newsom, Nunez, Peralta, Richardson, Ronton, Raby, Shak- 
speare, Singleton, Self, Seveignes, Spiller, Stagg, Steele, Sellers, Toler, Voorhies, Wat¬ 
son. Warmoth, Wood, Wilde, Young—7J. 

The roll of the house having been calh d several times during the session, and it ap- 
]»earing that at no time was there a quorum present, the house was adjourned uutil 
Wednesday, the tenth instant, at 11 a. m., on motion of Mr. Keetiug. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD. 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

1’he president of the senate announced that it appeared from the journals of the re¬ 
spective bodies that no vote had been taken relative to an election of United States 
Senator; it was now in order to take action in the premises. 

After a reading of the law relative thereto. Senator Burch moved that the joint ses¬ 
sion do now proceed to elect a Senator for the term commencing March 4, 1877. 

Senator Blunt moved, as an amendment, that the joint session do now select a Sen¬ 
ator f-r the unexpired term. 

Senator Burch raised the point of order that the election of a Senator for tho long 
term had precedence. 

The point of order was decided as being well taken. 

The yeas and nays being ordered on the adoption of the motion to proceed with tho 
election of a United States Senator for the long term, the following was the vote ot tho 
senate: 

Yeas—Allain, Baker, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dument, Gla, Hari)er, Kelso, 
Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Waketield, Young—10. 

Nays—Blunt—1. 

Al)sent—Boatner, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eiistis, Garland, (leorge, Goode, Grover, 
Hamlet, Kelly, Og<len, Richardson, Rol)ertson, Steven, ^\ eber, 'A heeler. White, Zach- 
arie—l‘J. 


884 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The following was the vote of the house of representatives: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, 
lilair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, 
Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Dcsmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, 
Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, 
Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, 
Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, 
McMillen, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Suaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simraes, 
Stewart, Thomas, Toliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—6:1. 

Nays—Detiege, Heath, Lewis—3. 

And the mo ion of Senator Burch was adopted. 

The presiding officer announced that nominations were now in order for an election 
of a United States Senator for the term of six years, beginning March 4, 1H77. 

Representative D’Avy, of Saint Landry, nominated Hon. William Pitt Kellogg. 

No other nominations being made, the respective rolls were called. 

The following senators voted for Hon. William Pitt Kellogg : 

Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—17. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, White, 
Zacharie—19. 

The following representatives cast their votes for Hon. William Pitt Kellogg : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brow n of Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, David¬ 
son, Dayries, Drew, DeLacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, 
Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gande, Gantt, Gary, Gracien .Hill of Ascension, 
Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, .Johnson of 
De Soto, .Jones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Jjeonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, 
Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Suaer,Seveignes, 
Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Tliomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker— 
GG. 

The presiding officer announced that Hon. William Pitt Kellogg having received 
eighty-three votes, and that being a majority of all the votes of the joint assembly of 
the State of Louisiana, a majority of all the members elected to both houses being 
present and voting, was elected United States Senator from the State of Louisiana for 
the term of six years, beginning March 4, 1877. 

On motion of Senator Young, the joint session took a recess for one hour. 


RECESS. 


The recess having expired, the joint session was called to order by the presiding 
officer. 

The following senators responded to their names when the roll was called : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch. Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, I^andry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—IG. 

The calling of the roll of the house showed the presence of the followdng representa¬ 
tives : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of .Jeffer¬ 
son, Blair, Brewster, Barret, Brooks of Saint Mary’s, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Car¬ 
ville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, 
Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Detiege, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, 
Gracien, Gary, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West 
Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, 
Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Routou, Romero, Raby, 
Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Wash¬ 
ington, Watson, Walker—6.5. 

Senator Allain moved that the joint session do now proceed to elect a United States 
Senator for the unexpired term ending March 4, 1879. 

Carried. 

Nominations being declared in order, Senator Allain nominated Hon. C. C. Antoine. 

Senator Young nominated Hon. P. B. S. I^inchback. 

Representative Swazie nominated Hon. James Lewis. 

Representative Brewster nominated Hon. William H. Hunt. 

Representative Drury nominated Hon. Taylor Beattie. 

Senator Blunt moved that the nominations be closed. 

Carried. 

Hon. C. C. Antoine received the votes of the following senators : 

Messrs. Allain, Baker, Burch, Dumont, Harper, Stamps, Twitchell—7. 

And representatives— 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, D’Avy, 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 385 

Dejoie, Giinlere, Holt of East Batou Rouge, lleatb, Keetiug, Leouartl of Caddo, Moore, 
bu ler, 1 lioinas—lo. 

Hon. P. B. S. Bincbback was voted for by tbe following Senators: 

Messrs. Blunt, Brj’ant, Kelso, Sutton, Young—5. 

And representatives— 

Messrs. Barrington, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Brown of Vernon, Carville, 
Como, Cole, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Hill of Ascension, Lewis, Romero, 
Stewart, Tolliver. Washington, Watson, Warmotb, Walker—‘.^1. 

Mr. James Lewis received tbe votes of— 

Senator Wakefield—1: and Representatives Dayries, Desmarais, Early, Estopinal, 
Gary, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Raby, Swazie, Shelton—13. 
Hon. Taylor Beattie received tbe votes of— 

Senators Cage, Gla and Landry; and Representatives Drury, Fobb, Gaude, Hughes, 
Holt of West Baton Rouge, 11. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Lane, and Soveignes—J. 
The following-named representatives voted blank : 

Messrs. Bird, Gantt, Gracien, Routou—4. 

Messrs. Brewster and Dinkgrave cast their votes for Hon. William H. Hunt. 

Mr. McMillen voted for Mr. J. A. Gla. 

Mr. Soner voted for Mr. AVilliam Har])er. 

Mr. Simmes cast his vote for Mr. P. Landry. 

The speaker of the house, Hon. M. Hahn, presiding pro tempore, the president of the 
Senate having excused himself, announced that it appearing that no candidate had re¬ 
ceived a majority of the votes cast, it would be necessary to proceed to another ballot. 
On motion of Senator Burch, the senate withdrew to its chamber. 

The recess having expired, the senate resumed its session. 

The secretary called the roll, resulting as follows : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Brvaut, Burch, Cage, Harper, Kelso, Sutton, Y’oung 

—y. 

Absent—Boatner, Blunt, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Dumont, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, 
George, Gla, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, 
Stami)s, Steven, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, White, Zacharie— 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Bryant, the senate took a recess until to-morrow at 10 a. m. 

KKCESS. 

Recess having expired, the roll was called, and the foollwing senators answered to 
their names : 

I’resent—Messrs. Blunt, Bryant, Kelso, Sutton, Twitchell—5. 

Absent—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Boatner, Breaux, Burch, Cage, Demas, Ducros, jr., 
Dumont, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Gla, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Harper, Kelly, Lau- 
dry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Stamps, Steven, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, White, 
Young, Zacharie—31. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate adjourned until 11.45 a. m., January 11, 
1877. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

‘iecretarn of the ^Senate. 


TENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Sen.^tk Cham n eh, 

Xeic Orleans, January 11, 1877. 

The senate met pursuant to adjournment at 11.45 a. m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieuten¬ 
ant-governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

Ou acall of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Dumont, Gla, 
Han>er, Kelso, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—IG. 

Absent—Boatner, Ducros, jr., Demas, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, 
Hamlet, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Wheeler, Weber, White, 
Zacharie—*20. 

No (Inorum. , , ^ 

On motion of Senator Burch, the senate retired to the hall of the house of representa¬ 
tives for the purpose of assembling in joint session to ballot for a United States Sen¬ 
ator for the unexpired term. 

25 S K 



386 


8P0FF0RD V8. KELLOGG. 


JOIMT SESSION. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair, and directed the sec¬ 
retary of the senate to call the roll of the senate. 

The following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, 
Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—17. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover^ Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, Wbite,. 
Zacharie—19. 

The speaker of the house of representatives ordered the clerk of the house to call the 
roll of the representatives. 

The following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of 
Jefterson, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Car- 
ville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, 
Desmarais, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary^ 
Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De 
Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, 
Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, 
Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas,Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, 
Walker—67. 

The president of the senate announced that there were present seventeen senators 
and sixty-eight members of the house, making a quorum of the duly-elected members 
of both branches of the general assembly. 

On motion of Representative Keeting, all members who were absent yesterday were 
permitted to record their votes on the election of a United States Senator for the long 
term, commencing March 4,1877. 

The following members voted for William Pitt Kellogg: 

Messrs. Barron, Brown, Durden, H. M. Johnson, Kern—5. 

The presiding officer then announced that the only thing in order was to take a ballot 
for a United States Senator for the unexpired term ending March 4,1879. 

Hon. C. C. Antoine received the votes of the following senators: 

Messrs. Allain, Baker, Burch, Dumont, Harper, Stamps, Twitchell—7. 

And representatives: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Bosley, Blackstone, Durden, Gardere, 
Heath, Kern, Keeting, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Moore, Snaer, Thomas—14. 

Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback received the votes of the following senators: 

Messrs. Blunt, Bryant, Kelso, Sutton, Young —o 

And representatives: 

Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Brown of Vernon, 
Carville, Como, Cole, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Fobb, Hill of Ascension, Holt 
ofEast Baton Rouge, Lewis, Simmes, Stew\art, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, 
Walker—‘25. 

Hon. James Lewis received the vote of— 

Senator Wakefield—1: and Representatives Dayries, Desmarais, Detiege, Dejoie,. 
Early, Estopinal, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Martin, Milon^ Raby, Swazie—12. 

Hon. Taylor Beattie received the votes of— 

Senators Cage, Gla and Landry—3. 

And rejiresentatives: 

Messrs. Brooks, Drury, Gaude, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, H. M. Johnson, 
Robert Johnson, Lane, Seveignes—9. 

The following-named representatives voted for Hon. William H. Hunt: 

Messrs. Brewster, Dinkgrave, Routon, Romero, Shelton—5. 

Hon.T.C. Anderson received the votes of Senator Breaux—1 ; and Representatives 
D’Avy, Gantt, Gary—3. 

Mr. McMillen voted for Senator Jacques A. Gla. 

Mr. Souer voted for Senator William Harper. 

Mr. Gracien voted blank. 

The speaker of the house, Hon. M. Hahn, presiding pro /cwporc, the president of tlie 
senate having recused himself, announced that no candidate having received a suffi¬ 
cient vote to elect, it would be necessary to proceed to another ballot. 

Senator Young moved to take a recess until 3 p. m. 

Senator Burch rose to a point of order, that the house of representatives could not 
control the actions of the senate nor the senate that of the house. 

The presiding officer (Hon. C. C. Antoine) decided the point well taken. 

On motion of Senator Allain, the senate withdrew to its chamber. 

The recess having ex})ired, tne senate resumed its session. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 387 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Bryant, Burch, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Sutton, 
Twitchell, Waketield—11. > » i > j > 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Blunt, Breaux, Cage, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Gar¬ 
land, George, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, 
Stamps, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, White, Young, Zacharie—25. 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Allain, the senate adjourned until to-morrovr at 10 a. m. 

L. LAMANIERE .Tn., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


ELEVENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

Senate Chamber, New Orleans, 

January 12, 1^7. 

The senate met pursuant to adjournment at 10 a. m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieutenant- 
governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

I’resent—Messrs. Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, 
Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—14. 

Absent—Messrs. Allain, Boatner, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, 
George, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, 
Weber, Wheeler, White, Zacharie—22. 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate went into secret session. 

The doors being open, on motion of Senator Stamps, the senate took a recess until 
11.55 a. m. 


RECESS. 


The recess having expired, the secretary called the roll and the following senators 
answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Landry, 
Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—12. 

Absent—Messrs. Baker, Boatner, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Dumont, Ellis, Eustis, 
Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Stamps, 
Stevens, Sutton, Weber, Wheeler, White, Zachrie—24. 

No quorum. 


MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A committee from the house was announced, informing the senate that the house of 
representatives was ready to receive the senate in joint session to ballot for a United 
States Senator for the unexpired term ending March 4,1879. 

On motion of Senator Cage, the senate proceeded to the hall of the house of represent¬ 
atives for the purpose of taking a ballot for United States Senator for the unexpired 
term. 


JOINT SESSION. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair and called the joint 
assembly to order. 

The secretary of the senate called the roll of the senate, and the following senators 
answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Lan¬ 
dry, Stamps, Sutton, Twotohell, Wakefield, Young—15. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Dumont, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, 
George, Goode, (irover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, 
Wheeler, White, Zacharie—20. 

The speaker of the house ordered the clerk to call the roll of the members of the 
house of representatives, as follows : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of yernon, Blackstone, Carville, 
Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Drew, DeLacy,I>ickinson,Diukgrave,I)e8ma- 
ra's, D’Avy, D.joie, Early, Fobb, Gardore, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascen- 



388 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


siou, lluglies, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Batou Rouge, Heatb, Johnson of 
He Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, 
Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milan, Moore, McMillen, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, 
Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, 
Warmoth, Walker—68. 

The president then announced that there were present fifteen senators and sixty- 
eight members of the house of representatives, making eighty-three members, a quorum 
of the duly-elected members of both houses. 

A ballot for United States Senator being in order, the secretary of the senate called 
the roll of the senate, as follows: 

Hon. C. C. Antoine received the votes of— 

Senators Allaiu, Baker, Burch, Harper, Stamps, Twitchell—G. 

Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback received the votes of— 

Senators Blunt, Bryant, Kelso, Sutton, Young—5. 

Hon. Taylor Beattie received the following vote : 

Senators Gage, Gla, and Landry. 

Senator Wakefield voted for Hon. James Lewis. 

Senator Dumont voted blank. 

The clerk of the house called the roll of the house of representatives, as follows : 

Hon. C. C. Antoine received the votes of the following representatives : 

Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Bosley, Blackstone, Durden, Gardere, Gary, Holt of East 
Batou Rouge, Heath, Keeting, Leonard, Magloire, Moore, Souer, Snaer, Simmes, Thomas 
—16. 

Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback received the votes of— 

Representatives Barrington, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Brown of 
Vernon, Carville, Como, Cole, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Fobb, Hill, Kern, 
Lewis, Routon, Ste\vart, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—24. 

Hon. Taylor Beattie was voted for by the following members : 

INIessrs. Brooks, Gaude, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, H. M. Johnson, R. John¬ 
son, Seveignes, Drury—8. 

Hon. James Lewis received the following votes : 

Messrs. Dayries, Dejoie, Early, Johnson of De Soto, Lane, Martin, Miion, Swazie—8. 

The following members voted for Hon. William H. Hunt: 

Messrs. Brewster, Dinkgrave, Romero, Shelton—4. 

The following members voted for Hon. T. C. Anderson : 

Messrs. Desmarias, D’Avy, Gantt, Hahn—4. 

Mr. McMillen voted for J. A. Gla. 

Mr. Gracien voted for A. J. Dumont. 

Mr. Jonas voted for John Yoist. 

Mr. Raby voted for Edgar Davis. 

Mr. Bird voted blank. 

The jiresident announced the vote and declared that no one having received a ma¬ 
jority of the vote cast, there was no election. 

On motion of Senator Allaiu, the senate withdrew from the hall of the house of rep¬ 
resentatives. 

(Senator Landry in the chair.) 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allaiu, Blunt, Bryant, Cage, Harper, Kelso, Landry, Sutton, Twitch¬ 
ell, Wakefield—10. 

Absent—Messrs. Baker, Boatner, Breaux, Birch, Demas, Ducros, jr., Dumont, Ellis, 
Eustis, Garland, George, Gla, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Rob¬ 
ertson, Stamps, Steven, Wheeler, Weber, White, Young, Zacharie—26. 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Young, the senate took a recess until 4 p. m. 

The recess having expired, the secretary called the roll and the following senators 
nswered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allaiu, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Laudrv, Stamps, 
Twitchell, Wakefield—11. 

Absent—Messrs. Baker, Boatner, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, 
Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robert¬ 
son, Steven, Sutton, Weber, Wheeler, AYhite, Young, Zacharie—25. 

No quorum. 

On motion, the senate went into secret session. 

After secret session, on motion, the senate adjourned until 10 a. m. Januarv 13. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jn., 

Secreiary of the Senate. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


389 


TWELFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

Senate Chamber, 

Xeic Orleans, January 13, 1877. 

The Senate met pursuant to adjournment at 10 a. m. Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieutenant- 
governor and president of the senate being absent, the secretary called the senate to 
order, and called Senator Burch to the chair. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, 
Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—14. 

Absent—Messrs. Bake/*, Boatuer, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, 
George, Goode, Grover, Ilamlet, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertsou, Steven, 
Weber, Wheeler, White, Zacharie— 22. 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Cage, the senate took a recess until 11.45 a. m. 

recess. 


(The president in the chair.) 

The recess having expired, the secretary called the roll, and the following senators 
answered to their names: 

Present—Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, 
Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—15. 

Absent—Boatner, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steveu,Weber,Wheeler, 
White, Zacharie—21. 

On motion of Senator Blunt, the senate went into secret session. 

After secret session, a committee from the house was announced, informing the sen¬ 
ate that the house of representatives was ready to receive the senate in joint session 
to ballot for a United States Senator for the uuexpired term ending March 4, 1879. 

On motion of Senator Cage, the senate proceeded to the house of representatives for 
the purpose of taking a ballot for United States Senator for the uuexpired term. 

JOINT SESSION. 

The president of the Senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair and called the joint 
assembly to order. 

The secretary of the senate called the roll of the senate, and the following senators 
answered to their- names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—15. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George 
Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, 
Wheeler, White, Zacharie—21. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk to call the roll of 
the house, and the following members answered to their names : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington. Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of .Tef-' 
fetson, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Dur¬ 
den, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Diukgrave, Desmarias, D’Avy, Detiege, Do- 
joie. Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt; Gary, Gracieu, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, 
Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, 
Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, 
Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Routon, Raby, Souer, Snaer, Seyeignes, 
Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, 5\ alker 
65. . 

The president then announced that there were present fifteen senators and sixty-five 
members of the house of rei)resentati ves, making eighty members, a quorum of the duly- 
elected members of both houses. 

A ballot for United States Senator being in order, the secretary of the senate called 
the roll of the senate, as follows : 

Hon. C. C. Antoine received the votes of— 

Senators Allain, Baker, Burch, Harper, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell—7. r t-i i. 

Representatives Brown of Caddo, Bosley, Blackstone, Durden, Gardere, Holt of East 
Baton Rouge, Heath, Keeting, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Moore, Thomas—12. 

Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback received the votes of— 

Senators Blunt, Young—2. « x v n -n 

Speaker Hahn, and Representatives Barrington, Burton, Brown of .Jetierson, Carville , 
Como, Cole, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, DicKinson, Hill of Ascension, Kern, Lewis, 
Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Washington, Watson, Walker—20. 


390 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Hod. James Lewis received the votes of— 

Senator Wakefield—1. 

Representatives Blair, Brooks, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Gary, Johnson of De Soto, 
Jones, Martin, Milon—10. 

Taylor Beattie received the votes of— 

Senators Cage, Gla—2. 

Representatives Bird, Barron, Drury, Fohb, Gaude, Hughes, H. H. Johnson, Routon— 

8 . 

Hon. William H. Hunt received the votes of Representatives Brewster, Dinkgrave, 
Romero—3. 

Hon. Thomas C. Anderson received the votes of Rei3resentatives Desmarias, D’Avy, 
Gantt, Lane—4. 

Hon. H. C. Warmoth received the votes of Representatives Suaer, Swazie, Seveigues— 

3. 

For Hon. Wesley Dickson: 

Senator Bryant—1. 

For Hon. Milton Jones : 

Senator Dumont—1. 

For Hon. A. Dumont: 

Representative Gracien—1. 

For Hon. R. J. Walker, of Tensas: 

Representative Warmoth—1. 

For Hon. T. A. Cage: 

Representative Robert Johnson—1. 

For Hon. Jacques A. Gla: 

Representative McMillen—1. : 

For Hon. L. G. Barron : 

Representative Raby—1. 

For Hon. David Young : 

Representative Tolliver—1. 

For Hon. P. J. Kennedy: 

Representative Souer—1. 

Senator Kelso voted blank—1. 

The president announced the vote, and declared that no one having received a ma¬ 
jority of the votes cast, there was no election. 

On motion of Senator Burch, the senate withdrew to its chamber. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage,- Dumont, Harper, Sutton, 
Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—11. 

Absent—Messrs. Baker, Boatner, Breaux, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, 
George, Gla, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Kelso, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Rob¬ 
ertson, Stamps, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, White, Zacharie—25. 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Blunt, the Senate adjourned until Monday, January 15, at 10 

a. m. 

' L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


Official journal of the proceeding of the house of representatives of the State of Lou¬ 
isiana for the week ending January 6, 1377. 

[By authority.] 

FIRST DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of Represextatives, 

Nev) Orleans, January J, 1877. 

la accordance with the constitution of the State of Louisiana the house met at twelve 
o’clock m. 

_ Mr. P. J. Trezevant, the late clerk of the house, having appeared, and refused to offi¬ 
ciate, the following roll, prepared and certified to by the secretary of state, in accord¬ 
ance with act No. 98, approved November 20, 1872, was, under his direction and super¬ 
vision called— 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


391 


Messrs. .Julos Aldige, of Orleans, sixth representative district; J. T. Aycock, of Or- 
representative district; Frank W. Barrington, of Ouachita ; George Bird, 
of Last Baton Rouge; Cornelius Brown, of Caddo; R. D. Bridger, of Caldwell; Nicho- 
Carroll; L.H. Bowden, of Franklin; C. F. Brown, of Jelfersou; Henry 
Blair, of Morehouse; L. G. Barron, of Natchitoches ; O. H. Brewster, of Ouachita ; E. j. 
Barrett, ot Rapides ; Andy Bosley, of Red River ; Jules Brady, of Saint Tammany; R. 
J. Brooks, ot Saiut Mary; John A. Brown, of Vernon ; S. H. Buck, of Orleans, first rep¬ 
resentative district; Jeremiah Blackstone, of Orleans, seventh representative district; 
Louis Bush, of Orleans, tenth representative district: C. J. Berry, of Orleans, tenth 
representative district: Jesse K. Bell, of Orleans, eleventh representative district; E. 
B. Briggs, of Orleans, eleventh representative district; W. J. Cockerham, of Bienville ; 
J. M. Carville, of B^erville; Lucien Como, of Saint James : James Cole, of Saint John 
the Baptist: George Drury, of Assumption ; N. A. Durden, of Bossier; J. S. Davidson, of 
Iberville; Bernard Dayries, of Pointe Couple; A. Delavigne, of Orleans, ninth repre¬ 
sentative district; Baptiste Drew, of Rapides: W. John De Lacy, of Rapides ; V. Dick¬ 
inson, of Saint James ; \V. H. Dinkgrave, of Madison ; Louis Desmarais, of Saiut Lan¬ 
dry; Frank J. D’Avy, of Saint Landry; Emile Detiege, of Saint Martin; Arestide De- 
joie, of Orleans, fourteenth representative district; James J. Duke, of Claiborne; Lu¬ 
cius Early, of West Feliciana; Albert Estopinal, of Saint Bernard; Frederick Fopp, 
of Ascension; John Fitzpatrick, of Orleans, third representative district; Gaorge 
Foerster, of Orleans, third representative district: Eugene Gardere, of Orleans, seventh 
representative district; Charles Gaude, of La Fourche ; Elbert Gantt, of Saint Lan¬ 
dry ; William C. Gary, of Saint Mary; G. L. Gaskins, of Lincoln; A. W. Gillespie, of 
Cameron; George Gracien, of Orleans, thirteenth representative district; M. Hahn, 
of Saint Charles ; G. H, Hill, of Ascension; Jonas Hughes, of Assumption ; A. R. Holt, 
of East Baton Rouge; Oscar Holt, of West Baton Rouge; E. W. Huntington, Orleans, 
fourth representative district; F. E. Heath, of Webster; J. D.Hill, of (Orleans, third 
representative district ; J. J. Johnson, of De Soto ; Milton Jones, of Pointe Couple ; 
H.M. Johnson, of Terre Bonne; Robert Johnson, of Terre Bonne; B. F. Jonas, of 
Orleans, tenth representative district; P. J. Kennedy, of Jetterson; C. W. Keetiug, of 
Caddo ; G. A. Kelley, of Winn ; Joseph Kelly, of Orleans, eighth representative district; 
William Kern, of Orleans, fourteenth representative district; E. E. Kidd, of Jackson ; 
W. G. Lane, of East Baton Rouge; Charles J. Leeds, of Orleans, first representative 
district; A. H. Leonard, of Caddo ; J. D. Lemare, of Orleans, fifth representative dis¬ 
trict; John G. Lewis, of Natchitoches; Charles E. Lee, of Saint Ilelena ; John J. 
Long, of De Soto ; Louis Leonhard, of Orleans, ninth representative district; Pierre 
Magloire, of Avoyelles; Fernest Martin, of La Fayette; A. E. Milou,of Plaquemines; 
William J. Moore, of Orleans, seventh representative district; W. L. McMilleu, of 
Carroll; M. S. Newson, of Tangipahoa; A(lrieu Nunez, of Vermillion; W. H. Peralta, 
of Orleans, fifth representative district; G. W. Richardson, of Calcasieu; T. A. Ron¬ 
ton, of Catahoula; Ulger Romero, of Iberia; Henry Raby, of Natchitoches ; L. J. 
Souer, of Avoyelles; J. H. Shakspeare, of Orleans, second representative district ; 
M. V. Singleton, sr., of Saiut Landry ; David W. Self, of Sabine; George A. Swazie, of 
West Feliciana; L. A. Suaer, of Iberia: J. Seveignes, of La Fourche; Levi Spiller, of 
Livingston; W. G. Shelton, of Morehouse; Richard Simmes, of Saiut James ; Louis 
Stagg, of Saint Landry ; J. R. Stewart, of Tensas; 0. B. Steele, of Union ; E. T. Sellers, 
of Union; S. Thomas, of Bossier; Anderson Tolliver, of Concordia; P. H. Toller, of 
Richland ; Albert Voorhies, of Orleans, sixth representative district; George Washing¬ 
ton, of Concordia; P. J. Watson, of Madison ; H. C. Warmoth, of Phniuemines; R. J. 
Walker, of Tensas; John R. Wood, of Washington; R. H. Wilde, of Orleaus, second 
representative district; John Young, of Claiborne. 

State of Louisiana, Office Secretary of State, 

Xeiv Orleans, December 30, 1S70. 

I, P. G. Deslonde, secretary of state, do hereby certify that the above-named persons 
were, at a general election held on the seventh day of November, 1:^76, duly elected 
members of the house of rei)resentatives of the general assembly of the State of Louis- 
ana, as appears by the returns of said election now on file in my office. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the State this thirtieth day of December, A. 
D. 167G, and of the ludnpendence of the United States of America the one hundred and 
first. 

P. G. DESLONDE, 

Secretary of State. 

And upon the reading of said roll the following members responded to their names : 

Messrs. Cornelius Brown, of Caildo; George Bird, of E ist B iton Rouge; Nicholas 
Burton, of Ciirroll; C. F. Brown, of Jefiersou ; Henry Blair, ot Morehouse ; L. G. Bar¬ 
ron, of Natchitoches; O. H. Brewster, of (Ouachita: E. J. Barr'^tt, of Rapides: Andy 
Bosle}’, of Red River; R. J. Brooks, of Saiut Mary; Jeremiah Blacksto:ie, of Orleans, 
•seventh representative district; J. .M. Chirville, ot Iberville; Lucien Como, ot .'saint 


392 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


James; James Cole, of Saint John tbe Baptist; George Crnry. of Assumption ; N. A. 
Durden, of Bossier; J. S. Davidson, of Iberville ; Baptiste Drew, of Rapides; John W. 
De Lacy, of Rapides; V. Dickinson, of Saint James; W. H. Dinkgrave, of Madison ; 
Louis Desmarais, of Saint Landry; Frank J. D’Avy, of Saint Landry; Emile Detiege, 
of Saint Martin ; Arestide Dejoie, of Orleans, fourteenth representative district; Lucius 
Early, of West Feliciana; Albert Estopinal, of Saint Bernard ; Frederick Fobb, of As¬ 
cension; Eugene Gardere, of Orleans, seventh representative district; Charles Gaude 
of La Fourche ; Elbert Gantt, of Saint Landry; William C. Gary, of Saint Mary ; George 
Gracien, of Orleans, thirteenth representative district; M. Hahn, of Saint Charles; G. 
H. Hill, of Ascension ; Jonas Hughes, of Assumption ; A. R. Holt, of East Baton Rouge ; 
Oscar Holt, of West Baton Rouge; F. E. Heath, of Webster; J. J. Johnson, of De Soto; 
Milton Jones, of Pointe Couple ; H. M. Johnson, of Terre Bonne ; Robert Johnson, of 
Terre Bonne ; P. J. Kennedy, of Jefferson ; C. W. Keeting, of Caddo; William Kern, of 
Orleans, fourteenth representative district; W. G. Lane, of East Baton Rogue ; A. H. 
Leonard, of Caddo; John G. Lewis, of Natchitoches; Pierre Magloire, of Avoyelles ; 
Feruest Martin, of La Fayette; A. E. Milon, of Plaquemines; William J. Moore, of Or¬ 
leans, seventh representative district; T. A. Routon, of Catahoula; Ulger Romero, of 
Iberia; Henry Raby, of Natchitoches; L. J. Souer, of Avoyelles; George A. Swazie, 
of West Feliciana; L. A. Snaer, of Iberia ; J. Seveignes, of La Fourclie; Richard Simmes, 
of Saint James; J. R Stewart, of Tensas; S. Thomas, of Bossier; Anderson Tolliver, 
of Concordia; George Washington, of Concordia; J. P. Watson, of Madison; H. C. 
Warmoth,of Plaquemines; R. J. Walker, of Tensas—68. 

Sixty-eight members present, and a fjuorum. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, was called to the chair. 

On motion of Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, the house proceeded to a permanent organiza¬ 
tion by the election of officers. 

The election of speaker being declared in order, Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, nominated 
'Hon. Michael Hahn, of Saint Charles. 

Mr. Stewart, of Tensas, nominated Hon. Henry C. Warmoth, of Plaquemines. 

The following members voted for Mr. Hahn : 

Messrs, Bird, Brown, Blair, Barron, Barrett, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone,. 
Carville,Como,Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, 
Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill, Hughes, A. R. 
Holt, Oscar Holt, J. J. Johnson, Jones, H. M. .Johnson, Kennedy, Keeting, Kern, Lane, 
Leonard, Magloire, Martin, Moore, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Snaer, Semrnes,. 
Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Warmoth—53. 

Mr. Warmoth received the votes of the following members: 

Messrs. Burton, Brown, Drew, De Lacy, Detiege, Hahn, Heath, Robert .Johnson, 
Lewis, Milon, Swazie, Seveignes, Stewart, Watson, Walker, Tensas—15. 

Having received a majority of the votes cast, Mr. Hahn was declared elected 
peaker, and was sworn in as such by Hon. L. J. Souer, of Avoyelles. 

Mr. R. F. Guichard was unanimously elected clerk of the house. 

Mr. William Vigers'jWas elected assistant clerk of the house by acclamation. 

Messrs. F. A. Clover and H. C. C. Astwood were placed in nomination for the posi¬ 
tion of minute clerk. 

Forty-one votes were cast for Mr. Clover ; twenty-one votes were cast for Mr. Ast¬ 
wood. 

Mr. Clover, having received the majority of votes cast, was declared elected minute 
clerk. 

Nominations for assistant minute clerk being in order, Mr. Gardere, of Orleans, nom¬ 
inated Mr. William L. Randall. 

Mr. Stewart, of Tensas, nominated Mr. H. C. C. Astwood. 

Mr. Randall received forty-one votes, and Mr. Astwood obtained twenty-four votes. 

Mr. Randall, having received a majority of the votes cast, was declared elected as¬ 
sistant minute clerk. 

On motion of Mr. Dejoie, of Orleans, Mr. Thomas Murray was declared elected ser¬ 
geant-at-arms of the house bj’ acclamation. 

Mr. Robert Carey was unanimously elected enrolling clerk of the house. 

Mr. J. M. Carter was elected first assistant sergeant-at-arms of the house. 

Mr. H. T. Taylor was elected second assistant sergeant-at-arms of the house. 

Mr. F. S. Legardey 'was elected doorkeeper of the house. 

Mr. James Cooper was elected assistant doorkeeper of the house. 

Mr. Charles H. Merritt was elected iiostmaster of the house. 

The officers-ehct were duly qualified in their respective positions by the speaker. 

Mr. Drury, of Assumption, offered the following resolution, which was read and 
adopted : 

liesoheH, That a committee of five be appointed on the part of the house, to act with 
a like committee from the senate, to wait upon his excellency the governor to inform 
him that the organization of the general assembly is complete, and ready for any com¬ 
munication from him. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


393 


The speaker appointed the following nienihers as said committee: Messrs. Drnry, of 
Assumption ; Dickinson, of Saint James; Kennedy, of Jefferson ; Milon, of Plaque¬ 
mines; and Magloire, of Avoyelles. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

The secretary of the senate was announced with the following message : 

Senate Chamber, 

Xew Orleans, Januari/ 1, 1877. 

To the honoralile speaker and members of the house of representatives : 

I am directed by the senate of the State of Louisiana to inform your honorable body 
that the senate is duly organized, by the election of L. Lamaniere, jr., as secretary, and 
A. S. Badger as sergeant-at-arms, and now ready to proceed to business. 

Respectfully, A:c., 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 
Secretary of the Senate. 


3UESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR. 

The following message was received, and, upon motion of Mr. Stewart, of Tensas, 
500 copies, in pamphlet form, were ordered to be printed: 

State of Louisiana, Executive Departmp:nt, 

Xen' Orleans, January 1, 1877. 

Senators and members of the house of representatives of the State of Louisiana : 

In transmitting this, the closing message of my administration, I again congratulate 
you upon the bountiful crops witli which Providence has crowned the agricultural in¬ 
dustry of the State. While other communities have been scourged by pestilence or 
visited by serious disasters, the health of this State has been exceptionally good, and 
neither overflow nor other public calamitj’ has befallen us. 

My term of office as governor of Louisiana will expire in a few days. I shall resign 
the onerous duties which that position has imposed upon me with only this regret, that 
circumstances have not permitted me to accompli.sh more for the good of this State 
The difficulties encountered can scarcely be overstated. During the first years of my 
administration an organized j)lan of tax resistance prevailed, and the existence of 
the government was repeatedly threatened by armed insurrection, which finally became 
of so formidable a character as to render necessary an appeal to the general govern¬ 
ment for aid in its suppression. The tranquillity of the .State has siuce been disturbed 
by a revolutionary effort to seize control of the organization of the lower house of the 
general assembly, and by an attempt to displace the executive authorities by false and 
frivolous articles of impeachment, adopted in violation of plighted faith. Through 
all these embarrassments I have also had to contend against systematic calumny and 
misrepresentation abroad, and have seen with regret the ready acceptance which the 
slanders directed against the Republican party in this State have met with from those 
who profess to believe in the principles of that party, as maintaiced in other .States. 
Conscious of right, I have struggled on, endeavoring to give peace and prosperity to 
the State, and at the same time to protect the rights of those by whose votes, mainly, 
I was called to the executive chair. 

The recorded facts will show that when I entered upon my duties the lionded and 
floating debt of the-Stato was 8*i4,01.):?,407, with contingent liabilities amounting to 
821,0UO,500. The laws authorizing this contingent debt have all been repealed, and 
the debt of the State now is : 


New consols outstanding. . 80,318,342 

Old fundable bonds, 84,059,300, which funded at sixty cents will be. 2, 435, 580 

Old fundable warrants outstanding, about 8170,000, which funded at sixty 
cents will be. 102,000 


Total consolidated interest-bearing debt, when funding is completed, ex¬ 
clusive of interest coupons due prior to January, 1871, and interest war¬ 
rants issued therefor, amounting in all to about 8)00,000. 11,655,922 


Taxation*for .State purposes when this administration entered into power was 
twenty-one and a half mills on the dollar, with an equal, or even greater, taxation in 
most jiarishes for parish purposes. Taxation for all State purposes, iuclndiug schools, 
is now lindted l)y constitutional amendment to fourteen and a half mills, and by law 
of the State the rate of parish taxation can in no case exceed the rate of State taxa- 







394 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


tion. Constitutional amendments limit the expenditures of the State government to 
the actual revenues received, and render null and void all warrants issued in excess 
of revenue. 

The rate of taxation in the city of Xew Orleans at the commencement of my term 
of office was: State, including schools, twenty-one and one-half mills; city, thirty 
mills; total, fifty-one and one-half mills. The rate of taxation in the city of New Or¬ 
leans for the present year is: State, including schools, fourteen and one-half mills ; 
city, fifteen mills ; total, twenty-nine and one-half mills. Constitutional amendments 
limit the city debt to the highest amount attained previous to the passage of these 
amendments, and prohibit under severest penalties the issuance of any warrant or 
evidence of indebtedness, except against money actually in the treasury. The total 
expenditures of the preceding State administration for the support of government 
from 1869 to 1872, inclusive, were $11,622,005. The total expenditure for the support 
of government during the four ye; rs of my administration have been $4,209,825, a 
saving of $7,412,180. The legislature of 1865-6-’7, composed exclusively of opponents 
of the Republican party, appropriated $17,129,554, an excess of appropriation over 
revenue for those years of $13,750,554. 

During the past summer our new consols were admitted upon the New York Stock 
Exchange, and are now ci[uoted among other unquestioned bonds in the markets of this 
country and of Europe. As the nature of these bonds and the guarantees by which 
they are surrounded become more v.udely known, they cannot fail to appreciate in 
value. 

The interest on all bonds funded up to date has been promptly met at maturity. 
Payment of the interest falling due January 2, 1877, is announced. Political difficul¬ 
ties have rendered the collection of taxes somewhat slow, and it has not been thought 
desirable to hasten the funding of the bonds which still remain to be converted. The 
interest fund is intact and cannot be diverted for any purpose. It is believed the de¬ 
linquent taxes to come in will be sufficient to pay the interest on every outstanding 
bond, and also on those that yet remain to be funded. 

It is matter of history that the measures by which the debt of the State has been 
reduced and taxation and expenditures have been lowered and limited were carried 
into effect by the Republican party, with the aid of many conservative business men 
of the community, against the united efforts of the political party opposed to the 
present State administration. The justice and necessity of these provisions are now, 
I believe, admitted by all, and their validity is unquestioned. I regret to note that at 
the recent election other constitutional amendments reducing the salaries of officials, 
limiting the expenses of the general assembly, and abolishing superfluous offices have 
been defeated by votes cast apparently by both political parties. The inference re¬ 
mains that no party organization, as such, can be entirely trusted to carry out meas¬ 
ures in the public interest which tend to reduce the rewards and emoluments of politi¬ 
cal success, and that further measures of relief in this direction, if attained at all, 
must proceed as heretofore from the co-operation of moderate and conservative men 
with that organization which manifests most clearly a desire to advance the general 
welfare. 

The assumption that Southern States cannot prosper under governments elected in 
strict accordance with the requirements of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth 
amendments to the Constitution of the United States, is disproved by facts. The 
assessment-rolls of the different parishes of the State for the year 1875, filed in the 
office of the State auditor, give instructive statistics of the agricultural productions of 
that year. From several of the parishes complete returns were not made. It is fair to 
assume, as they are tax-returns, that none of them err on the side of overstating re¬ 
sults. In 53 out of 57 parishes, with a cultivated area of 1,934,907 acres, and an un¬ 
cultivated area of 10,934,907 acres, the products of the year are shown to have been 
300,000 bales of cotton, 100,000 hogsheads of sugar, 235,000 barrels of molasses, 175,000 
barrels of rice, and over 6,000,000 bushels of corn. Returns for the year just closed 
have thus far been received from only 48 out of 57 parishes, but careful computations 
place the probable yield at 450,000 bales of cotton, 186,000 hogsheads of sugar, 364,000 
barrels of molasses, and 270,000 barrels of rice, with more than sufficient corn to sup- 
I)ly all home demands. These statistics do not include cypress lumber, moss, and other 
natural products, nor do they include many other items which go largely to make up 
the agricultural wealth of the State, as tor instance oranges and other fruits, tobacco, 
one variety of which is cultivated to a considerable extent in several parishes, oats 
and other cereals which in the hill districts are successfully raised, and meat-cattle 
and vegetables, in the rearing of which the State is almost self-supporting. All these 
considered, it is safe to say that the value of the products of the State duriuo- the 
present year will range from 55 to 60 millions of dollars. By whom have these results 
been produced ? Not to any appreciable extent by white labor. It is one of the la- 
rnentable legacies of slavery that by a large class of the white population the cultiva¬ 
tion of the soil is regarded as a badge of degradation. The cotton and sugar and rice. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 395 

which maintain the commerce of New Orleans, and allord support to the m'eat bulk of 
the pfipnlation of our chief city, are the products of free colored labor. 

Ihe tact is indisputable that the a<(ricultnral districts of the State are ranidly j^row- 
inj; in prosperitj”, while the city of New Orleans, the chief center of turbulence and 
political discord, is daily declining in wealth. Our cotton crop is equal to that of the 
most prosperous years before the war: the sugar crops have largely increased; the 
rice crops have nearly trebled within the last few years. No country in the world, no 
State in the Union with similar advantages of salubrious climate, otters equal induce¬ 
ments to immigration. The rich sugar-lauds on the Teche, and elsewhere, yield loO 
to ‘200 dollars an acre, and are taxed upon low assessments, not more than o to 10 dol¬ 
lars an acre, while lands in Western States, assessed a hundred per cent, higher, are 
not one-fourth as productive. The State is deficient only in a healthy public senti¬ 
ment that will aid in enforcing the laws and protecting all citizens in their rights. 

With peace tirmly established, and a general acceptance of the results of the war, 
such as prevails in some sections of the State, except when disturbed by organized 
revolutionary movements set on foot by the controlling few who tyrannize over the con¬ 
servative sentiment of the community, Louisiana would offer an unequaled field for the 
unemployed capital and ill-paid labor of other communities. In no other State of 
the Union is the capitalist so fully insured against excessive taxation as in this State 
under the recently adopted constitutional amendments. In no other State can equal 
returns be obtained for an equal amount of capital invested in agricultural pursuits. 

It would be gratifying to me if, in reviewing the events of my four years’ term of 
office, I could point to railroads built, steanj^hip lines established, telegraphic commu¬ 
nication extended, fertile lands redeemed from overflow, natural resources developed, 
and, above all, harmony and good feeling established on a firm basis between the two 
races by an honest acquiescence in the consequences of emancipation and enfranchise¬ 
ment. I do not think these results are far distant, but it would be encouraging to note 
more rapid progress in each direction. In some parishes of the State, notably those which 
are most prosperous and peaceful and strongly Republican, kindly relations exist be¬ 
tween whites and blacks. The colored people have become, to a large extent, either 
the owners of the lauds they cultivate or jointly interested with their white employers 
in the products of their labor. This of itself establishes a community of interest and 
of sentiment between the twoclasses. It was ore of the recommendations strenuously 
urged in the first message I had the honor to address to a legislature of Louisiana, that 
the laborers should be given every opportunity to acquire capital by fair means; that 
they should be guarded from imposition, and encouraged to invest their earnings in 
some permanent form, thus becoming capitalists in interest ami, by consequence, cap¬ 
italists in sentiment, and, above all, that they should be protected in the exercise of the 
ballot, the guarantee and safeguard of their rights. In this way, it seemed to me, an¬ 
tagonism between labor and capital would be avoided, and harmony would be estab¬ 
lished betw'een the races. Wherever this policy has been carried out, peace and good 
government prevail, the parish debts are light, the parish taxes ate small, and the 
products of the soil yield a bountiful return for the capital and labor invested. In 
these parishes, also, it is found that the colored people, justly treated and protected, 
willingly accept the political leadership of those upon whom, in former years, they 
were accustomed to rely. At the last election in this State a number of prominent 
native-born w hite citizens of Louisiana, identified in every respect w ith the past his¬ 
tory of their section, but who had frankly accepted the changed condition of affairs 
brought about by the war, were elected to responsible official positions by colored voters 
on Republican or independent tickets. The hangings, whippings, maltreatment, and 
murders resorted to in other portions of the State to icfluence political results are de¬ 
monstrated to be not only crimes against civilization and humanity, but political 
blunders, bringing with them their own correctives through the election laws of the 
State, which were called into existence to i)reveut or remedy just such acts. Ten years 
or more of emancipated slave labor in the Southern States have shown that the colored 
people, as a race, w'hen justly treated and protected in their rights, are valuable mem¬ 
bers of the community, industrious, peaceful, and docile to a fault. The only authentic 
instances in history wherein they have manifested opposite tendencies have been 
where, once freed, the attempt has'been made to remand them to slavery. 

In the communications I have had the honor to lay before the general assembly 
heretofore, I have scarcelj* alluded to political quesiions. There has been much in onr 
political history during tliis time to call for comment, but I have preferred to confine 
my recommendations chiefly to measures calculated to advance the material interests 
of the State, trusting that time and returning piK)Sperity would soften asperities and 
harmoniously adjust the changed relations of capital and labor, and the political status 
of the two races. 

Recent events, however, seem to recpiire that I should nowM-efer at some length to 
matters of State and national policy. Grave national issues depend upon the solution 
of |a)litical problems closely affecting the peace and pros])erity of Louisiana. It has 
become a question for the nation to decide, whether the violent and illegal means 


396 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


which have been systematically put forth in this and other Southern States to prevent, 
if possible, a fair expression of the will of the whole people at the ballot-box shall be 
allowed to prevail. The nation is confronted with the possibility of a presidential 
election hinging on the votes of States not long since in rebellion against the national 
authority, within whose borders the three constitutional amendments which embody 
the leading issues decided by the war have been virtually set aside by armed violence, 
intimidation, and murder. 

This is really the practical question to be determined. It is sometimes thinly dis¬ 
guised as a struggle against corrupt governments and for reform, a pious warfare of 
intelligence and virtue against ignorance and vice. The results aimed at, however, 
in each of the States in question appear always to be the same—the vesting of all polit¬ 
ical control in the hands of an aristocratic oligarchy, irrespective of the will of the 
majority of the people, and the practical nullihcation of the constitutional measures 
which accord to the emancipated slaves the rights of citizens. 

Two years ago, in our neighboring State of Mississippi there was a Republican State 
administration. It had been elected by a large and unquestioned majority of the peo¬ 
ple ; it was not oppressive; taxation was light; there was no appreciable public debt; 
the State was prosperous. That government has been swept out of existence. The 
freedmen of Mississippi are to-day represented in Congress just as they were when 
slaves before the war, with only this difference, that their emancipation has increased 
the representative strength of their white masters. The State of Louisiana on a fair 
vote is as largely Republican as was Mississippi. Yet, within the past eight years, 
five organized attempts have been made in the interest of the same class to overcome 
the will of the majority; four times by violence and once by fraud. The success of 
any one of these efforts would have placed the State of Louisiana in the same position 
that Mississippi now holds. There can be no mistake as to the attitude of the oppo¬ 
nents of the Republican party in Louisiana toward the constitutional amendments. 
It is clearly cut and well defined. The proof does not rest upon evidence of violence 
in any one or more parishes, or at any one election. It is legibly written all over the 
history of the State since the termination of the war. The legislature of 1805-66 con¬ 
vened under the reconstruction policy of President Johnson, and composed exclusively 
of white citizens, many of them still prominent aspirants for political office, tabled 
the 14th amendment by unanimous vote in both houses, and passed laws consigning 
the freedmen to virtual peonage. One of the first public efforts to give practical ef¬ 
fect to the new amendment when finally adopted by the country was met by the ter¬ 
rible massacre of July, 1866. No word of condemnation of that crime has yet been 
heard from the opponents of Republican principles in the State. It is justified and ap¬ 
proved. The judge of the criminal court, who refused to charge the grand jury in re¬ 
lation to the murders then committed, has ever since been biennially re-elected to the 
same office by the majority of the voters of the city of New Orleans. 

In the spring of 1868 the interposition of military power under the direction of Con¬ 
gress enabled the polored people to exercise their newly-conferred right of suffrage, 
and to elect a Republican State government. Whatever may be the errors or short¬ 
comings justly chargeable against that administration (which entered upon its duties 
under circumstances of great difficulty), it is matter of record that no disposition was 
shown to wait and judge it fairly by its acts, or to accord to it moral support in any 
effort for the general welfare. It was at once denounced as a usurpation, thrust upon 
the people by Federal bayonets, and the young men of the State were invited by pub¬ 
lic resolution to form themselves into clubs and arm for its overthrow. A few months 
later in that same year the candidate of the national Deiiocratic party for the Vice- 
Presidency of the United States declared the constitutional amendments void and the 
reconstruction acts a nullity, and called upon the President to use the Army of the 
United States to suppress the usurping Southern governments established under those 
enactments. As a natural consequence of this declaration and of the scenes of vio¬ 
lence which followed, scarcely more than five thousand out of the forty-eight thou¬ 
sand colored men in Louisiana, who bad voted in the spring for a Republican governor, 
were permitted to cast their votes in the fall for a Republican President. These are 
matters of notoriety. It is not necessary to trace in detail the subsequent history of 
colored suffrage in this State, through the fusion frauds of 187‘2, the massacres of Col¬ 
fax and Coushatta, the White League riots of September, 1874, and the later outrages 
attending the last election, which have shocked the moral sense of the whole country. 
Viewed separately or together, these crimes disclose one motive; their accomplish¬ 
ment has tended to procure one end. Their perpetrators are shielded by public senti¬ 
ment; their defenders are rewarded hy election to public office in communities where 
hostility to Republican principles predominates. 

It is a painful fact in the history of the State that when a number of white citizens 
were arrested, tried, and convicted before a jury in the United States circuit court of 
the murder of more than a hundred surrendered, defenseless colored men at Colfax 
court-house, the most influential residents of New Orleans formed associations for 
their relief. The entertainments given for the benefit of the so-called “Grant Parish 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


31)7 


butrerers'’ were the most i)opular of the season. Xo terms of opprobrium were found 
too sti'ong for the United States circuit judj^e, who, acting under a strict sense of duty, 
held that the proceedings taken under the reconstruction acts of Congress against 
these accused ])ersons were legal and valid, and no praise too extravagant to be be¬ 
stowed upon the associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Unitea States who, 
actiijg, it is to be presumed, under an equally strict sense of duty, declared those pro¬ 
ceedings unconstitutional and void. The Grant Parish massacre "is still regarded as a 
justiliable assertion of white supremacy. 

It is argued with plausibility that the disorders admitted to prevail in some of the 
Southern States are the result of the inefticieny of the Reimblican State authorities and 
their inability to enforce the laws and bring the guilty parties to justice. In August 
last the executive of this State officially directed the attention of the State central 
committee of the opposing party to the organized violence exercised in certain parishes 
of the State toward prominent Republicans. The chairman of that committee replied 
that the parishes named were presided over by Republican officials, whose duty it was 
to bring evil-doers to justice under the State laws, and that if there was any truth in 
these charges, it was conclusive proof that the Republican party was responsible for 
the disorders which had occurred in this State. Similar arguments are continually re¬ 
peated. It is pointed out that in Georgia and Alabama and other Southern States 
which have been “ redeemed,” as it is called, from Republican rule, peace prevails and 
political murders are comparatively unknown. The very statement of this proposi¬ 
tion carries with it confession of guilt. It discloses the fact that the disorders in the 
South are created by the opponents of Republicanism for the purpose of obtaining con¬ 
trol of the government, and that until they obtain possession of the offices, whether 
they have such a majority of the legal voters as would justly entitle them to those 
offices or not, political turmoil will continue. 

The first case of successful prosecution for political crime has yet to occur in Louisi¬ 
ana. Instances are unhappily not wanting where bold efforts made to enforce the 
laws have been promptly followed by the assassination of judges, prosecuting officers, 
and sheriffs. It may be here recalled that during the local election for State officers 
and Congressmen in 1874, the State central committee of the opposition passed a 
formal resolution pledging their influence to secure a discontinuance of political vio¬ 
lence throughout the State upon certain conditions, which being complied with, open 
acts of violence against Republicans almost immediately ceased. No local tribunals 
can prevent or punish ]>olitical offenses whilst the controlling public sentiment 
amongst the more influential citizens sanctions, or at least connives at, those disorders. 
There seem to me but three ways by which peace can be maintained and the laws of 
the State and of the United States can be enforced in Louisiana against political 
offenders: 

1. The surrender of the State government to the minority who controlled its desti¬ 
nies before the emancipation of the slaves. 

'2. The acceptance by that minority’ in good faith of the Constitutional amendments 
which express the issues decided by the war. 

3. The enactment by Congress of such approi)riate and valid legislation as will se¬ 
cure the enforcement of those amendments against organized, insidious, and deep- 
seated hostility. 

The first of "these plans I think would be subversive of freedom and of the princi¬ 
ples upon which a republican form of government is based. I shall be nnfeignedly 
glad if I am called upon to welcome as my successor in office one whose fidelity to the 
principles on which, in my opinion, the future peace and prosperity of the community 
depend has been abundantly proved, and whose tried integrity and experience in the 
public service entitle him to full confidence. I will ask you to accord to him earnest 
support in maintaining the laws and advancing the material interests of the State, 
and in securing and protecting the humblest citizen in the rights guaranteed to him 
by the Constitution of the country. 

WM. P. KELLOGG, Governor. 

Several veto messages were received, and the bills referred to therein were ordered 
to lie referred to their appropriate committees, when aiipointed. 

On motion of Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, the rules governing the house during its last 
session were adopted temporarily. 

On motion of Mr. Keeling, of Caddo, rule 20, governing the house, was entorced. 

Rv unanimous consent, Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, introduced house bill Xo. 1, an act to 
esta"blish an additional district court, to be entitled the superior civil court for tbe par¬ 
ish of Orleans; to define and regulate its jurisdiction, and modify and regulate that of 
the several district courts of said parish, hitherto and now existing; to reduce the ex¬ 
penses of tax-payers and of justice in the city of New Orleans ; to abolish the sixth and 
superior district courts for .said parish; to further regulate corporations and their pro¬ 
ceedings and di.ssolution, and protect the assets thereof; to regulate jurie.s and jury 
commis.sioners relative to said 8ui»erior civil court, and increase the salary of said com- 


398 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


missioners, and to confer additional powers on the third district court for the parish of 
Orleans. _ . , . 

Under a further suspension of the constitutional rule the hill was placed on its third 
reading and final passage, its title was adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to the 
senate for concurrence. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, by unanimous consent, introduced concurrent resolution 
No. 1: 

Whereas the general assembly is now in annual session convened ; and 

Whereas certain evil-disposed persons are forming combinations to disturb the pub¬ 
lic peace and defy the lawful authorities; and 

Whereas the State is threatened with domestic violence : Therefore be it _ ^ 

Eesolved by the house of Representatives of the general assembly of Louisiana the 
senate concurring, That the President of the United States be requested to afford the 
protection guaranted each State by the Constitution of the United States when 
threatened with domestic violence, and that the governor of the State be requested to 
transmit this joint resolution to the President of the United States. 

Read first time. 

The constitutional rule being suspended, the resolution was read a second time and 
considered as being engrossed. 

The constitutional rule being further suspended, the resolution underwent its third 
reading and final passage. Its title was adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to the 
senate for concurrence. 

Under a suspension of the rules, Mr. Drury, of Assumption, introduced joint resolu¬ 
tion No. 1, relative to the closing of the mouth of Bayou LaFourche, which was read 
and placed on the calendar. 

Mr. Kennedy, of Jefferson, moved that a committee on rules, to consist of seven 
members, be appointed. 

Carried. 

Mr. Gracien,of Orleans, presented a notice from Napoleon Lastrappes, contesting 
the seat of M. V. Singleton as a representative of the parish of Saint Landry ; which 
was ordered to be referred to the committee on elections and qualifications, when ap¬ 
pointed. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, offered the following resolution; which lies over under the 
rules: 

Whereas section 1540 of the revised statutes makes it the duty of the speaker to ap¬ 
point a committee for the purpose of examining the books, vouchers, and accounts 
of the auditor of public accounts and State treasurer: Therefore be it 

Besolved, That the speaker of the house be authorized and directed to appcrint a 
committee of five, to act in conjunction with a committee from the Senate, for thepur- 
X)ose of making an examination of the books, vouchers, accounts, etc., of the auditor 
of public accounts and State treasurer, and make report thereof as soon as practi¬ 
cable. 

On motion of Mr. Kennedy, of Jefferson, the house was adjourned until to-morrow 
at 10 a. m. 

ROBERT T. GUICHARD, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives, 


SECOND DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of Representatives, 

Hew Orleans, January 2, 1877. 

The house met pursuant to adjournment, Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, 
Barron, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Como, Cole, 
Drury, Durden, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, 
Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascen¬ 
sion, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath,'Johnson of De Soto, Jones. Johnson, 
H. M., Johnson, Robert, Kennedy, Keeting, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, 
Routon, Romero, Raby, .Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tol¬ 
liver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—63. 

Sixty-three members present, and a quorum. 

Messrs. Brown, of Vernon, and Dayries, of Pointe Couple, were duly sworn in by 
the speaker as representatives of their respective parishes. 

The speaker appointed the following members as the committee to prepare rules to 
govern the house: Mr. Kennedy, of Jefferson, chairman ; and Messrs. Keeting, of Caddo 
Blackstone, of Orleans; Hill, of Ascension; Drury, of Assumption; Gary, of ."aint. 
Mary ; Estopinal, of Saint Bernard. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


SOO* 


On motion of Mr. Snaer, of Iberia, the reading of the journal was dispensed with, 
and it was adopted after it was corrected so as to state that Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, in¬ 
troduced concurrent resolution No. 1, relative to requesting the President of the United 
States to afford the protection gnapnteed each State by the Constitution of the United 
States when threatened by domestic violence, etc.; also, after the first reading of house 
bill No. 1, insert the words : “The constitutional rules were suspended, the bill read a 
second time and was considered engrossed. 

Mr. Seveignes, of La Fourche, offered the following rosolution; which lies over under 
the rules: 

liesolved, That Paul Granzin, contestant from the twelfth ward of the parish of Or¬ 
leans, be hereby seated as a member of this house, subject to contest. 

Mr. Warmoth,of Plaquemines, moved that the members proceed to select their per¬ 
manent seats. 

Mr. Drury, of Assumption, moved as a substitute that the members be permitted to- 
occupy the seats already appropriated. 

Mr. Warmoth moved to lay the substitute on the table; carried. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, moved to amend b 3 " deferring the time for selection of seats 
until 1 p. m. 

The amendment being accepted, the original motion was adopted. 

NOTICE OF BILLS. 

The following notices were given, that at some future time the following-entitled 
bills would be introduced : 

By Mr. Desmarais, of Saint Landry: 

A bill relative to drawing jurors in and for the parish of Saint Landry, fixing the 
number of jurors to be drawn, and limiting their time of service. 

By Mr. Drury, of Assumption : 

An act to incorporate the town of Napoleonville, parish of Assumption. 

By Mr. Jones, of Pointe Coupee : 

A bill making an appropriation to open the mouth of False River, in the parish of 
Pointe Coup<^e, and for other x)urpose8. 

By Mr. Snaer, of Iberia : 

A bill relative to the qualification of jurors in the parishes of Iberville and Saint 
Martin. 

By Mr. D’Avy, of Saint Landry: 

A bill limiting the powers of the police jurors of the various parishes of the State. 

'' Mr. Souer, of Iberville, presented the petition of Messrs. Elliott, Devezin, and Evans, 
contesting the seats of Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Foerster, and Hill, as representatives of the 
third rejiresentative district, parish of Orleans, which was ordered to be referred to the 
committee on elections and qualifications, when appointed. 

Mr. Warmoth, of Pla({uemines, presented the petition of George E. Paris, contesting 
the seat of E. W. Huntington as the representative of the fourth representative dis¬ 
trict, parish of Orleans, which was ordered to bo referred to the committee on elections 
and qualifications, when appointed. 

Mr. Estopinal, of Saint Bernard, rising to a question of privilege, stated that he had 
noticed in several of the morning journals that he was reported as having acted with 
an illegal body, styling itself the house of representatives of the State of Louisiana; 
that the statement was erroneous ; and, further, that ho was at no time absent from 
the hall of this house during yesterday’s session. 


MESSAGE FR03I THE SENATE. 


The secretary of the senate was announced with the following message: 

Senate Chamber, 
yeic Orleana, January 2, 1^77. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives: 

I am directed by the senate to inform your honorable body that the senate has con¬ 
curred in house bill No. 1, an act to establish an additional district court, to be entitled 
the superior civil court for the parish of Orleans ; to define and regulate its jurisdic¬ 
tion, and modify and regulate that of the several district courts of said parish hitherio 
and now existing; to reduce the expenses of tax-payers and of justice in the city of 
New Orleans, etc. 

Also, that the senate has concurred in house concurrent resolution No. 1, asking the 
assistance of the President of the United States that order and peace be maintained in 
the State. 

Respectfullv, 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

Stcretary of the Srnate. 


400 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Gracieu, of Orleans, oftered the following resolution; which lies over under the 
rules: 

A resolution empowering the sergeant-at-arms to appoint twenty additional assistant 
sergeant-at-arms. 

On motion of Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, a committee of three members, consisting of 
Messrs. Leonard, of Caddo, Tolliver, of Concordia, and Warmoth, of Plaquemines, 
were appointed to inform the senate that tbe house was ready to meet in joint session 
to count the votes cast for governor and lieutenant-governor at the last State elec¬ 
tion. 

(Mr. Stewart, of Tensas, in the chair.) 

(The speaker resumed the chair.) 

The committee appointed to wait on the senate reported, through its chairman, that 
the senate would meet the house for the purpose specihed in a few minutes. 

IMESSAGE FEOM THE SENATE. 

The secretary of the senate was announced with the following message: 


Senate Chamber, 

New Orleans, January 2, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives: 

I am directed by the senate to inform your honorable body that the senate is now 
ready to meet the house of representatives in joint session for the purpose of examining 
and counting the votes cast at the election held November 7, 1876, for governor and 
lieutenant-governor of the State of Louisiana. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

Secretary of the Senate. 

JOINT SESSION. 


The sergeant-at-arms then announced the honorable the senate of the State of Lou¬ 
isiana. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair, and directed the 
secretary of the senate to call the roll of the senate in joint session. 

The following senators answered to their names; 

Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieutenant-governor and president of the senate, and Messrs. 
Allaiu, Blunt, Breaux, Burch, Bryant, Baker, Cage, Demas, Dumont, Gla, Hamlet, 
Harper, Kelso, Landrv, Sutton, Stamps, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Weber, Young— 
21 . 


Twenty-one members present, and a quorum. 

The speaker of the house of representatives, then ordered the clerk of the house to 
call the roll, when the following members answered to their names : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jeiferson, Blair, Bar¬ 
ron, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Carville, Como, 
Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Des- 
niarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dej fie. Early, Estopiual, Fobb,"Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, 
Gracien, Hill of Asceu.siou, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton 
Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, 
Kern, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, Routou, Romero, 
Roby, Souer, Swazie, Suaer, Seveignes, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washing¬ 
ton, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—68. ° 

Sixty-eight members iiresent and a quorum. 

The joint session, being composed of twenty-one members of the senate and sixty- 
eight members of the house, then proceeded in joint assembly to count and declare the 
votes cast at the general election held on the seventh day of November A. D., 1876 
for governor and lieutenant-governor, in accordance with article forty-eight of the con¬ 
stitution. 

The president of the senate, having stated the objects of the joint session, then ap¬ 
pointed Senators Burch, Twitchell, and Dumont as tellers on the part of the senate. 

The speaker of the house then appointed Messrs. Carville, Kern, and Hill, of Ascen¬ 
sion, as tellers on the part of the house. 

The joint tellers then proceeded to examine and count the returns of the votes cast 
in the several parishes of this State, which are as follows : 


OFFICIAL. 


Compiled returns of an election held for governor and lieutenant-governor in the 
State of Louisiana on the seventh day of November, A. D. 1876, under a writ of elec¬ 
tion dated September 16, 1876, ordering same, and pursuant to the provisions of act 












r 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 401 

Xo. 1)8, to regulate the conduct and to maintain the freedom and purity of elections ; 
to prescribe the mode of making returns thereof; to provide for the election of return¬ 
ing otlicers and deliniug their powers and duties; to prescribe the mode of entering on 
the rolls of the senate and house of representatives, and to enforce article 103 of the 
constitution, approved November 20, A. D. 1H72, to wit: 

FOR GOVF.RNOR. 


Purislies. 

Ascension. 

Assumption. 

Avoyelles. 

Raton Rouge, East.... 
Raton Rouge, West.... 

Rien ville. 

Rossi er. 

Ca<hlo. 

Calcasieu. 

Caldwell. 

Cauieron. 

Carroll. 

Catahoula. 

Claiborne. 

Concordia. 

De Soto. 

Feliciana, East*. 

Feliciana, West. 

Franklin. 

Grant t. 

Iberia.'..... 

Iberville. 

Jackson. 

Jefferson, left bank.... 
Jefferson, right bank .. 

Fa Fayette. 

La Fourche.. 

Lincoln... 

Livingston. 

^ladison. 

Morehouse. 

Natchitoches. 

Ouachita. 

Orleans. 

Pla(|uemines. 

Pointe CoupiSe. 

Rapides. 

Re<l River. 

Richland... 

kSabiue. 

Saint Rernard. 

Saint Charles. 

Saint flelena. 

Saint James.... 

Saint John the Raptist 

Saint Landry.. 

Saint Martin. 

Saint Mary. 

Saint Tammany___ 

Tangipatioa. 

Tensas. 

'I'erre Ronne. 

Union. 

Vernon.-. 

Vermillion. 

Washington. 

Webster. 

Winn. 


S. B,Packard. 
.. 2 , 0:)2 
1,684 
.. 1,.502 

1,463 
1)08 
226 
1,646 
.. 2,630 

So 
201 ) 
52 
2,416 
793 
427 

.. 2,461 

712 


F. T. Xicliols. 
1,219 
1,697 
1,480 
800 
444 
958 
601 
1,719 
1,308 
486 
246 
607 
849 
1,404 
366 
620 


624 

101 

238 

715 

1,438 

931 

2, 283 

•965 

35 

456 

687 

141 

1,006 

663 

718 

1,867 

1,690 

324 

1,080 

121 

392 

2, 573 

30)) 

419 

408 

2, 077 

1,433 

353 

739 

14,693 

24, 062 

1,732 

727 

1,971 

1, 096 

1,739 

830 . 

1,639 

415 

117 

197 

23 

907 

691 

335 

1,229 

229 

516 

6.52 

1, 984 

984 

1,287 

757 

2, 407 

3, 630 

1,090 

1,032 

2, 398 

1,455 

549 

649 

558 

860 

3,192 

48)5 

1,962 

1,402 

87 

1,505 

179 

471 

270 

915 

163 

519 

6()6 

455 

78 

556 


Total. 

2(i SK 


74,6 '4 71, UW 






























































402 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG 


VO K LIE UTEX A XT • GO R XO U, 


Ascension. 

Assumption. 

Avoyelles. 

Baton Rouge, East .... 
Baton Rouge, West..., 

Bienville. 

Bossier. 

Caddo . 

Calcasie n..... 

Caldwell.. 

Cameron. 

Carroll.. 

Catahoula. 

Claiborne.. 

Concordia. 

De Soto. 

Feliciana, East*.. 

Feliciana, West. 

Franklin. 

Grantt. 

Iberia. 

Iberville. 

.lackson. 

Jefferson, left bank.... 
JetfersoD, right bank . 

Lafayette. 

Lafourche. 

Livingston.. 

Lincoln.. 

Madison.. 

Morehouse. 

Natchitoches.. 

Ouachita. 

Orleans.. 

Plaquemines. 

Poiute Conp6e.. 

Rapides... 

Red River. 

Richland. 

Sabine.. 

Saint Bernard. 

Saint Charles. 

Saint Helena__ 

Saint James:. 

Saint John the Baptist 

Saint Landry. 

Saint Martin. 

Saint Mary.. 

Saint Tammany.. 

Tangipahoa. 

Tensas. 

Terrebonne. 

Union.. 

Vernon. 

Vermillion. 

Washington.. 

Webster. 

Winn. 


Total 


C. Antoine. 

L. A. Wiltz. 

2, 054 

1,213 

1,685 

1,697 

T,498 

1,485 

1, 4g:i 

797 

911 

442 

225 

958 

1,644 

601 

2, 649 

1,694 

80 

1,304 

207 

487 

50 

246 

2, 404 

599 

79:5 

844 

427 

1,404 

2, 454 

371 

713 

616 

623 

238 

101 

715 

1,437 

929 

2,293 

954 

41 

450 

688 

140 

1, 075 

643 

652 

640 

1,864 

1,693 

321 

1,081 

121 

392 

2,571 

350 

414 

401 

2, 082 

1, 423 

739 

349 

14, 580 

24, 059 

1,742 

717 

1,966 

1,098 

1, 876 

1,628 

830 

416 

116 

196 

23 

907 

638 

385 

1,229 

229 

517 

650 

1,982 

984 

1,286 

757 

2,390 

3,635 

1,089 

1,035 

2, 399 

1, 457 

549 

649 

558 

859 

3, 203 

471 

1, 973 

1,399 

89 

1,504 

179 

471 

268 

912 

165 

514 

665 

454 

78 

()46 

74,669 

71,093 


(*)A11 polls rejected in this parish. 
(t)A’o legal electiou iu this parish. 




































































SPOFFORI) VS. KELLOGG. 


403 


, CKRTIFICATE. 

We, the nmlersigned returning officers, pursuant to authority vested in us by act 
No. 98, appn*ve(l November 20, A. D. 1872, do hereby certify the foregoing is a true 
.and correct compilation of the statement of votes cast at an election for governor .and 
lieutenant-governor, held on the seventh day of November, A. D. 187G, under a writ of 
election promulgated September 1C, A. D.-1876, ordering same. An(l we hereby de- 
chare that the following-named persons were duly and lawfully elected, to wit: * 

Stephen H. Pack.ard, governor; C. C. Antoine, lieutenant-governor. 

■ J. MADISON WELLS. 
THOMAS C. ANDERSON.* 
G. CASANAVE. 

LOUIS M. KENNER. 

A true copy. 

P. G. I3esl()xdk, 

Secretary of State. 

Senator Burch, on behalf of the joint tellers of both houses, presented the following 
report: 

General Assembly, State of Louisiana, 

Xew Orleans, January 2, 1877. 

To thehonorahle senate and house of representatives in joint session convened : 

Yonr joint committee having made a canvass of the returns presented to them by the 
board of returning officers, pursuant to law, find the following result, which they de¬ 
sire to present to the honorable senate and house of representatives in joint session 
convened: 


FOR GOVERNOR. 


Stephen B. Packard. 74,624 

Francis T. Nicholls. 71,19iS 


FOR LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR. 


C. C. Antoine. 74,6(56 

LouisA. Wiltz. 71,09:1. 


J. HENRI BURCH, 

M. H. TWITCH ELI., 

A. J. DUMONT, 

Tellers on the part of the Senate. 
WILLIAM KERN, 

J. xM. CARVILLE, 

G. H. HILL, 

Tellers on the part of the House of Ilepresenlatireu. 

Whereupon the presiding officer of the senate proclaimed that Stephen B. Packard 
having obtained the largest number of votes pollecl in pursuance of the law, and by the 
power vested in him by the constitution of the State of Louisiana, is hereby declared 
duly elected governor of the State of Louisiana for the constitutiiuial term of four 
years, from the second Monday in January, 1877; that C. C. Antoine having obtainetl 
the largest number of votes polled in pursuance of the law, and by the power v^ested 
in him by the constitution of the State of Louisiana, is herel)y declared duly electiMl 
lieutenant-governor of the State of Louisiana for the constitutional term of four years, 
from the second Monday in .January, 1877. 

On motion of Sen.ator Twitchell, the senate withdrew to their chamber. 

Speaker M. Hahn in the chair. 

‘The roll being called, the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Burton, Browji of .Jert’erson, lllair, IVir- 
ron, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Como, Cole, Car- 
ville, Drurv, Durdeil, Davidscm, Dayries, Drew, De Lac.v, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Des- 
marais, D’Avv, Detiege, Dcjoie, Early, Estopinal, Fol)b, Gardere, Gaude, (iantr, Garv, 
Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton 
Rouge, IIcath, .Johuton of Dc Soto, .Jones, IT. M. .Johnson, Robert Johnson. Keeting, 
Kern, Ixane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, Routtm, Romero, 
Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveigues, Simmes, Stewart, Tolliver, Tliomas, Washing¬ 
ton, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—68. 

Sixty-eight members ju’cseiit, and a quortim. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, on behalf of the enrolling clerk of the house, reported the 
enrollment of house bill No. l,and concurivut resolutiem No. 1, which was receivc«l. 

By permission, Mr. Souer, of Avoj'elles, introduced house bill No. 2: 






404 


SPOKFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


An act to provide for the creation of a hoard of equalization ; prescribing their du¬ 
ties and compensation ; providing for the equalization of assessments of property of 
the various parishes of the State, and for the ascertainment of the total amount of the 
assessments of the property of all the State, and prescribing certain duties to be per¬ 
formed by the auditor of the State upon the passage of this act. 

Eead first time under a suspension of the rules. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time, and was 
ordered to be referred to the coiumittee on ways and means, when appointed, and was 
ordered to be printed on motion of Mr. Kern, of Jefferson. 

Under a suspension of the -rules Mr. Brewster, of Ouachita, introduced house bill 
No. 3, an act for the relief of B. H. Diukgrave, late tax-collector of the parish of Oua¬ 
chita, which was read. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time and re¬ 
ferred to the committee of the whole. 

Mr. Brew'ster, of Ouachitta, moved that the house resolve itself into committee of 
the whole to consider house bill No. 3. 

On which the yeas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 

Yeas—Bird, Burton, Browm of Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, 
Blackstone, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Dayries, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Estopi- 
nal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of West 
Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H.M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keet- 
ing, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Seveignes, 
Simmes, Stagg, Stewart, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—54. 

Nays—Barrett, Carville, Davidson, DeLacy, Detiege, Kern, Leonard of Caddo—7. 

Carried. 

The house resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. Leonard, of Caddo, in the 
chair. 

After considering the bill the committee rose, and the speaker resumed the chair. 

The committee, through its chairman, recommended the passage of the bill. 

The report of the committee was received. 

On motion of Mr. Brewster, of Ouachita, the bill was considered as engrossed. 

Under a suspension of the constitutional rules the bill was read a third time, and 
finally passed, its title was adoi)ted, and it was ordered to be sent to the senate for con¬ 
currence. 

Mr. Barrett, of Rapides, recorded his vote in opposition to the passage of the bill, for 
the reason that he w’as opposed to the withdrawal of moneys from the State treasury 
for relief measures. 

On motion of Mr. Warmoth, of Plaquemines, the members proceeded to draw for 
permanent seats in the house by parishes. 

On motion of Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, Messrs. Warmoth, of Plaquemines, and Brews¬ 
ter, of Ouachita, were permitted to make a selection of seats. 

(Mr. Snaer, of Iberia, in the chair.) 

The selection of .seats having been perfected, the house was declared adjourned until 
to-morrow at 12 o’clock m., on motion of Mr. Robert Johnson, of Terrebonne. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

C7e?’A; of the House of Eepresentatives. 


THIRD DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of Repkesextatives, 

Hew Orleans January 3, 1877. 

The house met pursuant to adjournment Speaker Hahn iii the chair. 

The roll being called, the following members responded to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, 
Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, 
Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gautt, Gary, 
Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De 
Soto, Jones, H.M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Lemare, Lewis, 
Magloire, Martin, McMillen, Romero, Roby, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Simmes, Stewart, 
Thomas, Tolliver. Washington, Watson, Walker—C4. 

Sixty-four members present and a (pioruin. 

Messrs. McMillen, of Carroll, and Barrington, of Ouachita, were duly sworn in as 
representatives of their respective parishes. 

Mr. Gracien, of Orleans, moved that the representatives of the parish of East Baton 
Rouge be jiermitted to retain the seats selected by them yesterdav. 

Carried. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 405 

motion of Mr. Davidson, of Iberville, the reading of the journal was dispensed 
with, and it wa.s adopted. 


I’ETITIOXS, MEMORIALS, AND RESOLUTIONS. 

The speaker presented a memorial of the Republican committee of the parish of Liv¬ 
ingston, cVc.; which was ordered to be referred to the committee on elections aud 
qualiticatious, when appointed. 

Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, presented the petition of John C. Watson, contesting the seat 
of Charles E. Lea, as representative of the parish of Saint Helena. 

Referred to the committee on elections and qualifications, when appointed. 

Mr. Lane, of East Baton Rouge, presented the petition of S. W. Blasdell, contesting 
the seat of Jules Brady, as representative of the parish of Saint Tammany. 

Referred to the committee on elections and qualifications, when appointed. 

Mr. McMillen, of Carroll, presented the following petition: 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives : 

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the parish of Carroll would most respeat- 
fully represent: 

That by reason of a crevasse in what is known as the Bass levee, in this parish, one- 
half of this parish will be exposed to overllovv during the high water next spring; 
that the effects from this crevasse will be felt from here to the mouth of Red 
Riv'er, and that 50,000 to 100,000 acres of plantation lands will bo liable to inundation; 
that the Levee Company has declared its inability to rebuild this levee, from want of 
means or funds in hand; that the people are more or less impoverished, consequently 
unable to advance the money necessary for the purpose; that with the money in hand 
the levee could be rebuilt at a cost of not over twenty cents per cubic yard ; that the 
amount of work necessary to be done, including repairs, from the Deesoud plantation 
to the crevasse, would not exceed *240,000 cubic yards. Petitioners therefore respect¬ 
fully pray that a law may be passed appropriating the funds necessary for this work; 
that the amount so advanced for the Levee Company bo retained out of the taxes or 
dues which said company may be entitled to; that commissioners be selected and 
named in the act who shall have authority to let out said work in sections to the low¬ 
est bidders; that the contractors shall bo required to put upon the work not less than 
‘2,000 hands, in order that the levee may be rebuilt before the rise of the water, the whole 
to be done under the direction or supervision of the State engineer. 


F. M. Tavlor. 

Otto C. Wossums. 

Rufus Reek. 

W. D. King. 

David Hull. 

.1. W. Montgomery. 

John A. Buckner. 

W. C. White. 

Edward Sparrow. 

William Rous. 

Cleerk N. Hull. 

E. M. Divine, 

Simon Louis. 

Charles F. Hall. 

J. F. Low. 

Abraham Bass. 

Joseph Purlock. 

W. Craig. 

F. F. Montgomery. 

John Holland. 

John Uudous. 

Charles M. Pilcher. 

L. Norwood. 

Charles Smith. 

R. McWilliams. 

Lewis Gregory. 

Alex. Blum. 

W. R. C. Lyons. 

W. H. Benjamin. 

Joseph Hornthall. 

Ed. F. Newman. 

F. J. Brishaupt. 

J. M. Houston. 

J. L. Van Fossner. 

Henry Wirmau. 

J. A. Glover. 

K. T. Gilbert. 

E. M. Shuun. 

F. D. Chapline. 

Edward N. Constant. 

Wilson Mason. 

John Wells. 

R. T. Knnn. 

Daniel Bledsou. 

Peter Bax. 

C. M. Tilford. 

Harry Page. 

Turner Bucker. 

August Nordgou. 

C. H. Scott. 

Henry Goodrich. 

John C. Scott. 

Mill M. Hays. 

J. C. Bass. 

William Brown. 

Buell Hodges. 

G. G. Lynch. 

Francis M. Hays. 

l>aniel Overton. 

M. F. Johnson. 

Alix. Hayes. 

George Hoghtuver. 

Augustus Smith. 

John Watt. 

Thomas Hays. 

Levi Crockett. 

John H. Mosaly. 

Higgon Fishbaccu. 

Adam Simpson. 

Charles Pierson. 

Jonas Carter. 

Thoinlin Ross. 

Richard Ray. 

Rufus Reed. 

Lee Wilson. 

George W. Maicham. 

William Kellej*. 

I^ambert James. 

Samuel Foute. 

R. McKelley. 

J. F. Deloney. 

Milton Ford. 

Henry Boyd. 

W. B. Keene. 

Thomas W. Cook. 

Albert Thompson. 

L. E. Gardham. 

C. A. Hedrick. 

Horace White. 

Wm. Cunningham. 

David King. 

Matthew Page. 

Pompey Chism. 

Venning Brown. 

Granderson Conn. 

William Rowens. 

E. Magh. 

N. W. Chaplin. 

John Briggs. 


40G 

■ Horace Clarke. 
kMiarles McAllister. 

B n. E. Hall. 

George Guier. 

Andrew Cuuuingham. 
Elias Jones. 

Isham Hicks. 

Aleck Norton. 

Jobe Blackburn. 
William Riley. 

L, Henderson. 
Chington Stogner. 
Sandy Hamilton. 
Milton Leon. 

Antony Blanton. ^ 
Spencer Lee. 

Hen ry B err v a n. 
Benjamin Hablit. 


SPOFFORD VS. E 

W. L. Jeffries. 

E''erd. Jeffries. 

W. L. McLemore. 
A.Keene Richards. 
Lewis Griffen. 
Henry Mnnroe. 
Wesley Brown. 
James Kelley. 

Lige Rosied. 

Sam Smith. 
Abraham Smith. 
Joseph Black. 

John Singleton. 
Govy Blackburn. 
Strother Wright. 
John Admire. 
Henry Crockett. 
Dwight Jones. 


Samuel Finsley. 
Wilson Millhouse. 
William Harrison. 
Wade Hamilton. 
Charles Howard. 
John Nelson. 
Gilbert Johnson. 
Gabriel Hamilton. 
Richard Dates. 
Dora Holmes. 

Joe Gamble. 

Cain Sartain. 
Andrew Sutfield. 

S. P. Breckenridge. 
Alfred Millhouse. 
Davy Showers. 

W. H. Adams. 


Mr. Gracieu, of Orleans, offered the following resolution: 

Eenolved, That sergeant-at-aruis is hereby instructed and empowered to employ eight 
additional poiters for the house, said porters to be paid out of the contingent funds of 
the house of representatives. 

Lies over under the rules. 

Mr. Heath, of Webster, presented the following resolution : 

Resolved^ That the speaker appoint a committee of five on unfinished business. 

Lies over under the rules. 

Mr, Seveignes, of Lafourche, offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the seats of members declared legally elected to the house of repre¬ 
sentatives of the State of Louisiana, at an election held November 7, 1876, which 
shall be vacant on Saturday, January 6, 1877, without a formal leave of absence from 
the house, shall be declared x^ermanenfly vacant, and that new writs of election issue 
within the the time prescribed by law. 

Lies over under the rules. 




NOTICES OF BILLS. 


Notices were given that the following entitled bills would be introduced at some 
future time: 

By Mr. Barrett: 

A bill to change the boundaries of the parish of Grant, and for other purposes. 

By Mr. Johnson, of De Soto : 

A bill to the effect of organizing the State militia through the State. 

By Mr. Brewster: 

A bill to re-enact and amend the city charter of Monroe, Louisiana. 

By Mr. Dejoie: 

A bill to regulate the jury systsm in the parish of Orleans, aud lorovide for the com¬ 
pensation of jurors in civil aud criminal cases. 

By Mr. Ronton: 

A bill making an appropriation for the leveeing of Jones and Hobbs’ Bayous, in the 
parish of Catahoula, Louisiana. 

By Mr. Desmarais: 

A bill fixing a regular salary for the justices of the peace and constables of the first 
and sevenths wards in the parish of Saint Landry. 

By Mr. Drury; 

An act for the relief of lauds overflowed b^’ the crevasses of 1374 aud subsequent 
years. 

By Mr. De Lacy: 

A bill allowing the police jury of Rapides Parish to bond the outstanding indebted¬ 
ness. 

By Mr. Brown, of Jefferson: 

An act to provide for the electiou and commission by the governor of a justice of the 
peace for the second justice court, parish of JeflArson, left bank. 

INTEODUCTIOX OF BILLS. 

Mr. Gracieu, of Orleans, by permission, introduced house bill No. 4, an act to repeal 
the law against private markets. 

Read the first time. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


407 


1 he constitutional rules beiu" suspended, the bill was placed on its second readin<j,‘ 
and onlered to be referred to the committee ou public health and quarantine, when ap¬ 
pointed. 

Mr. Drury, of Assumption, by consent, introduced house bill No. 5, an act making 
an appropriation of $*200,OUO, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the mainte¬ 
nance ot the militia of the State during the year of 1877, and providing for the disburse¬ 
ment of the same. 

Read first time. 

Under a suspension of the constitutional rules the bill was placed on its second read¬ 
ing and referred to the committee of the whole. 

Mr. Detiege, of Saint Martin, moved that the house resolve itself into a committee 
of the whole to consider house bill No. 5. 

Carried. 


COMMITTEE OE THE WHOLE. » 

(Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, in the (diair.) 

After considering the bill the committee rose and the speaker resumed the chair. 

'I'lie committee, through its chairman, recommended its passage. 

The report M as accepted and the committee discharged from its further considera¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Drury, of A88um])tion, moved that the bill be considered engrossed, on which 
the yeas aud nays Avere demanded bj* Mr. Heath, of Webster, with the following 
result: 

Yeas—Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Bo.sley, 
Brooks, Blaekstoue, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, Dickinson, Dink- 
grave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gary, Gantt, 
Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton 
Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, .Tones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Laue, 
Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby,, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, 
Seveigues, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Zolliver, Washington, Watson, Walker, Warmoth 
—57. 

Nays—Barrington, Barrett, Brown of Venmu, Drew, De Lacy, Heath, Leonard of 
Caildo, Lewis—8. 

Carried. g 

'riie bill Avas considered as engrossed. ^ 

Under a suspension of the constitutional rule, the bill Avas read a third time and 
finally ])assed, its title adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to the senate for con¬ 
currence. 

Mr. Drury, of Assumption, moved a reconsideration of the Amte AA'hereby the bill 
Avas finally passed, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 

Carried. 

Mr. BroAvn, of Jefferson, by consent, introduced house liill No. 0, an act to provide 
for the election and commission by the governor of a justice of the peace for the second 
justice court, parish of JefftTsou, left bank. 

Read first time. 

'I'he constitutional rules being suspended the bill was placed on its second reading 
and ordered to be referred to the committee on judiciary Avheu appointed. 

The speaker announced the following members as the committee ou elections and 
qualifications: 

Messrs. Drury, of Assumption, chairman; Raby, of Natchitoches; Gary, of Saint 
Mary’s; Keeting, of Caddo; Gracien, of Orleans; Holt, of West Baton Rouge; Burton, 
of Carroll. 

[Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, in the chair.] 

Mr. Warmoth, of Plaquemines, moved to adjourn. 

Lost. 

Mr. Drurj’’, of Assumption, called up house joint resolution No. 1, relative to the 
closing of the mouth of liayou La Fourche, on its second reading. 

Mr. Detiege, of Saint Martin, proposed tlie following amendment: 

After the Avords “during the war ot 1812 and 1814,” add the words “and also the 
dredging and cleaning of Bayou Teche from Saint Martinsville to Breaux bridge.” 

Adopted. 

'J'he bill as amended Avas adopted on its second reading. 

J’he constitutional rules being suspended, the hill Avas placed on its third reading 
.and final passage, its title adopted, aud it Avas ordered to bo sent to the senate for con¬ 
currence. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, called up the folloAA'ing resolution, Avhich aa'jis read and 
adopted; 

Whereas section 1510 of the revised statutes makes it the duty of the speaker to ap- 



408 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


point a committee for the purpose of examining the hooks, vouchers, and accounts of 
the auditor of public accounts and State treasurer; therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the speaker of the house he authorized and directed to appoint a com¬ 
mittee of five to act in conjunction with a committee from the senate for the purpose 
of making an examination of the books, vouchers, accounts, &.C., of the auditor of X)ubli c 
accounts and State treasurer, and make report thereof as soon as practicable. 

Mr. Heath, of Webster, ofiered the following resolution, which lies over under the 
rules: 

Resolved hy ihe house of rejiresentaiives of the State of Louisiana, That a special com¬ 
mittee of three be appointed to examine all outstanding vouchers or warrants issued by 
the house of representatives during its sessions of 187.5 and 1876 ; be authorized to em¬ 
ploy a clerk, and to advertise in all the daily city papers, calling on all such persons hold¬ 
ing such vouchers or warrants to bring them forward for examination and registration, 
and the clerk is required to make a tabular statement of the same for the inspection of 
the committee and this house whenever the same shall be called for ; that the clerk shall 
be in the commitee room from 10 a. m. to 4 p. m., for the purpose of receiving and giving 
receipts for all vouchers or warrants brought to the committee, and that the committee 
report their final action by bill or otherwise within twenty days of the close of the session. 

On motion of Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, a recess until 6 p. ni. was ordered. 

The recess having expired, the house was called to order by the speaker. 

The roll was called, and the following members responded to their names : 

Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, 
Barron, Barrett, Bosley, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, 
Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, D’Avy,.Detiege, Dejoie, Fobb, Gardere, 
Gaude, Gary, Hill of Ascension, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Hughes, Holt of West 
Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, H. M. Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Magloiie, 
Milon, Moore, McMillen, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Suaer, Simmes, Thomas, Tolli¬ 
ver, Washington—49. 

Forty-nine members present. No quorum. 

On motion of Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, the house was adjourned until to-morrow at 
12 o’clock m. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

FOURTH day’s PROCEEDINGS. 

,House of Representatives, 

Ntiv Orleans, January 4, 1877. 

The house met ]>uisuant to adjournment, Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called, and the following members responded to their names : 

Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of 
Jefierson, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Como, Cole, 
Durden, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desrnarais, D’Avy, 
Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of 
Ascension, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert 
Johnson, Kennedy, Keeting, Kern, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, Romero, 
Raby, Souer, Snaer, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, 4 olli ver, Washington, Watson, Walker— 
Ifi. 

Sixty-one members present, and a quorum. 

Prayer by the chaplain. 

On motion of Mr. Gracien, of Orleans, the reading of the journal was dispensed 
with, and it was adopted. 

petitions, memoihals, and resolutions. 

IMr. Dejoie, of Orleans, ofiered the following resolution, which lies over : 

Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed by the chair to investi¬ 
gate the affairs of the metropolitan police board, with power to send for persons and 
papers. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, presented a memorial from Robert Benefield, contesting the 
seat of Levi Speller as representative of the parish of Livingston, which was referred 
to the committee on elections and qualifications. 

Mr. Gracien, of Orleans, called up the following resolution, which was read and 
adopted: 

Resolvexl, That, in addition to the present assistant sergeant-at-arms of this house, 
an additional number maybe appointed by the sergeant-at-arms whenever, in the 
opinion ot that ofiicer and the speaker, the better policing and maintenance of order 
ill and about the house of representatives and its ofiices and committee rooms such 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 409 ' 

adilitionnl orticers are necessary ; provided that such iucrease in the number of assist¬ 
ant sergeants-at-arms shall never exceed twenty. 

Mr. Gracieu, of Orleans, called up the following resolution, which was read and 
adopted: 

^ liesolved, That the sergeant-at-arms is hereby instructed and empowered to employ 
eight additional porters for the house, said porters to he paid out of the contingent 
funds of the house of representatives. 


NOTICES OF BILLS. 

Notices were given that the following entitled bills would be introduced at some 
future time: 

By Mr. De Lacy, of Rapides: 

A bill to incorporate the “Rapides Grove Benevolent Association No. 1,” of Alexan¬ 
dria, Louisiana. 

By Mr. Cole, of Saint John the Baptist: 

A bill for the relief of the overllowed tax-payers of the parish of Saint John. 

By Mr. Como, of Saint James; 

A bill authorizing three additional members of the police jury of the parish of Saint 
James, and providing for the manner of their appointment. 

By Mr. Desmarais, of Saint Landry : 

A bill regulating the manner in w^hich the district judges and district attorneys 
through the State shall be paid their salaries, making their warrants receivable for 
taxes and for other purposes. 

By Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles: 

An act relative to the payment for the stationery, blanks, etc., procured by the State 
registrar of voters for registration and election purposes. 

By Mr. Dayries, of Pointe Coupde : 

A bill to exempt the people living in that portion 6f the parish of Pointe Coupde 
overflowed Grand Levee from taxation. 

The committee on rules reported progress. 

Mr. Dejoie, of Orleans, by consent, introduced house bill No. 7, an act to repeal act No* 
93, approved June?, 1670. 

Read first time. 

The constitutional rule being suspended, the bill was placed on its second reading, 
and ordered to be referred to the committee on contingent expenses w hen aj>pointed. 

'Mr. De Lacy, of Rajiides, by consent, introduced house bill No. 8, an act to authorize 
the ]»olicejury of the parish of Rapides to issue bonds for certain purposes. 

Read first time. 

The constitutional rule being suspended, the bill was read a second time and ordered 
to be referred to the eommittee on judiciary when aj)poiutod. 


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 


The secretary of the senate was announced, with the following message: 

Senate Chamber, 

Xew Orleans, January 4,1877 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives: 

1 am directed by the senate to ask the concurrence of your honorable body to tho 
following: 

Senate bill No. 4, an act authorizing the governor of the State to assume charge of 
the Capitol buildings, and to empower him to maintain peace and order therein and 
in the vicinity. 

Also, that the senate concurs in the passage of house bill No. 3, an act for the re¬ 
lief of the widow of B. 11. Dinkgrave, late tax collector of the parish of Ouachita, 
liespectfully, 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


On motion of Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, senate bill No. 4, an act authorizing the gov¬ 
ernor of the State to assume charge of the capitol buildings, and to empower him to 
maintain i)eace and order therein and in the vicinity, was taken up and read. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time. 

Under a further suspension of the constitutional rules, the bill was read a third time 
and finally passed, its title adopted, and notice of concurrence ordered to be sent to 
the senate. 

Mr. Lane, of East Boston Rouge, moved a reconsideration of the vote whereby tho 
bill w'as finally passed, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 


410 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Carried. 

[Mr. Keetin^, of Caddo, in the cliair.] 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, moved that house hill No. 2, an act to provide for the creation 
of a hoard of equalization of assessments; prescribing their powers, duties, and com- 
yiensation, and making an approj)riation for the payment of the same ; and providing 
the order of payments of warrants ou the State treasurer ; to i)rovide for the equaliza¬ 
tion of assessments of property in the several parishes of the State, and to impose ad¬ 
ditional duties upon the auditor of public accounts, and to provide for the equalization 
of the assessments of the year 1876, be withdrawn from the committee on ways and 
means and placed on the calendar. 

Carried. 

On motion of Mr. Sauer, of Avoyelles, house bill No. 2, the equalization bill, was 
taken up, passed its second reading, and referred to the committee of the whole. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, moved that the house resolve itself into committee of the 
whole to consider house bill No. 2. 

Carried. 


COm.MITTEE OF THE WIIOLE. 

[Mr. Brewster, of Ouachita, in the chair.] 

After considering the bill the committee rose and the speaker pro'tem. resumed the 
chair. 

The committee, through its chairman, recon mended its passage. 

The report was accepted and the committee discharged from its further considera¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, moved to suspend the rules so as to consider the bill as being 
engrossed, on which a rising vote was taken, resulting in—yeas, 28 ; nays, 17. 

No quorum voting, a call of the house was ordered, resulting as follows : 

Present—Speaker Ilahn and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown 
of Jetfersoh, Blair, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Car- 
ville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Des- 
inarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of 
Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, John¬ 
son of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, 
Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, IMcMillen, Routou, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, 
Snaer, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Walker—C3. 
Sixty-three members present, and a quorum. 

The question before the house being a motion to susfend the rules so as to consider 
the hill as engrossed, the yeas and nays were ordered, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Blair, Barron, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Black- 
stone, Como, Cole, Drury, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Fobb, Gardere, 
Gantt, Gary, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, .Johnson 
of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Magloire, Martin, Moore, Romero, 
Souer, Snaer, Simmes, Stewart, Tolliver, Washington, Walker—68. 

Nays—Brown of Jefferson, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Carville, Durden, Davidson, 
Drew, De Lacy, Dinkgrave, Gracien, Heath, Robert Johnson, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, 
Milon, McMillen, Routon, Raby, Swazie, Thomas, Watson—21. 

The rules were not suspended. 

On motion of Mr. Brown, of .Jefferson, the bill was ordered to be printed in the jour¬ 
nal and made the special order of the day for to-morrow at 1 p. m. 

An act to provide for the creation of a board of equalization of assessments, prescrib¬ 
ing their powers, duties, and compensation, and making an appropriation for the pay¬ 
ment of the same; and providing the order of payments of warrants on the State 
treasurer; to provide for the eciualization of assessments of property in the several 
parishes of the State, and to impose additional duties upon the auditor of public 
accounts; and to provide for the e<pialization of the assessments of the year 1876. 
Section 1. Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives in general assembly 
-convened, That a board, to be called and designated the board of ecpialization and as¬ 
sessments, is hereby created, to consist of the auditor of public accounts, ex-officio and 
chairman, and one member to be selected from each Congressional district of the State, 
possessing especial fitness for the performance of their duties under this act; the same 
to be appointed by the governor, who shall, before entering upon the duties of their 
office, take and subscribe an oath to faithfully perform the duties imposed upon them 
by this act. 

Sec. 2. He it farther enacted, etc.. That the several assessors and tax-collectors through¬ 
out the State shall coniplete and return their assessment-rolls to the auditor of public 
accounts on or before olie first day of October of each year, which assessment-rolls shall 
be laid by the auditor before the board of equalization created by this act, which board 
^shall meet annually on the first Monday of November at the office of said auditor of 


SPOFFOKI) VS. KELLOGG. 


411 


]nil)lic accounts, ami cousUler said assessment-rolls and proceed to equalize the assess¬ 
ments ot property thronj^hont the State, so that the property in any one parish shall 
hear an equal valuation to tha^> of the property in everj’ other i)aris)i, and so that tax¬ 
ation shall be equal and nniforiu throughout the State, and to this end they shall have 
the power, and it shall be their duty, whenever necessary, and after carefni iminiry,to 
increase or reduce the assessed violation of property of each parish, as the case may 
be. 

Skc. 11. lie it further enacted, etc., That the board shall, if necessary, increase the 
assesMiient of property in the State so that the total as8e.ssuieut shall be sntiicieiit on a 
lax of live and one-half mills on the dollar (the interest tax) to protbice snflicient rev¬ 
enue to pa> the annual interest on the consolidated debt of the State, and twenty-live 
per centum in addition thereto in order to provide for and meet the expenses of assess¬ 
ing and collecting the revenue, the loss by incollectible taxes and from erroneous as¬ 
sessments. 

Sec. 4. lie it further enacted, etc., That the auditor of public accounts shall, imme¬ 
diately on the completion of the e(inalization of asse.ssrnents, issue hiscertiticate of the 
increase or decrease, as the case may be, of the several assessments of each parish to 
the several tax-collectors, and to the city of New Orleans, and the tax-collectors shall 
add to or lake from the tax as re<iuired by the assement rolls the per centage of in¬ 
crease or reduction so as to conform to the requirements of the board of eifnalization. 

Sec..'). Jie it fnrihei' enacted, etc.. That the members of the board of eiiuilization , 
other than the auditor, shall receive as a compensation for their services ten dollars 
))er day for the time they shall be actually in attendance in the ))erformance of their 
ilutics, not to exceed twenty days for each annual eiiualizatiou of assessments, a’ul 
live cents per mile each way from their place of residence to the capital of the State, 
to be drawn on their own warrants, approved by the auditor and governor, at the con¬ 
clusion of their labors; any and all warrants drawn by the auditor of public accounts 
on the State treasurer shall hereafter be ])aid by him cousecutiv'ely, and in no other 
order ; and the sum of two thousand live hundred dollars, or so much thereof as may 
be necessary,- is hereby, and the same shall be annually appropriated to meet the ex- 
]»en8eof said board of equalization. 

Sec. 6. ]le it further enacted, etc.. That the duties and powers hereby conferred by 
this act shall be discharged and exercised by the auditor of juiblic accounts immedi¬ 
ately after its passage, so as to ecpialize the assessments made in the year ISTd, and 
his certificate of such eijualizatiou shall be at once sent to the several tax-collectors 
throughout the State, and shall govern them in their collection of taxes for the year 
lb77. 

Sec. 7. Be it further enacted, etc.. That all laws or parts of laws contrary to or in¬ 
consistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed, aid that this act shall 
take etfect from and after its passage. 

Mr. Dejoie, of Orleans, moved that house bill No. 7, an act to repeal act No. 93, 
apjiroved June 7, lrt76, be withdrawn from the committie on contingent expenses and 
])laced on the calendar. 

On which the veas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 

Yeas—Jlird, liurton, Blair, Barron, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Como, 
Cole, Drury, Dayries, Uosmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Gardere, Gaude, Gault, Gary, Gracien, 
Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, .Johnson of DeSoto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Keet- 
iug, J.,aue, Magloire, Martin, Miloii, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Souer, Suaer, Tolliver, 
Washington—3b. 

Nays—Barrington, Brown of Caddo, Brown of .TetTerson, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, 
Carville, Durden, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, l^inkgrave, Robert Johnson, Leonard of 
Caddo, Lewis, McMillen, Swazie, Watson, Walker—19 

No quorum voting. 

(Mr. Suaer, of Iberia, in the chair.) 

Mr. McMillen, of C'arroll, by permission, introduced house bill No. 9, an act for the re¬ 
lief of James Longstreet. 

Read tirst time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time and re¬ 
ferred to the committee of the whole. 

On motion of Mr. McMillen, of Carroll, the house resolved itself into committee of the 
whole to consider house bill No. 9. 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Brewster, of Ou.achita, in the chair.) 

After considering the bill the committee rose and the 8i)eakerj)ro/cm. resumed the 
chair. 

The committee, through its chairman, recommended its passage. 

'file rej)ort was accepted and the committee discharged from its further considera¬ 
tion. 


412 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. McMilleu, of Carrol], moved to suspend tlie constitutional rules so as the hill be 
considered engrossed and placed on third reading. 

On which the yeas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 

Yeas—Burton, Brewster, Cole, Dinkgrave, Early, Heath, H. M. Johnson, Kennedy^ 
McMillen, Souer, Snaer, Simmes, Stewart, Walker—13. 

Nays—Ilarrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Barrett, 
Bosley, Brady, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Carville, Como, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, 
Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Fobb, Gardere, Gande, 
Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson 
ofDe Soto, Jones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, 
Milon, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson—48. 

Rules not suspended. 

Mr. Brown, of Jefferson, moved that the bill be printed in the journal and made the 
special order of the day for to-morrow at 1 p. m. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, moved to lay that motion on the table. 

Carried. 

The bill was placed on the calendar. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, called up house bill No. 7, an act to repeal act No. 93, ap¬ 
proved June 7, 1876, and moved that the bill be considered as engrossed 

On which the yeas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 

Yeas—Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Blair, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, 
Como, Cole, Drury, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, 
Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of 
West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Hr M. Johnson, Keeting, Lane, 
Lewis, Magloire, Milon, Moore, Routon, Rpmero, Raby, Souer, Snaer, Simmes, Tolliver, 
Washington, Walker—44. 

Nays—Barrington, Brown of Jefferson, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Carville,Davidson, 
De Lacy, Dinkgrave, Detiege, Robert Johnson, Kennedy, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, 
McMillen, Swazie, Watson, Warmoth—18. 

The bill was considered as engrossed. 

Under a suspension of the constitutional rule the bill was read a third time and 
finally passed. 

On the motion made to adopt the title the yeas and nays were ordered, on motion of 
Mr. Brewster, of Ouachita, with the following result; 

Yeas—Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Blair, Barron, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, 
Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, 
Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East 
Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of,De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, 
Kennedy, Keeting, Lane, Magloire, Martin. Milon, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, 
Snaer, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington—48. 

Nays—Barrington, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Brewster, Brown of Vernon, Drew, 
De Lacy, Dinkgrave, Detiege, Robert Johnson, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, McMillen, 
Watson, Walker—14. 

The title was adopted, and the bill ordered to be sent to the senate for concurrence. 

Mr. Souer, of Avojelles, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was finally 
passed and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 

Carried. 

Mr. Cracien, of Orleans, presented a petition from Paul Granzin, contesting the seat 
of J. T. Aycock as representative of the twelfth representative district of the parish of 
Orleans. 

Which was referred to the committee on elections and qualifications. 

Mr. Lewis, of Natchitoces,'moved an adjournment until twelve o’clock m. to-morrow. 

On which the yeas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 

Yeas—Barrington, Brown of Jefferson, Barron, Brown of Vernon, Carville, Davidson, 
Drew, Desmarais, Detiege, Robert Johnson, Lewis, Swazie, Stewart—13. 

Nays—Bird, Burton, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Cole, Drury, Dur¬ 
den, Dinkgrave, Dejoie, i Fobb, Gardere, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, 
Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, fl. M. Johnson, Keet¬ 
ing, Lane, Magloire, Milon, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Snaer, Stewart, Tol¬ 
liver, Washington, Watson, Walker—38. 

Lost. 

On motion of Mr. Davidson, of Iberville, the house was adjourned until to-morrow at 
11.3(1 a. m. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Clerk of the House of Bejireseutaiii'es. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


413 


FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House or REruESEXTATivES, 

Xeiv Orleans, January 5, 1{;77. 

The house mot pursuant to adjournment, Speaker Halm in the chair. 

The roll was called, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Bird, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Brewster, Barrett, 
Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drnry, Durden, 
Davidson, Dayries, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, De- 
joie. Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gaade, Garatt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, 
Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, .Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, 
Kennedy, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, 
Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Swazie, Snaer, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, 
Washington, Watson, Walker—01. 

Sixty-one members present, and a quorum. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Daily. 

On motion of Mr. .Tones, of Pointe Coup6e, the reading of the journal was dispensed 
with, and it w'as adopted after the correction was made that Mr. Detiege, of Saint 
Martin, had voted in the affirmative on the motion made to consider as engrossed 
house bill No. D, an act for the relief of James Longstreet. 

TETITIOXS, MEMORIALS, AND RESOLUTIONS. 

Mr. Romero, of Iberia, presented the petition of F. Charleville, contesting the seat 
of J. T. Aycock, as representative from the twelfth representative district, i>arish of 
Orleans, Avhich was referred to the committee oil elections and qualifications. 

The following communications from the governor were received and read : 

State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

Xew Orleans, January 4, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives : 

In view of the fact that the State of Louisiana has old and unsettled claims against 
the United States for lands enuring to the States under acts of Congress approved 
March 2, 1849, and September 28, 1850, I have thought it proper to employ Mr. T. C. 
Cone, a skilled agent and attorney at Washington, D. C., to effect asettleineut of the 
elaim for a reasonable percentage of the amount which he may recover for the State, 
and with a proviso that the contract shall be subject to the approval of the general 
assembly. I inclose herewith a copy of the contract, and respectfully ask your ratiti- 
■cation thereof. 

WM. P. KELLOGG, 

Governor. 

St.vte of Louisiana, Executive Depart.ment, 

Xew Orleans, JJeceniber (5, 1877. 

Whereas, under the acts of Congress of March 2, 1849, and September 28, 1850, and 
the acts amendatory thereto, granting, swuimp and overflow'ed lands to the several 
States of the llnionj the State of Louisiana has an old unsBttled claim against the 
United States for lauds inuring to the State under said acts; jind w'hereas of these 
lands claimed a very large proportion had been sold by the ITiiited States before the 
passage of the aforesaid acts, and certificates to the State have been refused to the 
remainder because of their supposed conflict with Spanish grants, private laud grants, 
railroad grants, and military, timber, and naval reservations, and sales by the United 
States made subsequent to the date of said acts of Congress; and whereas several of 
the States entitled under the said acts have found it necessary to employ skilled 
agents and attorneys at Washington to settle their claims under said acts; and whereas 
the residue that will inure to the State of Louisiana under said acts is such as the 
State has heretofue been unable to obtain by reason of conflicting claims under the 
aforesaid divers sales, grants, and reservations; and whereas by reason of the ^intrica¬ 
cies of the work the former agents of the State have not only failed to effect final set¬ 
tlement, but entirely abandoned the attempt; and whereas this labor can only be 
thoroughly done by some person skilled in the examination of laud records and ac- 
<iuainted wuth the laws, decisions, methods, and rulings obtaining in the United States 
Land Office, and having full faith that T. C. Cone is thoroughly competent for the 
busiiu'ss ; and whereas the claim of the State ot Louisiaua, after a lapse of tweuty-hve 

years, is still unsettled: , , ^ , 

Now, therefore, believing the State’s claim to some of these lands to be valid, 
and that it is for the interest of the State to effect a speedy settlement of the 


414 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


samp, I, William P. Kellogjy, gavernor of the said State, do by tliese ])re.seiifs 
constitute and appoint T. C. Cone, of Washington, District of Columbia, agent 
and attorney of this State, to prosecute said claims to a final issue; provided, 
however, that it is so understood that he is to make no charge whatever against the 
State for services or expenses of any kind except twenty-live jier cent, in kind of all 
lands, money, or scrip that may be confirmed or awarded to the State by his labors 
and exertions, which amount it is hereby agreed, in behalf of said State, shall be his 
fee for the services he performs. It is further distinctlj'^ understood that this contract 
is entered into subject to the approval of the State legislature. 

WM. P. KELLOGG. 


By the governor: 

P. G. Deslonde, 

Secretary oj State. 


Mr. Dejoie, of Orleans, called up the following resolution; which was read and 
adopted: 

Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed by the chair to investigate 
the aflairs of the metropolitan police board, with power to send for persons and papers. 

Mr. Kennedy, of Jefferson, on behalf of tlie committee on rules, submitted the fol¬ 
lowing report; which w’as received and read : 

Committee on Rules, 

yew Orleans, January 4, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives: 

Your committee on rules, having had under consideration the adoption of rules for 
the government of this body, respectfully recommend that the existing rules be adopte<l 
as the permanent rules of the house of rep.'esentatives, with the addition of the ac¬ 
companying committee, to be known as the committee on city, affairs, to consist of five 
members to be appointed by the speaker. 

Respectfully submitted. 

P. J. KENNEDY, Chainnan. 

C. W. KEETING. 

(4EORGE DRURY. 

J. BLACKSTONE. 

W. C. GARY. 


Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, moved its adoption, and that 500 copies be printed for use of 
the house. 

Mr. Detiege, of Saint Martin, moved to amend by having the rules printed in the 
journal. 

Mr. Jones, of Pointe Coupee, moved to lay the amendment on the table. 

Carried. 

The main (piestion was ordered. 

The report was adopted and 500 copies ordered to be printed. 


NOTICES OF BILLS. 

Notices were given that the following-entitled bills would be introduced at some fu¬ 
ture time : 

By Mr. Lane, of East Baton Rouge: 

A bill to amend the charter of the city of Baton Rouge. 

By Mr. Barrett, of Rapides : 

A bill to incorporate the town of Pineville, in Rapides Parish. 

By Mr. Dinkgrave, of Madison : 

A bill authorizing the tax-collectors of the different parishes througliout the State 
to receive the State taxes of 1875, due and collectible in 1876, up to the ^Ist day of 
January, 1877, without penalties. 

By Mr. Moore, of Orleans: 

A bill to amend the charter of the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, and for other pur¬ 
poses. 

By Mr. Desrnarais, of Saint Landry 

A bill to divide and redistrict the parish of Saint Landry in seven police-jury Wards, 
to authorize the appointment of two additional members of the police jury in'the said 
parish of Saint Landry, and to provide for the means of their appointment. 

By Mr. Dickinson, of Saint James: 

A bill annexing a portion of the parish of Saint John-the Baptist to the parish of ' 
Saint Janies ; providing for a survey, and defining the duties of certain persons. 

By Mr. Barrington, of Ouachita: 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 415 

A bill tor the disposiil of public lands j^ranted by an act of Congress to the public 
schools of the State of Louisiana. 

By Mr. Keetiug, of Caddo : 

An act to revise, amend, and re-enact sections 1679,1080, and 1084 of the revised stat¬ 
utes, to abolish the offices of master and warden of the port of New Orleans, and to 
transfer their duties, fees, and emoluments to the board of harbor-masters ; to transfer 
to the board of harbor-masters certain duties of the supefintendent of wharves, wharf¬ 
ingers, and assistant wdiartingers in the city of New Orleans ; to Hx a compensation for 
the pertormanco of their duties, and to abolish and prohibit said offices of superin¬ 
tendents of wharves and landings, wharfingers, and assistant wharfingers, and to re¬ 
peal all laws inconsistent therewith. 


INTHODLXTIOX OF HILLS. 

Mr. De Lacy, of Rapides, having given jirevious notice, introduced hou-e bill No. 10. 
an act to incorporate the Rapides Grove Benevolent Association, No. 1, of Alexandria 
Louisiana. 

Read first time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time, and ordered 
to be referred to the committee on corporations, when api>ointed. 


MESSAOF. FKOM THE SENATE. 


The secretary of the senate was announced with the following message : 


Senate Ciiamueh, 

Xew Orleans, Jannanj 5, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives: 

I am directed by the senate to ask the concurrence of your honorable body in tbo 
following senate bills, viz : 

Senate bill No. 2, entitled an act to authorize the attorney-general and district at¬ 
torneys and other prosecuting officers of the State to challenge jurors in criminal cases 
for certain causes. 

Senate bill No. 1, an act forbidding the organization and maintenance of any mili¬ 
tary organization, company, or body not mustered in the militia of the State, and de¬ 
fining such illegal bodies as riotous and unlawful assemblies in certain cases; making 
it a misdemeanor to violate this act, and providing a punishment therefor, and provid¬ 
ing for the disbandment of such illegal bodies. 


An act to amend and re-enact sections 1:14, 977, 995,1021,1028,1029,1091, 1172,1990, 
19(i4. and 9891 of the revised statutes of the State of Louisiana. 

Senate bill No. 9, an act forbidding the organization and maintenance of any mili¬ 
tary organization, company, or body not mustered into the militia of the State, etc. 

And to inform your honorable body that the senate has concurred in the jiassage of 
house bill No. 5, entitled an act making an appropriation of$200,000, or so much thereof 
as may be necessary, for the maintenance of the militia of the State during the year 
1877, and providing for the disbursement of the same. 


Respeci fully. 


L. LAMANIERE, Jn., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


(Mr. Leonard, of Caddo, in the chair.) 

Previous notice having been given, ^^r. Keeting, of Caddo, introduced house bill No. 
11, an act to amend and re-enact section 1229 of the revised statutes of the State of 


Louisiana. 

Read first time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill w'ds read a .second time and con¬ 
sidered as engrossed. 

Fiider a further suspen.sion of the constitutional rule the bill was placed on its third 
reading and tinal passage, its title adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to the .senate 
for concurrence. 

According to jirevious notice, Afr. Como, of Saint .James, introduced house bill No. 12, 
an act authorizing three additional members ot the police jury tor the pari.sh of Saint 
Janie.s, and providing ftr ihe manner of their appointment. 

Keail first time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time and ordered 
to be reterred to the committee on parochial atfairs, when ai»pointed. 

By unanimous consent, Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, introduced house bill No. 19, an act 
making an approjmiation of $108.1 00 out of the general funds in the State treasury or 
received in the treasury during the year 1877, for the payment of the mileage and per 
diem of members, salaries of officers and employds, and contingent expenses of the gen- 


416 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


-eral assembly of Louisiana for the regular session of 1877; directing the auditor of public 
accounts to issue warrants to the chairman of the committee on contingent expenses of 
the house and. to the chairman of the committee on auditing and supervising the accounts 
of the senate on the treasurer, and making such warrants receivable for State licenses ; 
directing the treasurer of the State to receive such warrants in settlement with tax-col¬ 
lectors, and to provide for the disbursement of the amount appropriated. 

Read first time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the hill was read a second time and referred 
to the committee of the whole. 

The house resolved itself into committee of the whole to consider house hill No. 13. 

(Mr. Brewster, of Ouachita, in the chair.) 

After considering the bill the committee arose and the speaker resumed the chair. 

The committee, through its chairman, recommended its passage. 

The report was accepted and the committee discharged from its further consideration. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, moved to suspend the constitutional rules, so as to consider 
the hill as being engrossed, on which the yeas and nays were ordered, with the follow¬ 
ing result: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Bird, Brown of Caddo; Burton, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, 
Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Cole, Durden, Dayries, Drew, Dickinson, Dink- 
grave, Desmarai, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fohb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, 
Hill of Ascenion, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, 
Johnson of De Soto, .Jones, H. M. Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Magloire, Martin, Moore, 
McMillen, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Snaer, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, 
Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—55 

Nays—Barrington, Brown ofJetierson, Barrett, Carville, Como, Davidson, De Lacy, 
Robert Johnson, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Swazie—11 

The constitutional rules were suspended and the bill considered as engrossed. 

Under a further suspension of the constitutional rules the bill was read a third time. 

On its final passage the yeas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, 
Blackstone, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Diukgrave, 
Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Gardere, Gande, Gantt, Gary, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, 
Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, 
H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Maglaire, Moore, Ronton, Romero, 
Raby, Souer, Snaer, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Warmoth—51. 

Nays—Barrington, Brown of Jefferson, Barrett, Carville, Durden, Leonard of Caddo, 
Lewis, McMillen, Swazie, Watson—10. 

The bill was finallj^ passed, its title adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to the sen¬ 
ate for concurrence. 

The special order of the day was postponed for one hour. 

Mr. Drury, of Assumption, called up senate bill No. 1, entitled an act to amend and 
re-enact sections 134, 977, 998,1021,1028,1029,1031,1172,193(5,19o4, and 3891 of the re¬ 
vised statutes of Louisiana, and to authorize and empower the attorney-general, assist¬ 
ant attorney-general, district attorneys, and district attorneys pro tempore to administer 
oaths in criminal cases, and to repeal all conflicting laws, and to authorize the governor 
to assign the assistant attorney-general to perform certain duties in certain cases. 

Read first time. 

Mr. Drury, of Assumption, offered the following amendments; which were severally 
read and adopted: 

Section two, page two,lines twentj^-seven and twenty-eight, after the word “time,” 
strike out “ and at chambers ” and insert “ either during any term, general or special, or 
during vacation.” 

Page three, line seven, after the word “times,” strikeout “in open court or at cham¬ 
bers ” and insert “either during any terra, general or special, or during vacation.” 

Section three, page four, line fourteen, after the word “as,” strike out “herein and 
above provided ” and insert “provided in this act.” 

Section five, page five, line nine, after the word “State” insert “wherever there has 
been no previous change of venue or application on behalf of the State.” 

The bill as a whole was adopted as amended. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time. 

Under a further suspension of the constitutional rules the bill was placed on its third 
reading and final passage, its title was adopted, and notice of concurrence ordered to 
be sent to the senate. 

Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, called up senate bill No. 2, an act to authorize the attorney- 
general and district attorneys and other officers of the {State to challenge jurors ni 
criminal cases for certain causes. 

Read first time. 

Its further consideration was postponed for one-half hour. 

Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, called up senate bill No. 3, entitled “An act forbidding the or¬ 
ganization ana maintenance of any military organization, company, or body, not mus- 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


417 


tered into the militia of the State; detininjj such illejjal bodies as riotous aud unlawful 
assemblies iu certain cases; makiujfj it a misdemeanor to violate this act, aud piescrib- 
iu*! juiuishtueut theretor, aud urovidiu" for the disbaudmeut of such illeyral bodies.” 

Kead fust time. 

The coustitutioual rules beiuo; suspended, the bill was read a second time. 

Under a further suspension of the coustitutioual rules, the bill underwent its thinl 
readiuji aud tiual passaj'e, its title was adopte<l,aud notice of concurrence ordered to 
bo sent to the senate. 


si'kcial ohdeu of the day. 

TIouse bill No. *2, an act to jirovide for the creation of a board of equalization of as¬ 
sessments, prescribiu*^ t heir powers, duties, and compensation, and making an appro¬ 
priation for the payment of the same, and providinj^ the order of i>ayments of war¬ 
rants on the State treasurer; to provide for the equalization of assessments of prop¬ 
erty in the several parishes of the State, and to impose additional <lnties np«)n the au¬ 
ditor of public accounts ; aud to provide for the eipialization of the assessments of 
the year 1870, was taken up. 

The bill was considered as engrossed and read a third time. 

Ou its linal passage the yeas and nays were ordered, with the following result: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, liird, Ibown of Caddo, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Brew¬ 
ster, Blackstone, Drury, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Gardere, Gande, Gantt, Gary, 
Hughes, Holt pf East Baton Konge, Holt of West Baton Kouge, Heath, H. M. Johnson, 
Keeting, Lane, Magloire, Martin, Moore, Romero, Souer, Suaer, Simmes—JO. 

Nays—Barrington, Burton, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Carville, Cole- 
Dnrden, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, Dickinson, Uinkgrave, Estojnnal, Fohb, Hill of .\s- 
cension. Heath, .Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Robert .Johnson, Kern, Leonard of Caddo, 
Lewis, Ronton, Stewart, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Walker—3U. 

No quorum voting. 

The sjieaker announced the following as the special committee to investigate the 
affairs of the metropolitan police of vhe ]»arish of Orleans: 

Messrs. Dejoie, of .Jefferson, chairman; Gardere, of Orleans; Holt, «)f West Baton 
Rouge; Gracien, of Orleans; Davidson, of Iberville. , 

On motion of Mr. .Jones, of Bointe Coupee, the house was adjourned until to-morrow 
at twelve o’clock m. 

ROBERT F. (fUICHARD, 

Chrk of tkt Jlause of liepreHeotatires. 


SIXTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House ok Repuesextatives. 

New Orltann, January (>, 1877. 

ITe house met pursuant to adjournment. Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called, and the following memliers answered to their names : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Brown of Jefferson, 
Blair, Barron, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Carville, Como, 
Cole, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Desmarais, Detiege, Dejoie, 
Early, Estopinal, Gardere, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East 
Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. John¬ 
son, Robert Johnson, Kennedy, Keeting, Kern, Lane, T^ewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, 
Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Soner, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Simmes, Stewart, 
Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Walker—G2. 

Sixty-two members present, and a quorum. 

Prayer by the chaplain. 

The journal was corrected so as to state M ssrs. Burton, of Carroll, and Stewart. ()f 
Tensas, voteil in the aflirmativ'e on the vote taken on the final passage ot house hill No. 
2 (the equalization bill), and that Mr. Detiege, of Saint Martin, had moved to dispemse 
with the use of Cushing aud .letfersoii’s Manual as parliamentary authorities iu the 
rules governing the house; which motion was lost. 

The journal as corrected was adopteil. 

PETITIONS, ME.MOP.IAI.S, AND KESOLUTIONS. 

Mr. Soner, of Avoyelles, presented a petition from E. W. Stansbnry, contesting the seat 
of Joseph A. Shakspeare as a member fiom the second representative district, parish ut 
Orleans. 



418 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Referred to the committee on elections and qualifications. 

Mr. D’Avy, of Saint Landry, offered the following resolution, which was read: 

Be it resolved, That Mr. N. Lastrapes be now seated as a member from the parish ot 
Saint Landry, subject to contest. 

On the motion to suspend the rules, with the view of adoption, the yeas and nays 
were ordered, resulting as follows: 

Yeas—Brooks, Dayries, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Gantt, Gary, Jones, H. M. 
Johnson, Martin, Milou, Stewart, Tolliver, Washiugton—15. 

Nays—Speaker Hahn, Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Barton, Brown of Jefferson, 
Blair, Barron, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brady, Brown of Vernon, Carville, Como, Cole, 
Drury, Durden, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Gardere, Gaude, Gracien, Hill of 
Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, John¬ 
son of De Soto, Robert Johnson, Kennedy, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Lewis, Magloire, Moore, 
Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Suaer, Seveignes, Stewart, Thomas, Watson, War- 
moth, Walker—51. 

Lo.t, and the resolution lies over. 


NOTICES OF BILLS. 


Notices were given that at some future time the following-entitled bills wmuld be 
introduced: 

By Mr. Drury, of Assumption : 

A bill lo pay the mileage and per diem of members, salaries of officers- and employ6s, 
and contingent expenses of the board of returning officers for the year 1876. 

By Mr. Desmarais, of Saint Landry: 

A bill to enforce the keeping of the Sabbath day, closing all places of business on Sun¬ 
day, and for other purposes. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 


The secretary of the senate w'as announced with the followung message: 


Senate Chamber, 

New Orleans, January 5, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives: 

I have the honor to inform your honorable body of the concurrence by the senate in 
house joint resolution No. 1, requesting our Representatives and instructing our Sena¬ 
tors in Congress to oppose the bill looking to the closing of the Bayou Lafourche, and 
the locking of the same, etc. 

Also, that the senate concurs in the house amendments to senate bill No. 1, an act 
entitled “An act to amend and re-enact sections 134, 977, 998,1021,1028, 1029,1031,1172, 
1936, 1964, and 3891 of the revised statutes of the State of Louisiana,” etc. 
Respectfully, 


L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 
iStcretiry of the Senate. 


introduction of bills. 


According to previous notice, Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, introduced house bill No. 14, 
an act to revise, amend, and re-enact sections 1679, 1680, and 1684 of the revised stat¬ 
utes; to abolish the offices of master and wardens of the port of New Orleans, and to 
transfer their duties, fees, and emoluments to the board of harbor-masters; to transfer 
to the board of harbor-masters certain duties of the superindendeut of wharves, wharf¬ 
ingers, and assistant wharfingers in the city of New Orleans; to fix a compensation for 
the performance of their duties, and to abolish and prohibit said offices of superintend¬ 
ent of w'harves and laudings, wharfingers, and assistant wharfingers, and to repeal 
all laws inconsistent therewith. 

Read first time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time. 

Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, moved that the constitutional rules be suspended so as the 
bill could be considered as engrossed. 

On which the yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. Detiege, of Saint Martin, with 
the following result: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jefterson, Blair, Bar¬ 
ron, Brewster, Barrett, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Colo, Drury, Durden, 
Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Estojiinal, Gaihere, Gantt, 
Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West 
Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Kee.ing, 


SPOFFOliD VS. KELLOGG. 419 

Kern, Lane, Magloire, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Soiier, Swazie, Snaer, Sevei^nes, 
Simnies, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Wasliinj^ton, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—55. 

Nays—Harrington, Bosley, Como, Carville, Detiege, Heath, Lewis—7. 

Tlie bill was considered as being engrossed. 

Mr. l)etiege, of Saint Martin, moved that the bill be referred to its appropriate 
committee, when ai>pointed. 

Mr. Jones, of Pointe Coiip<^e, moved to lay the motion to refer on the table. 

On which the yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. Detiege, of Saint Martin, 
with the following result: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Blair, Barron, 
Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Cole, Drury, Durden, Dayries, 
Drew, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Estojjinal, Gardere, 
Gantt, Gary, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, .Johnson of De 
Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Keeling, Kern, Lane, Magloire, Martin, Moore, Ronton, Ro¬ 
mero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snatr, Seveignes, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson— 
50. 

Nays—Brown of Jefferson, Barrett, Carville, Como, Davidson, De Lacy, Detiege, 
Heath, Robert Johnson, Lewis, Walker—11. 

Carried. 

Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, moved to suspend the constitutional rules so as to place the 
bill on its third reading and final passage, on which the yeas and nays were demanded 
by Mr. Detiege, of Saint Martin, with the following result: 

Yeas—Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Barrett, 
P>osley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Como, Cole, Drjiry, Durden, Dayries, 
De Lacy, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Gardere, Gantt, Gary, 
Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton 
Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Mag (ure, Mar¬ 
tin, Moore, Romero, Raby, Soner, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Simiues, Thomas, Tolliver, 
Washington—51. 

Nays—Brown of Jefferson, Carville, Davidson, Drew, Detiege, Heath, Robert Johnson, 
Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Watson, Walker—11. 

(Mr, Snaer, of Iberia, in the chair.) 

Mr. Lewis, of Nachitoches, moved to defer the further consideration of the bill until 
Monday. 

Mr. Jones, of I’ointe Coupee, moved to lay that motion on the table. 

Carried. 

Under a sn8i)ension of the constitutional rules the bill was placed on its third read¬ 
ing and final passage, its title adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to the senate for 
concurrence. 

Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, moved a reconsideration of the vote whereby the bill was 
finally passed, and also moved to lay that motion on the table. 

Carried. 

Mr. D’Avy, of Saint Landry, under previous notice, introduced house bill No. 15, an 
act entitled “An act to limit the powers and regulate the duties of ])olice jurors and 
other parish authorities, and to prohibit them from compelling work on the public 
roads without adequate compensation.” 

R’ead first time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time. 

Mr. De Lacy, of Rapides, moved its reference to the committee on judiciary, when ap¬ 
pointed. 

Mr. Johnson, of De Soto, moved to lay the motion to refer on the table. 

Carried. 

Mr. D’Avy, of Saint Landrjq moved for a suspension of the rules so as the bill could 
be considered as engrossed ; on which the yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. De 
Lacy, of Rai)ides, with the following result: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Blair, Brewster, 
Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, Dicki soiqDes- 
marais, D’Avy, Early, Estopinal, (Jardere, Gantt, Gary, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt 
of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. 
Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, 
Snaer, Seveignes, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Walker—48. 

Kays—Brown of Jefferson, Barron, Barret, Bosley, Brown of Vernon, Como, Drew, Do 
Lacy, Heat h, Robert Johnson, Leonard of Caddo, licwis, Swazie, Watson—IJ. 

Tito rules were suspended and the bill was considered as engrossed. 

Mr. Heath, of Webster, movedto postpone its further consideration until Monday. 

Mr. .Jones, of Roiute Coup6e, moved to lay that motion on the table. 

(’arrie<l. 

Utidera further suspension of the constitutional rules the bill was placed on its third 
rea<ling and linal passage, its title was adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to the 
senate for concurrence. 


420 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 


Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, called np senate bill No. 2, an act to authorize the attorney- 
general and district attorneys and other officers of the State to chall-nge jurors in 
criminal cases for certain causes. 

Read second time. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was jilaced on its third reading ana 
final passage, its title was adopted, and notice of concurrence ordered to be sent to the 

Mr. Keeting, of Caddo, moved a reconsideration of the vote whereby the bill was 
finally passed, and also moved to lay that motion on the table. 

Carried. 

(Mr. Brown, of Jefferson, in the chair ) 


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 


The secretary of the senate was announced, with the following message: 


Senate Chamber, 

Xew Orltans, January 7, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives: 

I am directed by the senate to inform your honorable body that the lieutenant-gov¬ 
ernor and the president of the senate has signed the following : 

Senate bill No. 4, an act authorizing the governor of the State to assume charge of 
the capitol buildings, tfcc. 

And ask that the speaker of the house of representatives affix bis signature to the 
same. 


Respectfully, 


L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


Mr. Gantt, of Saint Landry, under previous notice, introduced bouse bill No. 16, an act 
entitled “An act relative to the payment of stationery, blanks, &c., procured by the 
State registrar of voters for registration and election jiurposes, and making an appro¬ 
priation for the payment of the same.’’ 

Read first time. 

Mr. Gantt, of Saint Landry, moved to suspend the constitutional rules so as to place 
the bill on its second reading. 

Mr. Davidson, of Iberville, demanded the yeas and nays thereon. The roll was 
called, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Blair, Brewster, Brooks, Blackstone, Cole, 
Drury, Durden, Dayries, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early,Estopiual, Gardere, 
Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heath, Jones, H. M. Johnson, 
Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Moore, Routou, Souer, Snaer, Seveignes, Simmes, 
Stewart, Washington, Walker—38. 

Nays—Brown of Jefferson, Barron, Barrett, Bosley, Brown of Vernon, Carville, Da¬ 
vidson, Drew, De Lacy, Detiege, Hill of Ascension, Holt of West Baton Rogue, Lewis, 
Romero, Raby, Tolliver—16. ^ 

No quorum voting. 

A call of the house was ordered, resulting as follows: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Bar¬ 
ron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Durden, Davidsou, De 
Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Estopiual, Gar¬ 
dere, Gantt, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heath, 
Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Kennedy, Keeting, Lane, 
Lewis, Magloire, Moore, McMillen, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, 
Simmes, Stewart, Tolliver, Washington, Walker—54. 

No quorum being present, the house was adjourned until Monday next, at 12 o’clock 
in., on motion of Mr. Eugene Gardere, of the seventh representative district, X)arisb of 
Orleans. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Clerk’s Office, House of Representatives, 

Xe%v Orleans, January 6, 1877. 

I, Robert F. Gnichard, clerk of the house of representatives, hereby certify that the 
foregoing twenty-nine pages of printed matter contain a true and correct account 
of the proceedings of the house of representatives of the State of Louisiana for the 
Aveek ending January 6, 1877. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Clerk House of Representatives. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


421 


Skcuetaky of State’s Office, State of Louisiana, 

New Orleans, January 6, 1877. 

I, P. G. Deslonde, secretary of state, certify the foregoing to be the true and proper 
signature of Robert F. Gnichard, clerk of the house of representatives, State of Louis¬ 
iana. 

P. G. DESLONDE, 

^Secretary of Stale. 


Official journal of the proceedings of the house of represen tat ires of the Slate of Louisiana for 

the week ending January 13, 1877. 

[Hy authority.] 

SEVENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of Representatives, 

New Orleans, January b, 1877. 

The house met ])ursuant to adjournment, Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Harrington, Bird, Jirown of Caddo, Brown of Jefferson, 
Blair, Barron, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Carville, 
Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, 
Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Early, P^stopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gantt, Gary, Hill of Ascen¬ 
sion, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. John¬ 
son, Robert Johnson, Kennedy, Keeting, Kern, Lane,Leonard of Cad<lo, Lewis, Magloire, 
Martin, Milon, Moore, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Simmes, 
Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Walker—(35. 

Sixty-five members present, and a quorum. 

Prayer by the chaplain. 

On motion of Mr. Souer, the reading of the journal was dispensed wdth, and it was 
ajtiuoved. 


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 


Senate Chaimrek, 

Nexc Orleans, January 8, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives : 

I am directed by the senate to ask concurrence of your honorable body in concurrent 
resolution providing for a joint committee to make the necessary preparations for the 
inauguration of the governor-elect. 

Also, that the senate has concurred in the passage of house bill No. 13, an act mak¬ 
ing an aiiyiropriatiou of $158,000 out of the general fund in tbe State treasury, or re¬ 
ceived in the treasury during the year 1877, for the payment of the mileage and per 
diem of members, salaries of oflicers and emidoyds, and contingent expenses of the 
general assembly of Louisiana for the regular session of 1877, &c. 

. Respectfully, 

L. LAMANIEKE, Jr., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


Mr. G. W. Shelton, of Morehouse, was sworn in as a representative of that parish. 

Mr. Dinkgrave, on a (yuestion of jirivilege, stated that the error made in ytromulgat- 
ing the bill for the relief of the widow of B. H. Dinkgrave was typographical and 
would be corrected. 

Mr. Snaer, under a suspension of the rules, called up the following senate concurrent 
resolution ; w'hich was read and adopted : 

Jiesolvcd, That a joint committee, to consist of five members of the senate and seven 
members of the house, be ai)pointe<l by their resyyective presiding officers, whose duty it 
shall be to take charge of and conduct the inauguration ceremonies of the incoming 
governor and lieutenant-governor. 

The speaker apyminted the following members as the committee on the part of tho 
house: 

Messrs. Snaer, Barrington, Cole, Souer, De Lacy, Gaude, and Heath. 

Mr. Souer, under a suspension of the rules, ofiered the following concurrent resolu¬ 
tion ; which was read and adopted : 

Resolved, That the house of representatives (the senate concurring), meet in joint ses¬ 
sion at 12.30 p. m., for the purpose of inaugurating the governor-elect. 



422 


SPOFFOKD YS. KELLOGG. 


PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, AND RESOLUTIONS. 

The speaker laid before the house a memorial from the board of trade, which was 
read and ordered to be referred to the committee on education, wheu apiioiuted. 


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

Senate Chamher, 

Xew Orleans, Januarij 8, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and menibers of the house of representatives: 

I am directed by the senate to inform your honorable body that the senate has con¬ 
curred in house concurrent resolution filing the hour for the ceremonies of the inaugu¬ 
ration of the governor-elect. 

Respectfully, 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

Secretary of the Senate. 


On motion of Mr. Tolliver, a recess was ordered until 3 p. m. 

The governor-elect, Hon. Stephen Bennett Packard, and ihe lieutenant-governor-elect, 
Hon. C. C. Antoine, were then inaugurated and sworn in by the chief-justice of the 
State, Hon. John T. Ludeling. 

After the inaugural ceremonies were completed the senate withdrew to its chamber. 
The rece.ss having expired, the speaker resumed the chair, and, on motion of Mr. Stew¬ 
art, the house was adjourned until to-morrow at twelve o’clock rn. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Clei'k of the House of Represeyitatives. 


EIGHTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of Representatives, 

New Orleans, January 9,1877. 

. The house met pursuant to adjournment, Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Black- 
stone,Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, 
Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt 
of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Keeting, 
Lane, Moore, McMillen, Romero, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, 
Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Walker—44. 

No quorum being present, the sergeant-at-arms was instructed to bring in the ab¬ 
sentees. 

On motion of Mr. Souer, the names of the following absentees were ordered to be 
recorded in the journal: 

Messrs. Aldige,Aycock, Barrington, Bird, Bridger, Burton, Bowden, Brown of Jeffer¬ 
son, Barron, Barrett, Brady, Brown of Vernon, Buck, Bush, Berry, Ball, Briggs, Cocker- 
ham, Durden, Dayries, Delavigne, Drew,De Lacy, Duke,Esto])inal, Fitzpatrick, Foerster, 
Gaude, Gantt, Gaskins, Gillespie, Huntington, Heath, Hill of Orleans, H. M. Johnson, 
Robert Johnson, Jonas of Orleans, Kennedy, Kelly of Winn, Kelly of Orleans, Kern, 
Kidd, Leeds, Leonard of Caddo, Lemare, Lewis, Lea, Long, Leonard of Orleans, Ma- 
gloire, Martin, Milan, Newsom, Nunez, Peralta, Richardson, Routon, Raby, Shakspeare, 
Singleton, Self, Seveignes, Spillers, Stagg, Steele, Sellers, Toler, Voorhies, Watson, Wai- 
moth. Wood, Wilde, Young—73. 

The roll of the house having been called several times during the session, and it ap¬ 
pearing that at no time was there a quorum present, the house was adjourned until 
Wednesday, the 10th instant, at 11 a. m., on motion of Mr. Keetino-. 

ROBERT F.”GUICHARD, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 


NINTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of Representatives, 

New Orleans, January 10,1877. 

The house met pursuant to adjournment. Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called, and the following members answered to their names: 

Present—Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton^ 
Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstoue Carville, Como, Cole, 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


423 


Drury, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, D^ Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desinarias, D’Avy, 
Detiege, Dejoie, |Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, (Jary, (iracien. Hill of 
Ascension, Hughes, Holt ot East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of 
De Soto, .tones, Roi)ert Johnson, Keeling, Lane, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, 
Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Shehon, Siuiines, Stewart, 
Thoin.as, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Waruioth, Walker—G3. 

Prayer by the Rev. A. M. Newman. 

On motion ot Mr. Keeling, the reading of the journal was dispensed with and it was 
approved. 


MKSSAGE FROM THE OOVEHNOIl. 


The following message was received and read, and the accompanying communication 
of Hon. John T. Ludeling, chief justice of the 8U})reme court of the S'ate of Louisiana, 
was, on motion of Mr. Detiege, referred to a special committee of three meml>ers, and 
the speaker apiiointed Messrs. Keeling, Fobb, and Diukgrave as said committee: 

State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

AVic Orleans, Jan liarij 9, 1^77. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives : 

In accordance with the provisions of section 3592, revised statutes, I transmit here¬ 
with for your action a copv of a communication this day received from Hon. J. T. Lud¬ 
eling, chief justice of the State of Louisiana. 

S. B. PACKARD, Governor. 
New Orleans, 9,1677. 

Governor S. B. Packard: 

To-day in open court Mr. Handy, the civil sheriff of Nevr Orleans, through his dep¬ 
uty, General Lewis, informed the court, when ordered to open court, that he, Mr. Handy, 
did not recognize us as the supreme court, and would not obey our orders. Whereupon 
the court made an order suspending Sherift'Handy, and appointing Mr. Alfred Bourges 
civil sheriff }»ro tempore, the coroner not being present, under the provisions of the 
statutes of this State. Mr. Bourges, who was present, w as qualified. 

In pursuance of law I notify you of the facts above stated, that they may be reported 
to the general assembly, now in session, for their action. 

I have the honor to be, vour obedient servant, 

JOHN T. LUDEIJNG, 

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. 

^Ir. Warmoth, by permission, offered the following concurrent resolution ; which 
lies over under the rules : 

Whereas the present condition of public affairs in Louisiana threatens the peace 
and good order of society, injures the material prosperity of the commoinvealth, and 
engenders unkindly feelings lietw'een the members of the community ; and 

Whereas it is the duty of all good citizens, and more esjiecially tlie duty of those 
claiming and exercising authority, to provide some adequate means to s;.cure the benefit 
of good government and quiet to the State: Therefore be it 

Jicsolird by the house of representatives (the senate concuiTing), That a joint com¬ 
mittee of the two houses be created, to wit, five to be apiiointed by the speaker of the 
house and three to be ajipointed by the jiresident of (he senate, and said joint com¬ 
mittee, so constituted of members* of the respective houses of the general assembly, 
shall be emixiw'ered to confer "with a similar committee appointed by the general as¬ 
sembly recognizing General F. A. Nicholls as governor, and said committee herein pro¬ 
vided for shall devise and report, as soon as practicable, some measure or plan of action 
for this body w hich w ill secure a lawful and jieaceful settlement ol the pending polit¬ 
ical contest relative to the State government of Louisiana. 

Mr. Souer moveil that a committee of three members bo appointed to inform the 
senate that the house would be ready at 12 o’clock m. to meet that body in joint ses¬ 
sion for the purpose of going into an election of tw'o United States Senators. 

Adopteil. 

The speaker appointed Messrs. Souer, Swazie, and McMillen as said committee. 

.JOINT SESSION. 

The scrgeant-at-.arms announced the honorable senate of the State of TaJuisiana. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair,, and directed the sec¬ 
retary to call the roll of the senate in joint session. 


424 


SPOFFORD V«. KELLOGG. 


The following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, 
Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—17. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk to call the roll 
of the house, and the following members answered to their names : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, David¬ 
son, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Diukgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, 
Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracieu, Hill of Ascension, 
Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De 
Soto, Jones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, 
Milon, Moore, McMilleu, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveigues, Shel¬ 
ton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—66. 

The president of the senate announced that the general assembly of the State had 
met in joint session, according to law, to compare journals in the matter of the elec¬ 
tion of United States Senators. 

The secretary of the senate read the journal of the senate. 

The clerk of the house read the journal of the house of representatives. 

The president of the senate announced that, it appearing from the journals of the 
respective bodies that no vote had been taken relative to an election for United States 
Senators, it was now in order to take action in the premises. 

After a reading of the law relative thereto. Senator Burch moved that the joint ses¬ 
sion do now proceed to elect a Senator for the term commencing March 4,1877. 

Senator Blunt moved as an amendment that the joint session do now select a Senator 
for the vacant unexpired term. 

Senator Burch raised the point of order that the election of a Senator for the long 
term had precedence. 

The point of order was decided as being well taken. 

The yeas and nays being ordered on the adoption of the motion to proceed with the 
election of a United States Senator for the long term, the following was the vote of 
the senate: 

Yeas—Allain, Baker, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, 
Landry, Stamps, Suttou, Twitchell, Wakefield, Wheeler, Young—i6. 

Nay—Blunt—1. 

The following was the vote of the house of representatives : 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jetferson, 
Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstoue, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, 
Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Es¬ 
topinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt 
of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Robert 
Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, 
Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveigues, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, 
Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, W^armoth, Walker—63. 

Nays—Detiege, Heath, Lewis—3. 

Carried. 

The presiding officer announced that nominations were now in order for an election 
of a United States Senator for the term of six years, beginning March 4,1877. 

Representative D’Avy nominated Hou. William Pitt Kellogg. 

No other nomination being made, the respective rolls were called. 

The following Senators voted for Hon. William Pitt Kellogg: 

Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Hai'xier, Kel¬ 
so, Landry, Stamps, Suttou, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—17. 

The following rej) resen tat ives cast their vote for the Hon. William Pitt Kellogg : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, David¬ 
son, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Diukgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, De¬ 
joie, Early, Estupinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, 
Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De 
Soto, Jones, Robert Johusou, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Mar¬ 
tin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer” Seveigues, 
Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker— 
66. 

The presiding officer announced that Hou. William Pitt Kellogg having received 
eighty-three votes, aud that being a majority of all the votes of the joint assembly'of 
the State of Louisiana, a majority of all the members elected to both houses being 
present and voting, was elected United States Senator from the State of Louisiana for 
the term of six years, beginning March 4,1877. 

Senator Young moved that the joint session take a recess for one hour. 

Carried. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


425 


The recess having expired, the joint session was called to order by tbe presidinij 
orticer. 

The following senators responded to their names when the roll was called : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Bliinl, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sniton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

The calling of the roll of the house showed the i>reseuce of the following represent¬ 
atives : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Brewster, Barrett, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Carville, Como, 
Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dayrio‘<, Drew, Do Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, 
D’Avy, Dejoie, 1 )etiege, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gracien, Gary, 
Hill of Ascension, Huglies, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, 
Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Robert .Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, 
Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Suaer, 
Seveignes, Shelton, Siuimes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Waioou, Walker— 
65. 

Senator Allain moved that the joint session do now proceed to elect a United States 
Senator for the unexpired term now vacant. 

Carried. 

Nouiinalions being declared in order. Senator Allain nominated Hon. C. C. Antoine. 

Senator Young nominated Hou.P. B. S. Pinchback. 

liepresentative Swazie nominated Hon. .James Lewis. 

Representative Brewster nominated Hon. William H. Hunt. 

Representative Drury nominated Hon. Taylor Beattie. 

Senator Blunt moved that the nominations be closed. 

Carried. 

Hot). C.C. Antoine receiv^ed the votes of the following senators: 

Messrs. Allain, Baker, Burch, Dumont, Harper, Statnps, Twitchell—7. 

And representatives; 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, D’Avv, De¬ 
joie, Gardere, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heath, Keeting, Leonard of Caddo, Moore, 
Suaer, Thomas—15. 

Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback was voted for by the following senators : 

Messrs. Blunt, Bryant, Kelso, Sutton, Young—5. 

And representatives: 

Messrs. Barrington, Burton, Brown of Jetferson, Blair, Brown of Vernon, Carville, 
Como, Cole, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Hill of Ascension, Lewis, Romero, 
Stewait, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—iil. 

Mr. .James Lewis received the votes of— 

Senator Wakefield—1; and Reyu'esentatives Dayries, Desmarais, Early, Estopinal, 
Gary, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Raby, Swazie, Shelton—i:J. 

Hon. Taylor Beattie received the votes of— 

Senatois Cage, Gla, and Landry; and Rejiresentatives Drury, Fobb, Gaude, Hughes, 
Holt of West Baton Rouge, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Lane, and Seveignes—1>. 

The following-named reinesentatives voted blank : 

Messrs. Bird, Gantt, Gracien, Ronton—4. 

Messrs. Brewster and Dinkgrave cast their votes for Hon. William H. Hunt. 

]\Ir. McMillen voted for Mr. J. A. Gla. 

, Mr. Souer voted for Mr. William Harper. 

Mr. Simmes cast his vote for Mr. P. Jjandry. 

The speaker of the house, Hon. M. Hahn, jire iding pro tempore, the pi'csidont of the 
senate having recused himself, announced that it ajiyiearing tliat no candidate had re¬ 
ceived a majority of the votes cast, it would be necessary to proceed to-morrow to 
another ballot. 

On motion of Senator Burch, the senate withdrew to its chamber. 

The house resumed its session, the speaker in the chair. 

Mr. Warmoth moved that the s rgeant-at-urms be instructed to yiermit members to 
Lave free egress from the hall of the house. 

Cairied. 

On motion of Mr. Gantt,the house wjis adj''urned until to-n)orrow, at twelve o clock m. 

R(JBEKT F. (JUICHARD, 

Clerk of the House of liepreseutailres. 


TENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

IIOUSK OF Kkpuksknt.vtives, 

Xew Orleans, Januarif 11, 1S77. 

'I’he house met pursuant to adjournmeut, Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

'I'he )()11 was called, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown ot 



426 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


.Jefferson, Blair, Brewster, Barrett, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Veruon, Blackstone^ 
Como, Cole, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, I)e Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desruarais, 
D’Avy, Detiege, D.joie, Early, Estopinal, Fobl), Gardere, Gaade, Gantc, Gary, Gracien, 
Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Heath, .Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert 
Johnson, Keeting, Kern, L ^onard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, McMillen, 
Ronton, Romero, Raby, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, 
Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Walker—62. 

Prayer by the chaplain. 

The reading of the journal was dispensed with, and was ordered to be corrected, so 
as to strike out in Mr. Souer’s motion relative to the joint session the words ‘‘ of com¬ 
paring journals relative to the,^’ and insert in lien thereof the words “of going into 
an”; also, that Representative D’Avy nominated Hon. William Pitt Kellogg; and the 
further correction that the presiding officer announced that Hon. William Pitt Kellogg, 
having received eighty-three votes, being a majority of all the vote^of the joint assem¬ 
bly of the State of Louisiana, a majority of all the members elected to both houses 
being present and voting, was elected United States Senator from the State of Louisi¬ 
ana for the term of six years, beginning March 4, 1877. 

The journal as corrected was approved. 


.JOINT SESSION. 


The sergeant-at-arms announced the honorable senate of the State of Louisia’^a. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair and directed the sec¬ 
retary to call the roll of the senate in joint session. 

The following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage. Dumont, Gla, 
Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—17. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk to call the roll of 
the house, and the following members answered to their names : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of 
Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstoue, Car- 
ville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, 
Desmarais, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Estopiual, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gra- 
cieu, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, 
Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Ma¬ 
gloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, 
Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, War- 
moth, Walker—67. 

Representative Keeting moved that inasmuch as some members of the general as¬ 
sembly who were unable to reach the State-house yesterday so as to participate in tbe 
election of United States Senator for the term beginning March 4, 1877, desired to 
record their votes in favor of Hon. William Pitt Kellogg, that they may be permitted 
to do so. 

Carried by unanimous consent. 

The roll was called, and the following-named representatives recorded their names 
as votirg for Hon. William Pitt Kellogg for United States Senator for the teim begin¬ 
ning March 4, 1877 : Messrs. Kern, H. M. Johnson, Barron, Durden, and Brown of 
Vernon. 

The election of a United States Senator for the unexpired term being in order, the 
following vote was taken : » 

For Hon. C. C. Antoine : 

Senators Allain, Baker, Burch, Dumont, Harper, Stamps, Twitchell—7. 

Representatives Hahn, Brown of Caddo, Bosley, Blackstone, Durden, Gardere, Heath, 
Keeting, Kern, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Moore, Snaer, Thomas—14. 

For Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback : 

Senators Blunt, Br yant, Kelso, Sutton, Young—5. 

Representatives Barrington, IJird, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Barron, 
Brown of Vernon, Carville, Como, Cole, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Fobb, 
Hill of Ascension, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Lewis, Simmes, Stewart, Tolliver, 
Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—25. 

For Hon. .James Lewis : 

Senator Wakefield—1. 

Representatives Messrs. Dayries, Desmarais, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, .John¬ 
son of De Soto, Jones, Martin, Milon, Roby, Swazie—11. 

For Hon. Taylor Beattie : 

Senators Cage, Gla, Landry—3. 

Representatives Brooks, Drury, Gaude, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, H.M. 
Johnson, Robert Johnson, Lane, Seveignes—9. 

For Hon. William H. Hunt: 

Representatives—Brewster, Dinkgrave, Routon, Romero, Shelton—5. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


427 


For TIon. Thomas C. Auderson : 

Senator liieanx—1. 

Representatives D’Avy, Gantt, Gary—3. 

Hon. J. A. GJa was voted for by Representative McMillen. 

Hon. William Harper received the vote of Representative Souer. 

JJepresentative Gracien voted blank. 

There beinf; no election, Senat«>r Youn^r moved to take a recess nn'il ^ p. ra. 

Senator Burch raised the point of order that in joint assembly the lionsj had no 
control of the senate. 

The point of order was maintained by the presidio^; officer. 

On motion of Senator Bnrch, the senate withdrew to its chamber. 

[The house resumed its session, Speaker Hahn in the chair.] 

Mr. Holt, of East Baton Rou'je, moved to take a recess until 4 p. m. 

Mr. McMillen moved to amend to 2 p. m. 

Lost. 

Mr. McMillen moved to adjourn until to-morrow at twelve o’clock m., on which the 
yeas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 

Yeas—Speaker Holm, Barrington, Burton, Blair, Brewster, Carville, Davidson, Dink- 
grave, Desmarais, Early, Heath, Robert Johnson, Kern, Martin, McMillen, Romero, 
Souer, Shelton, Stewart, Watson, Warrnoth, Walker— 22. 

Nays—Brown of C^ddo, Brown of Jefferson, Barron, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Ver¬ 
non, Blackstone, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Dayries, Drew, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Es- 
topinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt 
of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. John¬ 
son, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Milon, Moore, Ronton, Raby, Swazie, 
Snaer, Seveignes, Simmes, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington—45. 

Lost. 

Mr. Holt withdrew his motion to take a recess until 4 p. m. 

Mr. Detiege ottered the following resolution ; which lies over under the rules : 

Resolved, That sergeants-at-arms or doorkeepers admitting other persons than those 
entitled thereto, except by i>ermis8ion of the speaker, shall be dismissed at once from 
office by the 8])eaker on the demand of any member of the house of representatives. 

Mr. Detiege offered the following motion : 

■ 1 move that the office of the sergeant-at arms of the house be, and is hereby, declared 
vacant, and that the house do now proceed to elect a sergeaut-at-arms. 

Mr. Lewis moved to lay the motion on the table. 

Carried. 

Mr. Souer moved that the house adjourn until to-morrow at 1'2 o’clock m. 

Carried. 

And the bouse w’as accordingly declared adjourned. 

liOBERT F. GEICHARD, 

Chief Clerk House of Representatives. 


ELEVENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Housk of Reprksp:nt.vtivks, 

New Orleans, January 12,1877. 

'I'he house met pursuant to adjournment. Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called, and tlie following members answmred to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Barron, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Carville, Cole, 
Drnry, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, D’Avy, Dejoie, 
Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of 
East Baton Rouge, Holt of V'est Baton Rouge, Heath, .Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. 
M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, 
Martin, Milon, Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, 
Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warrnoth, Walker—GJ. 

I’rayer bj' the chajilain. • 

On motion of Mr. Gracien, the reading of the journal was disj^eused w’ith,and it was 
ajiproved. 

Mr. De Lcucy rose to a question of privilege. 

Mr. Souer moved that a committee of three members ho appointed to inform the 
senate that the house of representatives was ready to meet that body in joint session 
for the purpose of electing a United States Senator for the vacant unexpired term. 

I'he sjieaker appointed Messrs. Souer, Romero, and Jones as said committee. 



428 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


PETITIONS, MEMOPvIALS, AND RESOLUTIONS. 

Mr. Gracien offered the following resolution ; which was read under a suspension of 
the rules, and referred to the committee on elections and qualifications, with a request 
to report thereon to-morrow : 

Whereas P. J. Kennedy, of the parish of Jefferson, and E. J. Barrett, of the parish* 
of Rapides, members of this house, have deserted their seats and joined an illegal and 
revolutionary body with the purpose of aiding and abetting an attempt to overthrow 
and usurp the government of this State. Therefore, be it 

Hesolved, That the seats in this house of the said P. J. Kennedy and the said E. J. 
Barrett he, and are hereby, declared vacant, 

Resolved, That the governor be, and is hereby, officially notified of the vacancies thus 
created, and that he is requested to issue his proclamation in accordance with law for 
elections to fill the same. 

Mr. Wilson offered the following resolution ; which was read under a suspension of 
the rules, and ordered to be referred to the committee on lands and levees, when ap¬ 
pointed : 

Whereas the levees of the parish of Plaquemines are in a dilapidated condition, 
caused by the storm of the year 1876 ; and 

Whereas the planters of that section of the country have lost their entire crops by 
said storm, and are threatened this year by an overflow on account of the bad condition 
of the levees; and 

Whereas the planters are on the eve of commencing the planting of a new crop of 
rice: Therefore, be it 

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the speaker of the house of 
representatives to visit and examine the levees of said parish, and, if in their judg¬ 
ment the same need repairs, to report the same to the house of representatives, who 
shall then instruct the commissioners of levees to proceed immediately to the place des¬ 
ignated by said committee, and have the same re])aired. 

Mr. Gracien offered the following resolution; which was read under a suspension of 
the rules, and adopted : 

Whereas the property of the members of the house of representatives left in their 
desks during the recess of the house has beeu|takeu awuiy by unauthorized persons who 
introduce themselves into the house: Therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the sergeant-at-arms is hereby instructed not to allow any persons 
into the house of representatives during the recess of said house, except members of 
the general assembly and officers of the house. 

JOINT SESSION. 

The sergeant-at-arms announced the honorable senate of the State of Louisiana. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. G. Antoine, took the chair and directed the sec¬ 
retary to call the roll of the senate in joint session. 

The following senators answ^ered to their names : 

Messrs. Allaiu, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Landry, 
Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—15. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk to call the roll of 
the house, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of 
Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Car- 
ville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, 
Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of 
Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, 
Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, 
Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Routon, Ro¬ 
mero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolli¬ 
ver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—68. 

The election of a United States Senator for the unexpired term being in order, the 
following vote was taken : 

For Hon. C. C. Antoine: 

Senators Allain, Baker, Burch, Harper, Stamps, Twitchell—6. 

Representatives Brown of Caddo, Blackstone, Bosley, Durden, Gardere, Gary, Holt 
of East Baton Rouge, Heath, Keeting, Leonard of Ciiddo, Magloire, Moore, Souer, 
Snaer, Simmes, Thomas—16. 

For Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback: 

Senators Blunt, Bryant, Kelso, Sutton, Young—5. 

Representatives Barrington, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Barron, Brown of Ver¬ 
non, Carville, Como, Cole, Davidson. Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Fobb, Hill of Ascen¬ 
sion, Kern, Lewis, Teuton, Stewart, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker— 

‘24. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


429 


For Hon. James T.ewis: 

Senator Wakefield—1. 

Representatives Dayries, Dejoie, Early, Johnson of De Soto, Lane, Martin, Milon, 
Swazie—8. 

For Hon. Taylor Beattie: 

Senators Caj^e, Gla, Landry—J. 

Representatives Brooks, Drury, Gande, Holt of West Baton Ronj^e, Hughes, H. M. 
Johnson, Robert Johnson, Seveigues—8. 

For Hon. William H. Hunt: » 

Representatives Brewster, Dinkgrave, Romero, Shelton—4. 

For Hon. Thomas C. Anderson : 

Speaker Hahn and Representativ'es Desmarais, D’Avy, Gantt—4. 

Hon. A. Dumont received the vote of Representative Gracien—1. 

Hon. John Voist, of Pointe Couple, was voted for by Representative Jones—1. 

Hon:.I. A. Gla was voted for by Representative McMillen—1. 

Hon. Edgar Davis received the vote of Re])resentative Raby—1. 

Senator Dnmont and Representative Bird voted blank. 

The presiding officer announced the following as the vote: 


For Hon. C. C. Antoine... 22 

For Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback. 22 

For Hon. James Lewis. 2 

For Hon. Taylor Beattie... 11 

For Hon. William H. Hunt. 4 

• For Hon. Thomas C. Anderson. 4 

For Hon. A. Dumont. 1 

For Hon. .Judge Yost, of Pointe Coupee.1 

For Hon. J. A. Gla. 1 

For Hon. Edgar Davis. 1 

Blank. 2 


There being no election, the senate withdrew to its chamber, on motion of Senator 
Allain. 

[The house resumed its session, Speaker Hahn in the chair.] 

On motion of Mr, Holt, of East Baton Rouge, the house was adjourned until to-mor¬ 
row at twelve o’clock m. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Chief Clerk House of Eepresentatires. 


TWELFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of Representatives, 

Xew Orleans, January 13, 1877. 

The house met pursuant to adjournraerit. Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of .Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, 
Durden, Davidson, Dayries,Drew, DeLacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, 
Fobb, Gardere, Gande, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East 
Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, .Johnson of De Soto, .Jones, H. M. 
.Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, !Martin, Milon, 
Moore, McMillen, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveigues, Shelton, 
Sirnmes, Stewart, Thonuis, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Walker—64. 

Praj^er by the chaplain. 

On motion of Mr. Milon,tho reading of the journal was dispensed with, and it was 
approved. 

INTRODUCTION OF RILLS. 

Mr. Leonard, of Caddo, by permission, introduced house bill No. 17, joint resolution, 
to ratify and conlirm a contract entered into by the governor with T. C. Cone, relative 
to land claims of the State against the United States. 

Read first time under a suspension of the rules and placed on the calendar. 

Mr. Dickinson, by consent, introduced house bill No. 18, au act annexing a portion 
of the parish of Saint John the Baj>tist to the parish of Saint James ; providing for a 
survey, and defining the duties of certain persons. 

Read first time under a suspension of the rules. 














430 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time and ordered 
to be referred to the committee on parochial affairs, when appointed. 

Mr. Dinkgrave, by consent, introduced house bill No. 19, an act t,o authorize the tax- 
collectors of the several parishes in the State to receive the taxes of lc75, collectible iu 
1876, without penalties until the tirst day of .January, 1876. 

Read first time under a suspension of the rules. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time and or¬ 
dered to be referred to the committee on ways and means, when appointed. 

According to previous notice, Mr. Diury introduced house bill No. 20, an act to pay 
the mileage and per diem of members, salaries of officers and emplo 3 'es, and contin¬ 
gent expenses of the board of returning officers for the year 1876. 

Read the first time. 

Under a suspension of the constitutional rules the bill was read a second time, and 
ordered to be referred to the committee on appropriations, when appointed. 

Mr. Dinkgrave, by permission, introduced house bill No. 21, an act to repeal act No. 
29, entitled “An act to exempt from State and municipal taxations certain property of 
the Saint Patrick’s Hall Association, in the city of New Orleans, and to remit back 
taxes on same,” approved February 26,1874. 

Read first time under a suspension of the rules. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was ])laced on its second reading 
and ordered to be referred to the committee on judiciary, when appointed. 

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTERS. 

The committee on elections and qualifications, through its chairman, submitted the 
following report; which was received and read: 

COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS. 

New Orleans, January 1.3, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives : 

Your committee on elections and qualifications, to whom was referred the following 
resolution of your honorable body, declaring vacant the seats of E. J. Barrett, of 
Rapides, and P. .1. Kennedy, of Jefferson, beg leave to report that the same has had the 
consideration of your committee, and that they report favorably on the same, and 
recommend its adontion. 

GEORGE DRURY, Chairman. 

C. W. KEETING. 

GEORGE GRACIEN. 
NICHOLAS BURTON. 

OSCAR HOLT. 

H. RABY. 

WILLIAM C. GARY. 

Whereas P. J. Kennedy, of the parish of Jefferson, and E. J. Barrett, of the parish 
of Rapides, members of the house, have deserted their seats and joined an illegal and 
revolutionary body, with the purpose of aiding and abetting an attempt to overthrow 
and usurp the government of this Stare ; Therefore be it 

ResoJved, That the seats in this house of the said P. J. Kennedy and the said E. J. 
Barrett be and are hereby' declared vacant. 

Jiesolved, That the governor be and is hereby officially notified of the vacancies thus 
created, and that he is requested to issue his proclamation, in accordance with the law, 
for elections to fill the same. 

Mr. Gracien moved.to adopt the report. 

Mr. Stewart moved to postpone its further consideration until Tuesday next, at 1 p. 
ni., and that it be made the special order of the day. 

Mr. Gracien moved to lay that motion on the table, on which the yeas and nays were 
ordered, resulting as follows : 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Bos¬ 
ley, Brooks, Blackstoue, Cole, Drury, DeLacy, Dickim-on, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, 
D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of As¬ 
cension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of 
DeSoto, Jones, Keeting, Lane, Magloire, Martin, Moore, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, 
Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washiutdon 
Watson—.oO. ’ 

Nays—Barrington, Barron, Brewster, Carville, Como, Durden, Davidson, Dayries 
Drew, Heath, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Kern, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Milon’ 
McMillen, Warmoth, Walker—19. ? » ^ , 

Carried. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


431 


Mr. Stewart move*! to reconsider the vote jnst. taken. 

Mr. .ItJiies moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, on which the yeas and 
nays were onlered, resnltinj; as follows: 

\eas—Speaker Ilahtt, Hinl, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of .Tetferson, Blair, Brew¬ 
ster, Bosley, Ih’ooks, Blackstone, Cole, Drnry, Darden, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dink- 
f^rave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, Foi)l), Gardere , Gande, Gantt, (iary, Gracieu, 
Hill «)f Ascension, linjijhes, Holt of East Baton Kon<;e, Holt of West Baton Rouge, John- 
sofi of De Soto, Jones, Keeting, Lane, Magloin*, Martin, Moore, McMillen, Ronton, 
Romero, Kaby, Souer, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Tolliver, Washington, Watson 
—oO. 

Nays—Ban irgton, Barron, Como, Carvillo, Davidson, Dayries, Deticge, Heath, TI. M. 
Johnson, Robert Johnson. Kern, Leonard of Caddo, I^-ewis, Milon, Swazie, Stewart, 
Thomas, Warnioth, Walker—19. 

Carri«*d. 

The (lU'S'ion recurring being the ado])tion of the report of the committee on elec¬ 
tions and qualifications, the previous (piestion was called for. 

The main question was ordered. 

On the adoption of the report the yeas and nays were called for, with the tbllowing 
result: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of .Tefterson, Blair, Bar¬ 
ron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Cole, Drury, Drew, De I^acy, Dickinson, 
Diukgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early. Fobb, Gardere, Gande, (jantt, (Jary, Gra- 
c en, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, 
.Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Iveeting, Lane, Magloire, Martin, Moore, McMillen, Ronton, 
Romero, liaby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Tolliver, 
Washington. Watson—5‘2. 

Nays—Barrington, Carville, Como, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, Detiege, Heath, H. M. 
Johnson, Robert Johnson, Kern, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Milon, Thomas, Warnioth, 
Walker—10. 

The report was adopted. 

Mr. Drnry moved the udojition of the resolution reported on by the committee on 
elections and qualifications, and called the previous ipiestion, on which call the yeas 
and nays were demanded. 

Mr. Driny withdrew the call for the previous question so as to allow Mr. Warnioth 
to speak on the merits of the resolution, with the understanding that the call for the 
juevious (luestiou would be renewed by Mr. Warnioth. 

(Mr. Leonard of Caddo, in the chair.) 

Mr. Warnioth, having spoken to the subject matter pending, failed to renew the call 
for the juevious (jiiestion. 

Mr. Hahn moved to recommit the resolution to the committee on elections and cjual- 
ifications. 

(The sjieaker resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Souer moveil to lay the motion to recommit on the table. 

On which the yeas and nays were ordered, with the following result: 

Yeas—Burton, Blair, Brooks, Drnry, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early,Gar¬ 
dere, (hintt, Gary, Hughes, Johnson of De Soto, Keeting, Laue, Martin, Moore, Romero, 
Ivaby, Souer, Swazie, Shelton, Stewart, Tolliver, Washington—‘2(). 

Nays—Sjieaker Hahn, Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Brown of Jefferson, Barron, 
Brewster, Bosley, Carville, Como, Cole, Durden, Davidson, De Lacy, Dickinson, Detiege, 
Fobb, Gaude, (iracien. Hill of Ascension, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heatli, H. M. .Johu- 
son, Robert Johnson, Kern, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Milon, McMillen, Ronton, Snaer, 
Seveignes, Simmes, Thomas, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—37. 

Lost. 

Mr. Souer marie the point of order that the motion to recommit could not be consid- 
ercrl unless the resolution was amended. 

The sjreaker rtrled the poirrt of order as not being well taken. 

Mr. M'ar rrioth crrlled the jrrevious question on the motion to recommit. 

The rtrain (juestiorr was order’ed. 

On the adojrtion of the rnotiorr to r'ecommrt the j’eas and nays were demanded, re¬ 
sulting as follows: 

Yeas—Sjreaker Hahn, Barr ington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Brrrtorr, Brown of Jeffer¬ 
son, Blair, Barron, Brewster, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, 
Dickitjson, Detiege, Fobb, Hill of Ascension, Heath, Jones, H. M. Johnsorr, Robert 
.Johtrson, Kern, Leonard of Cadtjo, Lewis, Milon, McMillen, Roniero, Ralry, Swazie, 
Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Stewart, Thomas, Watsorr, Warmoth, M alker—39. 

Nays—Bosley, Cole, Drury, Durden, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, Early, 
Gardere, Gaurle, Gantt, tJary, Gracien, Hughes, Holt ot East Baton Roirge, Holt ol 
West Baton Rouge, .Johnson of De Soto, Keeting, Lane, Magloire, Martin, Moore, Roir- 
ton, Srurer, Simmes. Washington—27. 

Carried. 


432 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


On motion of Mr. vSouer, a committee of three members were appointed to inform the 
senate that the house was ready to meet that body in joint session for the piirj)ose of 
going into an election for a United States Senator for the vacant unexpired term. 

The chair appointed Messrs. Snaer, Robert Johnson, and Early as said committee. 

The committee returned with the information that the senate would be ready to 
meet the house in joint session in a few minutes. 

JOINT SESSION. 

The sergeant-at-arms announced the honorable senate of the State of Louisiana. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair and directed the sec¬ 
retary to call the roll of the senate in joint session. 

The following senators answered to their names : 

Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, 
Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—15. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk to call the roll 
of the house, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of 
Jefferson, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, 
Durden, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, 
Dejoie, Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, 
Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, 
Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, 
Magloire, Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Ronton, Raby, Souer, Snaer, Seveignes, 
Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walk¬ 
er—65. 

The election of a United States Senator for the nnexpired term being in order, the 
following vote was taken : 

For Hon. C. C. Antoine : 

Senators Allain, Baker, Burch, Harper, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell—7. 

Representatives Brown of Caddo, Bosley, Blackstone, Durden, Gardere, Holt of East 
Baton Rouge, Heath, Keeting, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Moore, Thomas—12. 

For Hon. P. B. S. Pinchback : 

Senators Blunt, Young—2. 

Speaker Hahn, and representatives Barrington, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Carville, 
Como, Cole, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Hill of Ascension, Kern, Lewis, 
Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Washington, Watson, Walker—20. 

For Hon. James Lewis : 

Senator Wakefield—1. 

Representatives Blair, Brooks, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Gary, Johnson of De Soto, 
Jones, Martin, Milon—10. 

For Hon. Taylor Beattie: 

Senators Cage, Gla—2. 

Representatives Bird, Barron, Drury, Fobb, Gaude, Hughes, H. M. Johnson, Rou- 
ton—8. 

For Hon. William H. Hunt: 

Representatives Brewster, Dinkgrave, Romero—3. 

For Hon. Thomas C, Anderson : 

Representatives Desmarais, D’Avy, Gantt, Lane—4, 

For Hon. H. C. Warmoth : 

Representatives Snaer, Swazie, Seveignes—3. 

For Hon. Wesley Dickson : 

Senator Bryant—1. 

For Hon. Milton Jones: Senator Dumont—1. 

For Hon. A. Dumont: 

Representative Gracien—1. '' 

For Hon. R. J. Walker, of Tensas: 

Representatives Warmoth—1. 

For Hon. T. A. Cage ; 

Representative Robert Johnson—1. 

For Hon. Jacques A. Gla: 

Representative McMillen—1. 

For Hon. L. G. Barron : 

Representative Raby—1. 

For Hon. David Young: 

Representative Tolliver—1. 

For Hon. P. J. Kennedy : 

Representative Souer—1. 

Senator Kelso voted blank—1. 

There being no election, the senate withdrew to its chamber, on motion of Senator 
Cage. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


433 


The house resumed its session, Speaker Hahn in tlie cdiair. 

Oil motion of Mr. Tolliver, the house was adjourned until Monday next, fifteenth in¬ 
stant, at U M. 

ROLERT F. GLTCHARD, 
Clerk of Home of Represeotalives. 

Okfick of Ci.erk Hoi'se of Rkphesf.ntatives, Session of 11^77. 

iVeir Orleans, La., January l&th, 1877. 

I, Robert F. Guichard, clerk of the house of representatives, hereby certify that the 
forejjjoiiif; thirteen printed pages contain a full and correct account of the proceedings 
of the house of reprecentatives for the week ending January 13th, 1877. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Clerk House of Representatives. 

Office of Secretary of State, 

Ne\o Orleans, January 18//<, 1877. 

I, Emile Honore, secretary of state, hereby certify that the foregoing is the true and 
proper signature of Robert F. Guichard, clerk of the house of representatives of the 
State of Louisiana. 

[SEAL.] EMILE HONORE, 

Secretary of State. 


OTUER WITNESSES. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I say to tbe chairman now tliat we liave no 
other witness that we can examine this afternoon. We have oik' or two 
others that we wish to examine; and we want also the other witnesses 
that we have examined in the event that was indicated this morning, 
if there is testimony brought out by my brother that will call for their 
further examination. 

The Chairman. Will yon have any more witnesses ? 

Mr. ^Ierrick. I think that there probably will be no other witnesses 
on onr side here, but I am not certain. It is a matter that I have tried 
very hard to reduce to a definite certainty, but I have been unable to 
do it. I shall know to-night. 

The Chairman (to Senator Kellogg). Ilave you exhausted all your 
witnesses that yon hav’e subpreiimd f 

. Senator Kellogg. No, sir; there are one or two remaining. II. B. 
Johnson. 

The Chairman. I find there is no subprena forlL B. Johnson. Your 
number is full without him. 

Senator Kellogg, if the number is full without him, 1 shall look at 
it to-night. 

The Chairman. Y"ou observ^e that there are some 15 witnesses here 
upon a pei diem which amounts to something for the government; and 
1 think as soon as you can get through—if you can get through by to¬ 
morrow morning and discharge your witnesses—it is due to the com¬ 
mittee that- you do so, as well as to this great nation, which has no 
money to sjiare. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I repeat now that we should be enabled to re¬ 
spond to your suggestion and discharge onr witnesses but for the con¬ 
tingency that witnesses may be called on the other side; and we cannot 
ilischarge them until we know how that fact is going to be. The mo¬ 
ment we learn that with authoritativeness, so that we know it is all 
right, we shall be able to state to you about our own witnesses, and let 
you discliarge them if there is no further testimony to be given on the 
other side. 

The Chairman. I suppose you will be able to determine to-morrow ? 

28 s K 


434 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir; I iiiiderstaiid that aiiytidii^ at all I shall 
have will be here to-iiiaht* 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, I have received a dispatch from 
New Orleans that Mr. Magloire, a Frenchman, or of French extraction, 
the other member of tlie legislature that Mr. Murray mentioned, has 
come 200 miles and lias reached that city this morning, fie will come on 
here if he can be heaid, or he will send a sworn statement, fie proffers 
to do either. 

The Chairman, fs he one of your subpcenaed witnesses. 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; i have exhausted mine. He came from 
Eed River. He saw by the papers that Mr. i^furray had mentioned him. 

The Chairman. Do you want.to call him now i 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; but if he were to come on here at his own 
expense would the committee hear him ? 

The Chairman. That is a matter that the committee will have to con¬ 
sider. We are approaching the conclusion of the session of tbe Senate. 
What time we shall close it we do not know. 

Senator Kellogg, f am not insisting upon it. I meant if the session 
were continuing. 

The Chairman. You will have an opportunity to examine that wit¬ 
ness in New Orleans. 

Senator Kellogg. Very w-ell. 

On motion, the committee adjourned till to-morrow at ten o’clock a. m. 

Washington, Friday, June 13,1879. 

Present, the members of the committee, and also the respective 
parties with their counsel. 

ADMISSION OF LFGISLATfVE JOURNALS. 

Tbe Chairman. Gentlemen, has either of you any witnesses present ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. We have, 1 believe, one or two. We want to 
put in evidence, first, tbe official journal of tbe legislature that was pre¬ 
sented .^esterday by a witness. 

The Chairman. Do you limit that to tbe few first w'eeksf 

Mr. Shellabarger. 1 understand it is tbe journal for tbe entire 
session. 

Tbe Chairman. Is there any necessity for that ? It will have to be 
printed, I suppose, if it goes in evidence. 

Senator Kellogg, f suggest that it is not necessary to print it. 

The Chairman. Then what good w ill it do to have it in evidence ? 

Senator Kellogg. Tt is tbe official journal of tbe State. 

The Chairman. Rut it w ill never be read unless it is printed, and con¬ 
sequently it will do no good to offer it in evidence. 

Senator Kellogg. We now' offer this much of the official journal as 
published in tbe New Orleans Reiiublican, wbicb, under tbe law of tbe 
State, is tbe official journal of tbe State, and it is admissible in evidence 
in all courts. 

Tbe Chairman, f have no objection to anything going in evidence 
that is pertinent to this iminiry, but f cannot cJonceive that tbe journals 
of the legislature for three montbs can have any possible connection with 
the election of Governor Kellogg as Senator. I understood you to offer 
yesterday the jmirnal up to the time of bis election. That f conceive 
to be pertinent to the inquiry. 

Ml. Merrick. Tliat w^as admitted. 

The Chairman. That was admitted, but f do not see now' that the 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. . 435 

siil)«;rqiu*iit proceedings ought to be accepted, because to do so would 
incur that much expense in printing. 

Senator Hoar. You do not then understand the alleged fact that the 
legislature did or did not transact other business to be important to this 
iiKiuiry. 

The Chairman. 1 do not see that it is material to this inquiry at all. 
If the legislature was competent to elect and did elect Governor Kellogg, 
that will be shown by the i)roceedings of the two first weeks. 

Senator Hoar. I supimsed that one party in the case did dwell upon 
the extent to which the legislature did transact business as an impor¬ 
tant fact in the case. 

Senator Cameron. The chairman will remember perhaps that a few 
days ago Mr. Merrick asked the witness Murray, in substance, if the 
Packard legislature did not transact business, and the witness said they 
passed one act. AVhen he was inquired what that act was, he said it 
was to elect Mr. Kellogg. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 think the Senator is mistaken. 

Senator Cameron. O, no, 1 am not mistaken about that. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 asked Murray not whether they did any business or 
not, but 1 asked Murray whether there was an act done by that legisla¬ 
ture now of vital force and operation. 

Senator Cameron. O, well, I suppose that counsel will not insist that 
Murray was a proper witness to prove that fact. 

Mr. Merrick. 4'hat was my question. I did not ask him if they did 
any other business, lor 1 knew that they had attempted to do other 
business. 

Senator Cameron. That involves the question whether they passed 
any act or not. 

Mr. Merrick. But that is not the question, Mr. Cameron, that you 
said I asked. 

Senator Cameron. Your question involved that. 

iMr. Merrick. I did not ask him if they did other business. 

Senator Caajeron. The ettect of your question implied whether they 
had done any other business. 

Mr. Merrick. I shall object to that record, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ingalls. To the entire record if 

Mr. Merrick. Xo, sir. The journal of tlie first two weeks was ad¬ 
mitted yestenlay. 

Senator Ingalls. I was going to say that the testimony so far appears 
to have been directed to two points: in the first place, to establish the 
want of a quorum, and in the second place to establish the fact of brib¬ 
ery. It appears to me therefore that under the testimony so far oftered 
the only portion of those Journals that could have any bearings upon 
this case would be the two weeks closing with the election of ]\[r. Kellogg. 
I should be opi)osed to in’intiiig the entire official record of that legisla¬ 
ture, but at the same time I do not think the evidence would be acces¬ 
sible to the committee unless such i)ortions as were ottered in evidence 
were printed. 

.Mr. ISilELLARARGER. Perhaps, Mr. Chaiiinan, I can obviate the diffi¬ 
culty, because I appreciate it, of the wan(of iiiii)ortance in printing the 
entire record of the whole lime; and 1 therefore oiler in evidence what 
we shall want to call attention to, to wit, that part of the record of the 
house of lepresentatives that shows the appointtneiit of the committee 
to investigate the matter of briheiy and then the proceedings of the 
2dd day of danuary, including in th(»se proceedings the rep«>rt of the 
committee ow that subject. 1 oiler those parts of the record in evidence 


436 


•SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


that I now have here, and I will call Mr. Guichard to prove tliat what 
I hold in my hand is the report of that committee as originally made. 

Mr. Merrick. I shall object to the evidence if it is offered, The gen¬ 
tleman says now that at the same time he proposes to establish that that 
is the paper. It will be more regular for me to make my objection after 
it is established, but as it is offered now, it is proper to indicate that I 
shall object to that as competent evidence in the case. 

{Senator Ingalls. On what ground ? 

Mr. Merrick. I offered to prove that Mr. Kellogg’s election was ob¬ 
tained by the bribery of the members of the legislature, and the proof 
goes pretty much to the extent, if any were, that all of them were bribed, 
or nearly all, and I think all. The investigation now referred to was 
an investigation had before the men who were bribed, and they them¬ 
selves when charged with this offense were the men who investigated 
the subject and made the report. 

Senator Ingalls. Is not that a matter of evidence rather than a ques¬ 
tion of law f 

Mr. Merrick. I am speaking of evidence now. 

Senator Ingalls. The question of the admissibility of this record is 
a question of law rather than of evidence. 

Mr. Merrick. It is a question of law upon evidence. In the second 
place, the report of that committee and the action of that legislature can 
have no effect whatever upon the action of this committee and the Sen¬ 
ate of the United States. If it is offered as conclu.sive upon the ques¬ 
tion—and I suppose that is the purpose for which it is offered—I pre¬ 
sume every Senator will acquiesce that it is not conclusive. I should 
like to have a full committee to consider the question. 

The Chairman. I suggest, Mr. Shellabarger, that you prove tha 
record by the witness. You propose to leave the question of its ad¬ 
missibility to be considered hereafter after we are through with these 
witnesses. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I will accede of course to that or any other sug¬ 
gestion of the committee. But I wish to state now here, Mr. Chairman, 
in reply to the objection made by Mr. Merrick, the ground upon which 
we claim that this evidence is competent. In the first place his point 
is that this testimony is not competent because the body whose action 
we propose to introduce is the very body which is charged with corrup¬ 
tion and charged to have participated- 

The Chairman. Permit me to interrupt you. We think that report 
is competent to come in as persuasive. Of course it is not conclusive. 
It is persuasive of the fact. 

Mr. Shellabarger. My permission is that under the authorities of 
the Senate it is not only persuasive, but it is priina facie evidence of the 
truth of the matters therein set forth. 

The Chairman. We admit it for what it is worth. 

Senator Kernan. I would hear you, Mr. Shellabarger, on one matter. 
I think it is competent to admit it, but I do not know whether it is prima 
facie or not. My impression is thatdt is not; certainly it is not conclu¬ 
sive. It does not prevent the Senate investigating the matter, but it is 
admissible as a fact for such weight as under the circumstances it should 
have. 

Senator IIoAR. The extent of it can be considered on final argument. 

Mr. Merrick. Like some other evidence that is already in. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


437 


FURTriEll i:XAMINATTOX OF R. F. GUICnARD. 

Robert F. Gutchard, a witness called bv tbe sittinsr member, re¬ 
called. . o . 


Ry Mr. Siiellabarger : 

Question. State wlmther that is the report of the legislative com¬ 
mittee. (Document handed to witness.)—Answer, (xifter examining.) 
That is the report of the committee. 

Mr. Siiellabarger. 1 offer that in evidence. (To the witness.) Tliat 
is tile original report, signed by the members ?—A. The original report 
which was submitted to tlie liouse and adopted by the house. 

Mr. Siiellabarger. Now, Mr. Chairman, in connection with that, I 
ask tlie committee to ])ut in record that part of the journal of the house 
which embraces the 15th of January, which is not long, and which in¬ 
cludes the appointment of this committee. Tliat is why I otter that. 

Senator Cameron. Does it include the resolution for the at>poiutment 
of the committee ottered by Mr. McMillen ? 

Mr. Siiellabarger. 1 think so. If not, I will otter a day’s journal 
to cover that. 

P>y Senator Bailey : 

Q. Was that committee atipointed by the house or senate, or was it a 
joint committee?—A. It was a committee of tlie house, atipointed by 
the speaker of tlie house under a resolution of the house. 

.JOURNALS received IN EVIDENCE. 

Mr. Siiellabarger. I also offer in evidence the twenty-tirst day’s 
proceedings, which was the l?4th day of January, 18^7. That embraces 
the report itself. The other was the appointment of the committee. 
This is the report of the committee, and it shows the same thing as the 
original paper that I have just ottered. 

.Air. ]\Ierrick. When was the committee appointed ? 

]Mr. Siiellabarger. It was appointed on the loth, 1 think. 

•Mr. Merrick. What day do you otter next. 

Mr. Siiellabarger. The 24th. 

The extracts from the house journals of the legislature received in 
evidence are as follows: 

THIRTEENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of RErRESEXTATiVES, 

Xciv Orleans, January 15, 1677. 

The house met luirsnant to adjournment, Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Brown of .Jefferson, 
Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, 
Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Gar- 
dere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton 
Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, 
Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milon, 
Moore, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Sw^azie, Suaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Stewart, 
Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—(V2. 

On motion of Mr. Detiege, the reading of the journal was dispensed with, and after 
it was corrected so as to state that Mr. Barron voted for Mr. Raby insteail of Mr. Tay¬ 
lor Beattie as United States Senator for the vacant unexpired term, it’ was approved. 

Mr. Souer rose to a qm tion of privilege. 


438 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, AND RESOLUTIONS. 

Mr. Moore, by consent, offered the following resolution; which was read and referred 
to the committee on elections and qualiticaiions: 

Whereas Albert Estopinal, of the parish of Saint Bernard, a member of this house, has 
deserted his seat, and joined an illegal and revolutionary body, with the purpose of 
aiding and abetting an attempt to overthrow and usurp the government of the State: 
Therefore be it 

Resolved, That the seat in this house of the said Albert Estopinal be and it is hereby 
declared vacant. 

Resolved, That the governor be and is hereby officially notified of the vacancy thus 
created, and that he is requested to issue his proclamation in accordance with law for 
an election to fill the same. 

Mr. Desmarais presented a petition from the police jury of the parish of Saint Lan¬ 
dry, which was ordered to be referred to the committee on parochial affairs when ap¬ 
pointed. 

The speaker laid before the house the petition of P. P. Carroll, contesting the seat 
of Albert Estopinal as a representative of the parish of Saint Bernard, which was re¬ 
ferred to committee on elections and qualifications. 

NOTICES OF BILLS. 

Mr. Brooks gave notice that he would, at some future time, introduce a bill to 
amend and re-enact sections 3, 5, 6, and 13 of an act to incorporate the town of Frank¬ 
lin, parish of Saint Mary’s, fix its boundaries, provide for the government of the same, 
and to repeal all laws heretofore passed, approved April 15, 1S76. 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS. 

Mr. Leonard, of Caddo, called up house bill No. 17, joint resolution to ratify and 
confirm a contract entered into by the governor with T. C. Cone relative to land 
claims of the State against the United States. 

Read a second time and ordered to be referred to the committee on judiciary when 
appointed. 

According to previous notice, Mr. Desmarais introduced house bill No. 2‘2, an act rela¬ 
tive to drawing jurors in and for the parish of Saint Landry, fixing the number of 
jurors to be drawn, and limiting their time of service. 

Read the first time. 

The constitutional-rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time, and 
ordered to be referred to the committee on judiciary when appointed. 

By unanimous consent, Mr. McMillen offered the following resolution ; which was read, 
and adopted under a suspension of the rules: 

Whereas it has been charged in a speech delivered before a Democratic caucus by 
Mr. P. B. S. Pinchback that each member of the general assembly received the sum of 
$250 for his vote in favor of W. P. Kellogg as United States Senator at the election 
held on the 10th instant, which sum was paid to each member by the Hon. L. J. Souer, 
a member of this house from the parish of Avoyelles : Therefore, be it 

Resolved, That a select committee of five be appointed by the speaker to inquire into 
the correctness of this statement, and that the said committee be, and is hereby, em¬ 
powered to send for persons and jiapers, administer oaths, and take the testimony of 
witnesses. 

The speaker informed the house that Mr. Barton, of Carroll, was at home indisposed, 
but would be present if it was necessary in order to make a quorum. 

The committee on elections and qualifications, through its chairman, submitted the 
following report; which was received and read: 

Committee on Elections and Qualifications, 

Xeiv Orleans, January 13, 1877. 

To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives : 

Your committee on elections and qualifications have the honor to report that they 
had the following contests for seats in this house under consideration : 

N. Lastrappes vs. M. Y. Singleton, of Saint Landry, and S. W. Blasdel vs. Jules Brady, 
of Saint Tammany, and would report that N. Lastrappes, of Saint Landry, and S. W.' 
Bla^del, of Saint Tammany, be seated as members of this house, subjectjo contest. 

GEORGE DRURY, 

Chairman. 

C. W. KEETING. 
GEORGE GRACIEN. 

OSCAR HOLT. 
NICHOLAS BURTON. 

H. RABY. 

WILLIAM C. GRAY. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


439 


Oil motion of Mr. Dojoie, a conimitteeof three members were appointeil to inform the 
eeiiate that the house was reailj' to meet tliat body in joint se.ssion for the jmrpose of 
goiiiiij into an election for a United States Senator for the vacant unexpired term. 

The chair appointed Messrs. Dejoie, Holt of East Baton Ronj^e, and Cole as said 
committee. 

The coniinittee returned with the information that the senate would be ready to 
meet the house in joint session in a few miuutes. 

JOINT .session. 

The sere;eant-at armb announced the honorable senate of the State of Louisiana. 

The pre.sident of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair, and directed the sec¬ 
retary to call the roll of the senate in joint session. 

The following senators answered to their names : 

Me.ssrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, Kelso, Lan¬ 
dry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Waketield, Young—16. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk to call the roll 
of the house, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Brown of .Jefferson, 
Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Dur¬ 
den, Davidson, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, De¬ 
joie, Early, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes. Holt of 
Phist Baton Rouge, Holt of West Biton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. 
M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keetiug, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Mar¬ 
tin, Milon, Moore, McMilleu, Ronton, Romero, Raby,Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, 
Shelton, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Wainnoth, Walker—64. 

Senator Blunt, rising to a (piestion of privilege, withdrew his second to the nomina¬ 
tion of 1\ B. S. Pinchliack as a candidate for the position of United States Senator for 
the vacant unexpired term. 

Senators Dumont, Young, Bryant, and Representativ'e .Johnson of De Soto rose to 
questions of privilege. 

Senator Young withdrew his nomination of P. B. S. Pinchback for United States 
Senator for the vacant unexpired term. 

The election of United States Senator for the unexpired term being iu order, the 
following vote was taken : 

f’or Hon. C. C. Antoine: 

Senators Allain, Baker, Bryant. Burch, Harper, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell—8. 

Representatives Bird, Brown of Caddo, Barron, Bo.'sley, Cole, Durden, Dejoie, Gardere, 
Graeien, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heath, Keetiug, Lane, I..eonardof Caddo, Magloire, 
Moore, 1’homas, Walker—18. 

For Hon. .James Lewis: 

Senators Blunt, Kelso, Waketield, Young—4. 

Re))resentatives Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Brooks, Carville, Drew, De Lacy, Detiege, 
Early, Gary, Hill of Ascension, Johnson of De Soto, .Jones, Robert Johnson, Martin, 
Milon, Raby, Swazie, Tolliver, Washington, Watson—iiO. 

For Hon. Taylor Beattie : 

Senators Cage, Gla, Landry—J. 

Representatives Gaude, Hahn, Drury, Hughes, Holt of West Baton Rouge, H. M. 
.Johnson—6. 

For Hon. Thomas C. Anderson : 

Representatives Desmarais, D’Avy, and Gantt—3. 

For Hon. William H. Hunt: 

Representatives Dinkgrave, Romero, and Shelton—3. 

For Hon. Henry Clay Warmoth : 

Itepresentatives Lewis, Snaer, and Seveignes—3. 

For Hon. M. H. Twitchell: 

Repre.sentatives Brewster and Souer—2. 

For Hon. Pierre Landry : 

Rejiresentatives Como and Dickinson 2. 

Hon. I*. B. S. Pinchback was voted for by— 

Representative Davidson—1. 

Repre.sentative McMilleu voted for— 

Hon. J. A. (>la—1. 

Hon. R. J. Waker, of Tensas, received the vote of— 

Rejiresentative Warmoth—1. 

Itepresentati ve Itouton voted for— 

Hon. Etlingham Lawrance—1. 

Representativ’e Stewart cast his vote in favor of— 

Hon. David Young—1. 


440 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Representative Barrington voted blank—1. 

Senator Dumont voted for— 

Hon. George Gracien—1. 

Seventy-nine votes cast. 

Necessary to a choice—40. 

There being no election, the senate withdrew to its chamber, on motion of Senator 
Allain. 

The House resumed its session, Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

Mr. Wanuoth moved an adjournment until 11 a. m. to-morrow. 

‘Lost. 

On motion of Mr. Drury, a call of the house was ordered, with .the following result r 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Brown of Jefterson, 
Blair, Barron, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, 
Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dnikgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Gar- 
dere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton 
Rouge, H(dt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, H. M. Johnson, 
Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloiie, Milon, Moore, Mc- 
Millen, Ronton, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Shelton, Stewart, Thomas, Tol¬ 
liver, Washington, Watson, Wanuoth, Walker—61. 

Mr. Drury called up the report of the coumiittee on elections and qualifications. 

The rei)ort was read and adopted under a suspension of the rules. 

On motion of Mr. Drury, Messrs. N. Lastrappes and S. W. Blasdel were sworn in as 
representatives of the parishes of Saint Landry and Saint Tammany, respectively. 

The speaker appointed the following members as the special committee to whom the 
resolutions referring to the charges made against Hon. L. J. Souer by P. B. S. Pinch- 
back was referred : Messrs. Lane, Dinkgrave, Snaer, Moore, Magloire. 

On motion of Mr. D’Avy, the house was adjourned until to-morrow at 12 o’clock m.. 

ROBERT F. GLTCHARD, 

Clerk. 


TWENTY-FIRST DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 

House of Representatives, 

New Orleans, January 24, 1877. 

The house met pursuant to adjournment, and was called to order by the clerk, who 
selected Mr. Keeting to preside during the absence of the speaker. 

The roll was called, and the following members responded to their names: 

Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Bosley,. 
Blasdel, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Davidson, Dayries, 
Drew, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, Devezin, Early, 
Elliott, Fobb, Gardere, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East 
Baton Roujie, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Joues, H. M. 
Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Kern, Lastrappes, Lane, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, 
Milon, Moore, Routon, Raby, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, Simmes, Thomas, Tolli¬ 
ver, Washington, J. C. Watson, Watson, Walker—63. 

Prayer by the chaplain. 

On motion of Mr. Brown, of Jefferson, the reading of the journal of the 20th day’s- 
proceedings was dispensed with, and it was approved. 

Mr. Geoige E. Paris was sworn in as representative of the fourth representative dis¬ 
trict, parish of Orleans. 


PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, AND RESOLUTIONS. 

Mr. Dinkgrave offered the following concurrent resolution ; which was read and 
adopted under a suspension of the rules : 

Whei eas the Constitution of the United States provides that’each State shall ap¬ 
point, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal 
to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be enti¬ 
tled in the Congress, and provides that the electors shall meet in their respective 
States and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, and they shall make dis¬ 
tinctive lists of all persons voted for as President and Vice President," and of the num¬ 
ber of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the 
seat of government of the United States, addressed to the president of the Senate, 
who shall open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, and the votes shall then be counted, and that the person having the 
greatest number of votes for President shall be President, if such number be a major¬ 
ity of the whole number of electors appointed ; 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


441 


Resolved, That these provisions fix the intent of the Constitution that the several 
States shall deterniine, each for itself, the inode of appointing the electors, and of es¬ 
tablishing are ajipointed; and that the v^ote of the'electors thus appointed and 
lawfully certified shall be receiv'ed and counted as the v'ote of the State, and that it is 
the right and duty of the President of the Senate to open, count, and aunouuce the 
votes. 

Resolved, That the declaration of the result of the election by the President of the 
Senate, as deieiniined by a vote of the majority of the electors on the fitli of Decem¬ 
ber hist, is binding upon all, and that in making such declaration, and in upholding 
the Constitution and laws, the national authorities are entitled to the support of all 
patriotic citizens. 

Resolved, That the general assembly of Louisiana, having great confidence in the 
ability and patriotism of tha distinguished Republicans who reported and are support¬ 
ing the bill, regret, nevertheless, that a measure has been introduced into the Congress 
of the United States to change the constitutional mode for electing a President of the 
United States, aud that the Senators and members of the House of Representatives be, 
and they are hereby, requested to oppose the passage of said bill, which, in the opinion 
ot the general assembly of J.ouisiana, is unconstitutional aud contrary to long usage. 

Mr. Johnson, of De Soto, ottered the following resolution ; which lies over under the 
rules: 

Resolved, That the chairman of the committee on contingent expenses of the house 
be, aud he is hereby, instructed to issue vouchers to the additional sergeaut-at-arms 
that has been appointed by the sergeant-at-arms and the speaker of the house, the 
same to be paid out of the contingent fund of the house; be it further 

Resolved, That the clerk of the house be instructed to furnish the chairman of the 
committee on contingent expenses with a co])y of these resolutions. 

Mr. Lane, chairman of the special committee appointed to investigate charges pub¬ 
licly made that members of the house had been bribed to vote for lion. William Pitt 
Kellogg as United States Senator for the full term, submitted the following report; 
which was read and adopted under a suspension of the rules: 

New Oui.EAXS, January 2r{, 1877. 

To the honorable siieaker and members of the house of representatives : 

The undersigned members of the special committee appointed under the following 
resolution : 

“ Whereas it has been charged in a speech delivered before a Democratic caucus, by 
Mr. P. B. S. Pinchback, that each member of the general assembly received the sum of 
$250 for his vote in favor of W. P. Kellogg as United States Senator at the election 
held on the 10th instant, which sum was paid to each member by the Hon. L. J. Souer, 
a member of this house from the xiarish of Avoyelles: Therefore, be it 

“ Resolved, That a select committee of five be appointed by the speaker to inquire 
into the correctness of this statement, and that the said committee be, and is hereby, 
empowered to send for persons and papers, administer oaths, aud take the testimony 
ot witnesses,” 

Respectfully report that they have examined, under oath, every member of the 
house of representatives who recognized and resiionded to their subpmnas. Every 
member so examined—62 in number—testified distinctly and unequivocally that he 
had not received the sum of $250 or any other sum from Hon. L. .1. Souer for his vote 
in favor of Hon.William P. Kellogg for the United States Senate; and each and every wit¬ 
ness swore that he had no knowledge of any ofi'er of money or patronage on the part 
of L. J. Souer, or any one else, to bribe or induce by unlawful or corrupt means the vote 
of any member for W. P. Kellogg as United States Senator. 

J*. B. S. Pinchback refused to appear before the committee. 

The testimony taken, which has been reduced to writing, and is at the disposal of the 
house, disclosed that some efforts had been made by improjier means to intluence the 
action of members in their vote for United States Senator, but that these efforts were 
not made by Hon. L. J. Souer, aud were not made in the intere.st of Hon. W. P. Kel¬ 
logg. Your committee therefore report that the statement made by P. B. S. Pinchback 
referre<l to in the foregoing resolution was erroneous in every particular. 

W. G. LANE, Chairman. 

W. H. DINKGRAVE. 

W. J. MOORE. 

L. A. SNAER. 

PIERRE MAGLOIRE. 

We have also submittctl the evidence taken by sai<l committee, which was ordered 
to be printed and referred to the committee on judiciary, when ap[)»)inted. 


442 


ISPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


noticp:s of bills. 

Notices were given that at some future time the following-entitled bills would be 
introduced; 

Ry Mr. Watson, of Madison: 

An act relative to sureties on official bonds. 

A bill entitled an act relative to deputy sheriffs and their appointments. 

Ry Mr. Jones: 

An act abolishing the Louisiana Lottery Company. 

Ry Mr. Ronton: 

A bill to reduce the salary of the parish judges for the several parishes of this State, 
the parish of Orleans excepted, to ^1,000 per annum. 

On motion of Mr. D’Avy, a committee of three members were appointed to inform 
the senate that the house was ready to meet that body in joint session for the pur])ose 
of going into an election for a United States Senator for the vacant unexpired term. 

The chair appointed Messrs. D’Avy, Detiege, and Gardere as said committee. 

The committee returned with the information that the senate would be ready to 
meet the house in joint session in a few minutes. 

JOINT SESSION. 

The sergeant-at-arms announced the honorable senate of the State of Louisiana. 

The president of the senate, Hon. C. C. Antoine, took the chair, and directed the 
secretaiy to call the roll of the senate in joint session. 

The following senators answered to their names: 

Messrs. Allain, Raker, Rlunt, Rryaut, Rurch, Gla, Harper, KeLso, Landry, Stamps, Sut¬ 
ton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—14. 

The siieaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk to call the roll of 
the house, and the folowing members answered to their names: 

Messrs. Rairiugton, Rird, Riown of Caddo, Rurtou, Rrown of Jefferson, Rrewster, 
Rlair, Rosley, Rlasdel, Rrooks, Rlackstoue, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Durden, Day- 
ries, Davidson, Drew, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Dejoie, 
Devezin, Early, Elliot, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracieu, Hill of Ascension 
Hughes, Holt of East Raton Rouge, Holt of West Raton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De 
Soto, Jones, H.M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Keetiug, Kern, Lane, Lastrappes, Lewis, 
Magloire, Martin, Milou, Moore, McMillen, Paris, Routon, Raby, Sw^azie, Suaer, 
Seveigues, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Tolliver, Thomas, Washington, Watson, J. C. 
Watson, Warmoth, Walker—69. 

The joint committee on rules to govern the joint session reported progress. 

Senator Rurch, by unanimous consent, submitted the following motion; which was 
read and adopted: 

I move that a joint committee, to consist of two members of the senate and three 
members of the house, be appointed by their respective presiding officers, for the pur¬ 
pose of preparing and placing before this joint session an expression of the general 
assembly of the State of Louisiana relative to the bill now pending before Congress 
relative to counting and determining the vote for President and Vice-President cast at 
the election held November 7, 1876. 

Senators Rurch and Raker, on the part of the senate, and Representatives Dinkgrave, 
Rlackstone, and Walker on the part of the house, were appointed as said joint com¬ 
mittee. 

Senator Young moved to proceed to vote for United States Senator for the unexpired 
term. 

Carried. 

The following vote was taken : 

For Hon. C. C. Antoine: 

Senators Allain, Raker, Rryant, Rurch, Gla, Harper, Landry, Stamps—8. 

Representatives Rrown of Caddo, Rosley, Rlasdel, Drury, Durden, Dejoie, Gardere, 
Hughes, Heath, Keeting, Magloire, Moore, Shelton, Thomas, Walker, J. C. Watson 
—16. 

For Hon. James Lewis : 

Senators Rlunt, Sutton, Wakefield, Young—4. 

Representatives Rird, Rlair, Rrooks, Drew, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, Devezan, 
Early, Elliot, Gary, Hill of Ascension, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Kern, Lewis, Las - 
trappes, Martin, Milon, McMillen, Paris, Raby, Singleton, Swazie, Tolliver, Wash¬ 
ington—25. 

For Hon. J. R. West: 

Senator Twitchell—1. 

Representatives Rrewster, Rlackstone, Cole, Fobb, H. M. .Johnson—5. 

For Hon. T. Morris Chester : 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


443 


Reprosentiitives I’.nrton, Brown of Jeft'ersou—2. 

For Hon. 11. C. Warmoth : 

Representatives Dayries, (Linde, Como, Stewart—4. 

For Hon. (ieor<;e (tracien : 

Senator Dninont—1. 

P’or Hon. J. M. Davidson : 

Representative Carville —1. 

For Hon. P. B. S. Pincbba 
Representative Davidson— 1. 

For Hon. James C. Anderson: 

Representative (iantt—1. 

For Colonel Alex. Smith, of East Baton Ron<;e : 

Representative Holt, of East Baton Rou'^e—1. 

For General W. P. Dickey : 

Representative Holt, ot VVest Ihiton Roime—1. 

For Hon. William H. Hunt: 

Representative Dickinson—1. 

For Hon. E^ftingham Lawrence: 

Itepresentative Ronton—1. 

E''or Hon. Pierre Landry: 

Itepresentative Simmes—1. 

E'or Hon. Jnles Seveignes: 

Representative Warmoth—1. 

Representatives Dinkgrave, Robert Johns )ii, au I Watson of Madison voted blank—4 
Vov Hon. R. J. Walker, of Tensas: 

Representative Seveignes—1. 

Total number of votes cast—SO. 

Necessary to a choice, 41. 

No election. 

Representative D’Avy nioveil to jiroceed to another ballot. 

Senator Twitchell moved that the senate withdraw to its chamber. 

Carried. 

1 he house resumed its session, Mr. Keeting, speaker pro tern., in the chair. 

On motion of Mr. Drury, the house was adjourned until to-morrow at twelve 
o’clock m. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Chief Clerk Hoii.se of Jlepi’estuialives. 


LIST OF STATE SENATORS. 

Mr. Siie:llabarge:r. Now, 1 otter tlie record of the njiines of the 
members composing the senate on the day of the joint convention for 
the election of Senator. 

The Chairman. Does not the record of the legislature for the first 
two weeks already disclose the names f 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. I think it discloses the names. 

Senator Kicllogg. But, Mr. Chairman, this is the list which by the 
law was re(iiiired to be furnished to the clerk of the house of the mem¬ 
bers returned to his office by the leturning-boaid as elected and enti¬ 
tled to organize the body. 

iSIr. Mehirick. Is that the same list which was offered the other day ? 

Senator Kellogg. It is not the same one. It is the same so far as 
the names are concerned, but this is more formal, and was the document 
used in the case originally, upon which I was originally admitted. 

Mr. Merrick. The names are the same as ihose upon the list offered 
the other day ? 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir ; according to the formalities of law, and 
now among the archives of the United States Senate. 

Senator Baile:y. How do those original documents come here ? 

Senator Kellogg. They were brought together with my credentials, 
and they were considered originally by the committee. 

Senator Bailey. 1 supposed they belonged to the archives of the 
State of Louisiana. 


444 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. I sent them as a mere matter of precaution. 

Senator Bailey. How did they get away from Louisiana and come 
here, papers that belonged to the archives of the State ? 

Senator Hoar. The last House of Representatives ordered the State 
officers of the State of Louisiana, their State archives, their records to 
bring here, and 1 think imprisoned one of them because he did not do it. 

Senator Kellogg. There were duplicates; there is one there and 
one here. This is furnished by the secretary of state. 

Senator Kernan. Then, instead of being the original, I suspect this 
is a certified copy of the one first made. 1 presume the original is there. 

Senator Bailey. Does this purport to be a coi)y of the original ? 

Senator Kellogg. The one we offered the other day was signed by 
the president of the returning-board, and was genuine. There were 
two executed ; one put on file by him with the secretary of state, and 
the duplicate is the one we had here the other day. 

Senator Bailey. Where was the duplicate kept ? 

Senator Kellogg. This one has been on file since January, 187.7, 1 
think. 

Senator Bailey. What file? 

Senator Kellogg. Here. It was filed with the papers. 

The Chairman. Where has it been—with this committee or in the 
Secretary’s office ? 

Senator Kellogg. In the Secretary’s office, as I understand. 

The Chairman. Is there objection made to the admission of this 
paper ? 

Mr. 3IERRICK. I have no objection. I do not care about it. 

The Chairman. My only objection was that it was encumbering the 
proceedings, and I am afraid we shall have to enlarge our book-cases it 
we keep on making books. E eery thing, therefore, that is not reall}^ 
necessary, I shall be glad to have counsel exclude in the shape of docu¬ 
mentary evidence. 

The list of senators received in evidence is as follows : 

Names of senators elected at an election held on the second day of Novemher, A. D. 1874. 

P. Landry, 7th senatorial district. 

*Oscar Crozier, 8th senatorial district. 

W. A. Robertson, 10th senatorial district. 

J. E. Breaux, 12th senatorial district. 

.1. Henri Burch, 13th senatorial district. 

T. T. Allain, 14rh senatorial district. 

David Young, 15th senatorial district. 

J. A. Gla, 17tli senatorial district. 

A. B. George, 20th senatorial district. 

M. H. Twitchell, 22d senatorial district. 

R. H. Chadbourn, 6th senatorial district. 

A. Dumont, 5th senatorial district. 

J. B. Enstis, 4th senatorial district. 

J. H. Grover, 1st senatorial district. 

W. J. Kelly, 1st senatorial district. 

H. D. Ogden, 1st senatorial district. 

Will Steven, 3d senatorial district. 

E. D. White, 2d senatorial district. 

State of Louisiana, 

Office of Secretary of State : 

New Opleans, March 9, 1877. 

I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy from the election returns 
on tile in this office. 


’'P. S. Goode seated under Wheeler’s compromise. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 445 


Given under my hand and the seal of the State this 9th day of March, A. D. 1377, 
ami of the Indej>endeuoe of the United States the one hundred and first. 

[SEAL.] EMILE HONORI, 

Seci'etary of State. 


LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Senator Kellogg. We now ofter a list similarly certified of the mem¬ 
bers of the house of representatives. 

The list was received in evidence^ and is as follows : 

State of Louisiana, 

Office of Seoi'etary of State, New Orleans. 

Holl of members returned elected to the house of representatires of the State of Louisiana at a 
general election held Tuesday, Noremher 7, 1876, transmitted to the clerk of the house of 
representatives, in accitrdance with section 44 of act No. 98, approved November ‘20, 1872. 

Ascension—Frederick Fobh, G. H. Hill. 

A8sumj)tion—George Drury, Jonas Hughes. 

Avoyelles—L. J. Soner, 1‘ierre Magloire. 

East Patou Rouge—A. R. Holt, George Bird, W. G. Lane. 

West Baton Rouge—Oscar Holt. 

Bienville—W. S. Cockerham. 

Bossier—S. Thomas, N. A. Durden. 

Caddo—C. W. Keeting, Cornelius Brown. 

Caddo—A. H. Leonard. 

Calcasieu—G. W. Richardson. 

Caldwell—R. D. Bridger. 

Cameron—A. W. Gillespie. 

Carroll—W. Ij. McMillen, Nicholas Burton. 

Catahoula—T. A. Routon. 

Claiborne—James J. Duke, John Young. 

Concordia—Anderson Tolliver, George Washington 
De Soto—J. J. Johnson, John J. Long. 

West Feliciana—George A. Swazie, Lucius Early. 

Franklin—L. H. Bowden. 

Iberia—L.' a. Snaer, Ulger Romero. 

Iberville—J. S. Davidson, J. M. Carville. 

.Jackson—E. E. Kidd. 

Jefferson—P. J. Kennedy, C. F. Brown. 

La Fayette—Fernest Martin. 

La Fonrche—Charles Gaude, J. vSeveignes. 

Lincoln—(L L. Gaskins. 

I^ivingston—Levi S[)iller. 

Madison—P. J. Watson. 

Madison—W. H. Dinkgrave. 

Morehouse—W. G. Shelton, Henry Blair. 

Natchitoches—Henry Raby, L. G. Barron, John G. Lewis. 

Ouachita-Frank W. Barrington, O. H. Brewster. 

Plaquemines—H. C. Warmoth, A. E. Jlilon. 

Pointe Conpee—Bernanl Dayries, Milton Jones. 

Rapides—E. J. Barrett, Baptiste Drew, W. John De Lacy. 

Red River—Andy Bosley. 

Richland—P. H. Toler. 

Sabine—David W. Self. 

Saint Bernard—Albert Estopinal. 

Saint Charles—M. Hahn. 

Saint Helena—Charles E. Lea. 

Saint James—Richard Simmes, Lucien Como, V. Dickinson. 

Saint John the Baptist—James Cole. 

Saint Landry—Louis Desmarais, Louis Stagg. 

Saint Landry— Frank J.p’Avy, Elbert Gantt, M. V. Singleton sr. 

Saint Martin—Emile Detiege. 

Saint Tamuianv—.Jules Brady. 

Saint Mary—R. J. Brooks, William C. Gary. 

Tangipahoa—M. S. Newson. 


44G 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Tensas—E.J. Walker, J. R. Stewart. 

Terre Bonne—H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson. 

Union—O. B. Steele, E. T. Sellers. 

Vernon—John A. Brown. 

V*-rinillion—Adrien Nunez. 

Washington—John R. Wood. 

M'^ebster—F. C. Heath. 

Winn—G. A. Kelly. 

Parish of Orleans. 

First representative district—Charles .J. Leeds, S. H. Buck. 

Second representative district—J. A. Shaksi)eare, R. H. Wilde. 

Third representative district—J D. Hill, John Fitzpatrick, George Foerster. 

Fourth rejjresetitative district—E. W. Huntington. 

Fifth representative district—W. H. Peialta, J. M. Lemare. 

Sixth representative district—.Jules Aldig<^, Albert Voorhies. 

Seventh representative district—Eugene Gardere, Jeremiah Blackstone, William J. 
Moore. 

Eighth representative di'-trict—Joseph Kelley. 

Ninth representative district—A. Delavigue, Louis Leonhard. 

Tenth representative district—Louis Bush, B. F. Jonas. 

Tenth representative district—C. J. Berry. 

Eleventh representative district—Jesse K. Bell, E. A. Briggs. 

Twelfth representative district—J. T. Aycock. 

Thirteenth representative district—George Gracien. 

Fourteenth representative district—William Kern, Aristide Dejoie. 

• State of Louisiana, Office of Sechetary of State, 

Xew Orleans December 80, 1876. 

1, P. G. I)e>londe, secretary of state, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and 
correct list of the names of all persons elected to the house of representatives of the 
general assembly of the State of Louisiana at a general election held in said State on 
Tuesday, November seventh, A. D. eighteen hundred and seventy-six, as returned by 
the returning officers of said State. 

Given under my hand aud the seal of the State this 30th day of December, 1876, and 
of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and first. 

[SEAL.] . P. G. DESLONDE, 

/Secretary of State. 

FURTHER EXAMINATION OF ROBERT F. GUICHARD. 

Robert F. Guichard, a witness for the sitting member, recalled : 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. Do yon identify as correct the papers that were handed to 
yon ?—Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was that legislative committee appointed according to those 
jiaiiers ?—A. On the fitteenth day of fJannary, 1877. 

Q. Who constituted that committee ?—A. Lane, Dinkgrave, Snaer, 
Moore, and Magloire. 

Q. Do yon know whether witnesses were sworn before that commit¬ 
tee?— A. 1 know simply by the report. 

Q. Y^on know notliing farther than by there})ort?—A. Xo, sir 5 I did 
not attend the sessions. 

Q. Do yon know whether there was a law at that time prevailing in 
Louisiana making it highly penal for a member of the legislature to re¬ 
ceive a bribe which would exjiire by limitation in »)ne year, or which 
provided that one year should bar proceedings against the alleged 
criminal ? 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 447 

joction to come from a somewliat (litt\*reiit source, hut I wanted the 
iinjuiry to ^o, in connection witli the evnlence, on the record. 

Senator Hoak. I did not make it as an objection, but simply as asn^^- 
gestion to yon as a legal gentleman. 

Mr. ^Iekhk k. I think it is perfectly right. I ordy wanted the fa(;t 
or an indication of the lact to apjiear on the record in connection with 
the evidence. 

Senator Hoar. Parties sometimes in election cases, when [ was a 
member of the Committee on Elections of the House, have gone on to 
prove what wns the law of their States. I suppose we take judicial 
notice of such things. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 suppose so. My only object was to get it in this 
connection. (To the witness.) Are you in the custom-house.'—A. ^'o, 
sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Do you know whether any testimony was 
taken and reduced to writing or any attidavits taken and reduced to 
writing before that committee ?—A. The report itself says that testi¬ 
mony was taken. 

(^). And redu(;ed to writing '—A. I think it was reduced to writing. 

(^). What has become of it ?—A. 1 do not know what has become of 
it now. 

(,). Was it not returned with the report to the house ?—A. Yes, sir; 
it was returned to the house with the rej)ort. 

(^). You were clerk of the house ?—A. I was clerk of the house. 

(*>. Now will you produce that paper ! —A. 1 have not got it. 

(^>. What has become of it ?—We have also submitted the evidence 
taken by said comndttee, which was ordered to be i)rinted and referred 
to the committee on judiciary,” and I suppose 1 must have turned it 
over to the committee on judiciary. I have looked for it and cannot 
find it. If I had found it, i would have brought it here. 

(^. Was there ever any such thing in point of fact « Do you recollect 
whether there was any evidence returned ?—A. Yes, sir; I recollect it 
was a volume almost; it was all legal cap, and it made a bundle about 
that large (indicating). 

Q. Allidavits ?—A. I do not know whether affidavits or testimony 
taken down. 1 looked for it before 1 came here. 

Q. Where ought it to be ?—A. It must have gone to the committee 
on judiciary. 

Q. Did they ever make any report ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Why was it referred to the committee on judiciary, do you know ? 
—A. I do not recollect it. All 1 recollect about it is that it is so stated 
here. 

By Mr. Siiellararger: 

Q. Does the resolution show what it was referred for '—A. No, sir. 
I see here written after the rei)orr, We have also submitted evidence 
taken by said committee, which was ordered to be printed and referred 
to the committee on judiciaiw when at)[)ointed.” 

By Mr. Merrick: 

(,). There was one apjxiinted, was there 1'—A. There was one appointed. 

C,). Who were they '—xV. 1 cannot tell you right now. 

Will you find out and let me know ?—xV. Yes, sir ; I believe Leon¬ 
ard, of Caddo, was the i hairman. 

1 asked if you were in the custom hou'^e, and you answered you 
were not. Are you in the iK)st-o!lic'‘ 'i —A. Yes, sir. 


448 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. When were you appointed ?—A. I was appointed last September, 
1878. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Are you the postmaster of the city or an employe of the post- 
office ?—A. I am simply an employe. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Why do you think the evidence referred to may have been referred 
to the committee on the judiciary ?—A. Because I hunted up the records 
to see if it had not been referred to some committee, and I found in the 
records that there was a motion made to refer, and as I could not find 
it, I presumed from that that I had given it to the chairman most likely. 
I am not positive ; I do not recollect. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Who did you say was chairman?—A. I did not say positively. I 
think Mr. Leonard, of Caddo, was chairman. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. He is now the United States district-attorney?—A. Yes, sir. 

FURTHER EXAMINATION OF RICHARD SIMMS. 

Richard Simms (colored), a witness for the sitting member, recalled. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did you testify before that legislative committee on bribery?—A. 
I did. 

A. Was an oath administered to you?—A. It was to every one who 
went in. 

Q. How were they examined ?—A. They were examined the same as 
we are here—made to swear. 

Q. The testimony was taken down in writing?—A. Taken down in 
writing and each one signed. All the members signed their testimony. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Were you in there when they were all examined?—A. No, sir; I 
was not when they were all examined ; but just before they came out, 
while they were making up their report, I read the testimony and know 
it was sworn to. 

Q. Who was in there when you were examined?—A. No one but 
members of the committee. 

Q. No other members of the legislature ?—A. The members of the 
committee themselves were members of the legislature. 

Q. I say no other members of the legislature ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You were not in the committee-room at all except when you w^ere 
examined yourself?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you do not know w hat occurred with the others ?—A. No, 
sir. The only other testimony I saw afterwards was De Lacy’s, and 
that was signed like mine. 

Q. That is all you know about it ?—A. That is all. 

By Senator Keloogg : 

Q. You were sworn and examined ?—A. They w^ere sworn and exam 
ined, and questions put to me by all the members of the committee. 

Q. Were they all present ?—A. All present. 


449 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 

SENATE JOUKNAL OF JANUARY 10, 1877. 

Senator Kellogg offered, and the committee received, in evidence 
the following certitied copy of the senate journal of January 10, 1877: 

Official journal of the nixth general assembly of the State of Louisiana .— The Senate. 

NINTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. 


Sevate Chamber, 

New Orleans, January 10 , 1877. 

The senate met pursuant to adjournment at 11:50 a. m., Hon. C. C. Antoine, lieuten¬ 
ant-governor and jnesident of the senate, in the chair. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names. 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Bnrch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Ducros, jr., Demas, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George 
(Joode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, 
White, Zaeharie—20. 

No quorum. 

(Senator Cage in the chair.) 

On motion of Senator Burch, the senate took a recess for the purpose of proceeding 
to the hall of the house of representatives, according to the requirements of the stat¬ 
utes of the United States, to elect a United States Senator. 

JOINT SESSION. 

The president of the senate, honorable C. C. Antoine, took the chair and directed 
the secretary of the senate to call the roll of the senate. 

The following senators answered to their names : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, 
Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—17. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, White, 
Zaeharie—16. 

The speaker of the house of representatives then ordered the clerk of the house to 
call the roll of the house, and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of 
Jefferson, Blair, Brewster, Boslej", Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, 
Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Diukgrave, Dickinson, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, 
Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, 
Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge; Heath, Johnson of De 
Soto, Jones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Mar¬ 
tin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Suaer, Seveignes, 
Shelton, Sinimes, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker— 
66 . 

The president of the senate then announced that there was a quorum present of the 
duly elected members of both branches of the sixth general assembly of Louisiana, 
and was now in joint session convened. 

The president of the senate ordered the secretary to read the journal of the senate 
of j’esterda 3 ’’s proceedings, as follows: 

EIGHTH day’s PROCEEDINGS. 


Senate Chamber, 

New Orleans, January 9, 1877. 

The senate met pursuant to adjournment at twelve o’clock m., lion. C. C. Antoine, 
lieutenant-governor and president of the senate, in the chair. 

On call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

Absent—Messrs. Baker, Boatner, Demas, Ducros,jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, 
White, Zaeharie—20. 

No quorum. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the president of the senate ordered the sergeant-at- 
arins to go after absent senators. 

29 s K 


450 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Bryant in the cliair. 

On motion, the senate took a recess until January 10 at 11a. m. 

Senate Chameek, 

New Orleans, January 10, 1877. 

Tbe recess having expired, the secretary of the senate called the senate to order, 
and called Senator Burch to the chair. 

On a call of the roll the following senators answered to their names: 

Present—Messrs, Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Breaux, Demas, Ducros,jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, 
Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, 
White, Zacharie-20. 

The president of the senate resumed the chair. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the secretary was directed to read rule twelve of the 
senate. 

Senator Twitchell moved a rigid enforcement of said rule. 

Adopted. 

On motion of Senator Burch, the senate adjourned until 11.50 a. m. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jk., 

Secretary of the Senate. 

The si)eaker of the house of representatives then directed the clerk to read yester¬ 
day’s proceedings of the house of representatives, as follows : 

EIGHTH day’s puoceedings. 

House of Representatives, 

Xeiv Orleans, January 1), 1877. 

The house met pursuant to adjournment. Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Black- 
stone, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, 
Detiege, Dejoie, Early, Fobb, Gardere, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt 
of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Keet- 
ing. Lane, Moore, McMillen, Romero, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Shelton, Sirnmes, Stewart, 
Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Walker—44. 

No quorum being present, the sergeant-at-arms was instructed to bring in the ab¬ 
sentees. 

On motion of Mr. Souer, the names of the following absentees were ordered to be re¬ 
corded in the journal: » 

Messrs. Aldige, Aycock, Barrington, Bird, Bridger, Burton, Bowden, Brown of Jeffer¬ 
son, Barron, Barrett, Brady, Brown of Vernon, Buck, Bush, Berry, Bell, Briggs, Cock- 
erham, Durden, Dayries, Delavigne, Drew, DeLacy, Duke, Estopiiial, Fitzpatrick, Foer- 
ster, Gaude, Gantt, Gaskins, Gillespie, Huntington, Heath, Hill of Orleans, H. M. 
Johnson, Robert Johnson, Jonas of Orleans, Kennedy, Kelly of Winn, Kelly of Orleans, 
Kern, Kidd, Leeds, Leonard of Caddo, Lemare, Lewis, Lea, Long, Leonhard of Orleans, 
Magloire, Martin, Milon, Newsom, Nunez, Peralta, Richardson, Routou, Raby, Shak- 
speare, Singleton ,Self, Seveignes, Spiller, Stagg, Steele, Sellers, Toler, Voorhies, Wat¬ 
son, Warmoth, Woode, Wilde, Young—73. 

The roll of the house having been called several times during the session, and it a])- 
pearing that at no time was there a quorum present, the house was adjourned until 
Wednesdav, the 10th instant, at 11 a. m., on motion of Mr. Keeting. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Cleric of the House of Representatives. 

The president of the senate announced that it appeared from the journals of the re¬ 
spective bodies that no vote had been taken relative to an election of a United States 
Senator; it w^as now' in order to take action in the premises. After a reading of the 
law relative thereto, Senator Burch moved that the joint session do now iiroceed to 
elect a Senator for the term commencing March 4, 1877. 

Senator Blunt moved as an amendment that the joint session do now select a Senator 
for the unexpired term. 

Senator Burch raised the point of ordei that the election of a Senator for the loner 
term had precedence. ” 

The point of order was decided as being well taken. 

The yeas and nays being ordered on the adoption of the motion to*proceed with the 
election of a United States Senator for the long term, the following was the vote of the 
senate: 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


451 


^eas—Messrs. Allain, liaker, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Ca<^e, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, VVakedeld, Youn';—16. 

Nays—Mr. Blunt—1. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Deinas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Kichard.son, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, White, 
Zacharie—11). 

The following was the vote of the house of representatives: 

Yeas—Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown 
of .lelferson, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstoue, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, 
Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Diukgrave, Desmarais, D’Avy, Dejoie, 
Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, 
Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Johnson of De Soto, 
Jones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Magloire, Martin, Milon, 
Moore, McMillen, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seveignes, Shelton, 
Simines, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—63.- 

Naj’s—Messrs. Detiege, Heath, Lewis—3. 

And the motion of Senator Burch was adopted. 

The ])residing officer announced that nominations were now in order for an election 
of a United States Senator for the term of six years, beginning March 4, 1877. 

Representative D’Avy, of Saint Landry, nominated Hon. William Pitt Kellogg. 

No other nominations being made, the respective rolls were called. 

The following senators voted for lion. William Pitt Kellogg : 

Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dnmout, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—17. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Demas, Ducros, jr., Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Goode, 
Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Steven, Weber, Wheeler, White, 
Zacharie—19. 

The following representatives cast their votes for Hon. William Pitt Kellogg : 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of 
.Tefter.son, Blair, Brewster, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstoue, Carville, Como, Cole, Drury, 
Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgravo, Desmarais, D’Avy, Detiege, 
Dejoie, Early, E8to])iual, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, 
Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of 
De Soto, .Tones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, 
^lartin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Seve- 
igues, Shelton, Simines, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, 
Walker—66. 

The presiding officer announced that Hon. William Pitt Kellogg having received 
eighty-three votes, and that being a majority of all the votes of the joint assembly of 
the State of Louisiana, a majority of all the members elected to both houses being 
present a?id voting, was elected United States Senator from the.State of Louisiana for 
the term of six years, beginning March 4, 1877. 

On motion of Senator Young, the joint session took a recess for one hour. 


KECESS. 


The recess having expired, the joint session was called to order by the presiding 
officer. 

The following senators responded to their names when the roll was called : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, Harper, 
Kelso, Landry,-Stanips, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young—16. 

The calling of the roll of the house showed the presence of the following representa¬ 
tives: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Btown of .Jef¬ 
ferson, Blair, Brewster, Barrett, Brooks, Brown of Vernon, Blackstone, Carville, Como, 
Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, De Lacy, Dickinson, Dinkgrave, Desmarais, 
D’Avy, Dejoie, Detiege, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, Gracien, Gary, 
Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt of West Baton Rouge, Heath, 
Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, Leonard of Caddo, .Magloire, 
Martin, Milon, Moore, McMillen, Routon, Romero, Raby, Souer, Swazie, Snaer, Se- 
veignes, Shelton, Simmes, Stewart, Thomas, loHiver, W ashington, Watson, Walker 65. 

Senator Allain moved that the joint se-ssion do now proceed to elect a United States 
Senator for the unexpired term ending March 4,1879. 


Nominations being declared in order. Senator Allain nominated Hon. C. C. Antoine. 
Senator Young nominated Hon.P. B. S. Pinchback. 

Representative Swazie nominated Hon. James Lewis. 

Representative Brewster nomiu.ated Hon. M illiam H. Hunt. 

Representative Drury nominated Hon. Taylor Beattie. 

.Senator Blunt moved that the nominations bo closed. 


452 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Carried. 

ilou. C. C. Antoine received tlie votes of tlie following senators : 

Messrs. Allain, Baker, Burch, Dumont, Harper, Stamps, Twitchell—7. 

And representatives: 

Speaker Hahn, and Messrs. Brown of Caddo, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, D’Avy, De- 
joie, Gardere, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Heath, Keeting, Leonard of Caddo, Moore, 
Snaer, Thomas—15. 

Hon. P. B. S. Pinchhack was voted for by the following senators: 

Messrs. Blunt, Bryant, Kelso, Sutton, Young—5. 

And representatives: 

Messrs. Barrington, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Blair, Brown of Vernon, Carville, 
Como, Cole, Davidson, Drew, l)e Lacy, Dickinson, Hill of Ascension, Lew'is, Romero, 
Stewart, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth, Walker—21. 

Mr. James Lewis received the votes of—Senator Wakefield—1; and Representatives 
Dayries, Deemarais, Early, Estopinal, Gary, John.son of De Soto, Jones, Magloire, Mar¬ 
tin, Milon, Rahy, Swazie, Shelton—13. 

Hon. Taylor Beattie received the votes of— 

Senators Cage, Gla, and Landry, and Representatives Drury, Fobb, Gaude, Hughes, 
Holt of West Baton Rouge, H. M. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Lane, and Seveigues—9. 

The following-named representatives voted blank : 

Messrs. Bird, Gantt, Gracien, Routon— 4. 

Messrs. Brewster and Dinkgrave cast their votes for Hon. William H. Hunt. 

Mr. McMillen voted for Mr. J. A. Gla. 

Mr. Souer voted for Mr. William Harper. 

Mr. Simmes cast his vote for Mr. P. Landry. 

The speaker of the house, Hon. M. Hahn, presiding tempore, the president of the 
senate having recused himself, announced that it appeariug that no candidate had re¬ 
ceived a majority of the votes cast, it would be necessary to proceed to another ballot. 

On motion of Senator Burch, the senate withdrew to its chamber. 

The recess having expired, the senate resumed its session. 

The secretary called the roll, resulting as follows : 

Present—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Harper, Kelso, Sutton,Young—9. 

Absent—Messrs. Boatner, Blunt, Breaux, Demas, I)ucros,jr., Dumout, Ellis, Eustis, 
Garland, George, Gla, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Kelly, Landry, Ogden, Richardson, Rob- 
ertsoD, Stamps, Steven, Twitchell, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, White, Zacharie—27. 

No <|uorum. 

On motion of Senator Bryant, the senate took a recess until to-morrow at 10 a. m. 


KKCRSS. 


Recess having expired, the roll was called and the following senators answered to 
their names: 

Present—Messrs. Blunt, Bryaut, Kelso, Sutton, Twitchell—5. 

Absent—Messrs. Allain, Baker, Boatner, Breaux, Burch, Cage, Demas, Ducros, jr., Du¬ 
mout, Ellis, Eustis, Garland, George, Gla, Goode, Grover, Hamlet, Harper, Kelly, Landry, 
Ogden, Richardson, Robertson, Stamps, Steven, Wakefield, Weber, Wheeler, White, 
Young, Zacharie—31. 

On motion of Senator Twitchell, the senate adjourned until 11.45 a. m., Januarv 11, 
1877 


State of Louisiana, 

New Orleans, January 13, 1877. ’ 

I certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the journal of the proceedings 
of the ninth day’s session of the senate of the general assembly of the State of Louis¬ 
iana. 

L. LAMANIERE, Jr., 

Secretary of Senate, 

State of Louisiana, 

Neiv Orleans, January 13, 1877. 

I hereby certify thut L. Lamaniere, jr., is secretary of the senate of the State of Lou¬ 
isiana, and that his signature to the above certificate is genuine. 

[SEAL.] EMILE HONORS, 

Secretary of State, 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


453 


ORDER OF PROCEDURE. 

Mr. Spiellabarger. We have one or two witnesses here that I want 
to examine, but I think the more natural order would be if brother Mer¬ 
rick has testimony to give to-day, as ours is rebutting, to let his goon 
until his is completed. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 stated to the committee yesterday, Mr. Chairman, 
that I thought I should be able this morning to say what further testi¬ 
mony I would have to produce before the committee. I have one wit¬ 
ness that, under Mr. Shellabarger’s suggestion, I will examine this 
morning. That is the only witness that I shall offer here upon my case 
in chief. I shall examine Mr. Cavanac and Mr. Murray in rebuttal of 
what has been said in reference to them by the witnesses of the other 
side, and when they are through, that will be all the testimony that 1 
propose to offer during the sittings of the committee at this session of 
Congress. To facilitate the desire of the committee, I will leave the re¬ 
buttal by Mr. Cavanac and Mr. Murray for the New Orleans examina¬ 
tion and close now with Mr. Cornog. 


EXAMlNxATlON OF A. W. CORNOG. 

Augustus W. Cornog, a witness called by the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In the city of New Or- 
leans. 

Q. Were you in the winter of 1877 ?—A. In the spring or fall of 1877. 

Q, In the winter of 1877, during the session of the Packard legisla¬ 
ture?—A. I was in New Orleans. 

Q. Were you in New Orleans on the lOtli day of January or there¬ 
abouts?—A. Yes, sir; I was in New Orleans from the month of Decem¬ 
ber to a portion of January, up to about the 15th or 18th. 

Q. Were you acquainted with Percy Baker?—A. Yes, sir; I was. 

Q. Was he a member of the Packard senate ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. State whether you had any financial transactions with Percy 
Baker; and, if so, what they were ?—A. Percy Baker and I were room¬ 
ing together at the same house. 

Q. Did he owe you any money?—A. He owed me a small sum of 

money. . „ 

■ Q. Did you ask him to pay it ?—A. He told me he would pay it after 

the election of Kellogg. 

Q. Did he say he would pay it after the election of Kellogg ?—A. He 
said he would have some money at that time. 

Q. Did he pay it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did he pay it; about what time?—A. It was the next day, 
I believe; I forget the date; it was before the loth, a few days before 
the 15th. 

Q. At the time he paid it, did he show you any money and tell you 
where he got it from ?—A. O, he had a roll of money in his hand and 
he said that he made that. I do not know where he got it. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I wish to put on record my objection to this tes¬ 
timony UvS hearsay and incompetent. It comes within an objection al¬ 
ready made to other testimony. 



454 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Did he tell you where he got it from ?—A. He 
said he got it from the election of Senator Kellogg. 

Q. Did he say he got it for voting for Senator Kellogg?—A. He did 
not say ‘‘ for voting.” 

Q. He said he got it for the election of Senator Kellogg ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Before that time, as I understand you, yon say when you called 
upon him to pay that money he said that he would pay it as soon as the 
Senator was elected ?—A. As soon as the election of Senator Kellogg. 

Q. And after that he showed you a roll of money and paid you the 
debt, saying he had got that for the election of Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Cross-examined by Senator Kellogg : 

Q. W^hatis your occupation in Kew Orleans?—A. At the present 
time, nothing. 

Q. When did you leave Kew Orleans ?—A. I left there last Tuesday. 

Q. Were you summoned ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You came summoned as a witness for Mr. Spbfford ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who summoned you ?—A. I do not know the gentleman’s name. 
I never saw him before. 

Q. Was it an officer ?—A. I suppose so ; I do not know. 

Q. A man who claimed to belong to the Senate as an officer?—A. He 
did not tell me where he belonged. 

Q. Do you know his name ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who furnished you the money to come here?—A. I furnished 
myself. 

Q. Who bought your ticket?—A. A gentleman in New Orleans bought 
my ticket. 

Q. Who ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. How much money did he give you besides your ticket f —A. None. 

Q. Who furnished you the money to pay your expenses besides your 
ticket?—A. Nobody. 

Q. Where were you in 1877 ?—A. I was supervisor of Red River 
Parish. 

Q. Where were you in 1876 ?—A. I was up in Red River Parish. 

Q. Do you know this man (pointing to a colored man) ?—A. Yes, sir j 
I do. 

Q. Did you see him on the first day of June ?—A. Of this June ? 

Q. Yes.—A. I did. 

Q. Did you offer him $200 to make an affidavit against me ?—A. 
No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. What did you offer him ?—A. I did not offer him a nickel. 

Q. Did you ask him to make an affidavit against me ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with him ?—A. I did have conver¬ 
sation, but did not ask him to make an affidavit. 

Q. What was the conversation ?—A. I did not offer him a nickel. 

Q. Tell the committee the conversation.—A. I asked him if he was 
going on to Washington ; I heard that he was, and he said he did not 
know ; he would not go without he got $2,000. 

Q. What did you tell him ?—A. He said he wanted $2,000 to come on 
here and then he would tell a good deal. 

Q. What did you offer him ?—A. I did not offer him anything. I had 
nothing to offer him* 

Q. Did you go to him or he to you ?—A. I went to him. 

Q. You went to him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who is this man ?—A.’His name is Johnson, of De SotoParish* 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


455 


Q. What was the occasion of your goiii" to him 1 —A. I do not know. 
I lieard that he was going to be siinimoned and I went there to see him. 

Q. In whose interest did you go ! —A. Well, I went in the interest of 
Senator Spotford. 

(2. An agent of his ?—A. ^fo, sir; die never spoke to me about this. 

What is the reason you took such an interest in the matter as to 
go and see Johnson ?—A. I thought that Judge Spoftbrd was the right 
man in the right place, and I would do anything I could to get him in 
there. 

Q. So you went to Johnson to see what he would testify to ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; I went to Johnson. 

Q. Tell us the conversation that occurred between you.—A. Johnson 
told me he wanted $2,000 to come. 

Q. How came he to say that ?—A. I do not know ; he said that. 

Q. Bid you say anything to him before that ! —A. No, sir j that was 
about the first thing. 

Q. Bid you say “ Good morning,” or Good day,” or anything of that 
kind?—A. No; it was night—in the evening, I think. 

Q. Bid you say “Good evening”?—A. I might or might not; I do 
not remember exactly. 

Q. Johnson just said to you as soon as you got there, “ I want $2,000.” 
Is that it ?—A. No. 

Q. What did occur ?—A. I went and asked him if he was summoned. 
He told me no, and he told me that he would go on there, and he would 
testify to everything that he knew for $2,000; but it would have to bo 
in his hand before he went. 1 asked him if he had made an afiidavit, 
and he told me no. Said I, “Are you sure you have not made an affi¬ 
davit ? ” I having heard that he had. He told me he had not. 

Q. Who told you he had made an affidavit ?—A. I do not remember 
who. I heard it, that he had made an affidavit some time ago. 

Q. Where did you hear that ?—A. I suppose in the city of New Or¬ 
leans. 

(»>. Can you state who told you ?—A. No; it was some time ago. 

Q. Your memory is not good about who told you he had made an affi¬ 
davit ?—A. I suppose if 1 had time enough I could think over it; but I 
do not remember iust now. I heard he had made an affidavit some time 
ago. 

So you went to him and asked him if he was coming on to Y ash- 
ington as a witness for Mr. Spotford ?—A. I did. 

You took a lively interest in Mr. Spofford ?—A. Yes. 

He said he was the right man in the right place ?—A. Yes. 

(j). And he told you he had not made an affidavit, and would come on 
to Washington for $2,000 ? Was that the conversation '?—A. He would 
make an affidavit and would tell all that he knew for $2,000, money cash 
down. 

Q. What did you tell him you would do?—A. Bid not offer him any¬ 
thing; did not tell him whether he would get it or not. 

Q. i)id you tell him he ought not to take the money ?—A. I did not 
tell him he ought not to, because I knew that would be useless. I knew 
he would take all he could get; he was like all the rest of them. 

When did this conversation take place between you and Baker, 
that you have been talking about ?—A. Baker and I roomed together 

Tell us how and where it began.—A. We roomed together at 170 
Custom-House street. 

Q. Who resided there ?—A. Front room, down stairs ; an old colored 


456 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


lady by the name of Madame Dorr—I believe her name is—who kept 
the house. 

Q. What day was it you had that conversation with him ?—A. Well, 
it was between the 1st and 15th day of January 3 it was a few days be¬ 
fore the 15 th. 

Q. Where had you the first conversation ?—A. Which first conversa¬ 
tion 2 

Q. When did you have the first conversation with him regarding 
money?—A. It was in January. 

Q. W'hat time?—A. Between the 1st and the 15th. 

Q. Was that the time you borrowed money of him?—A. I did not 
borrow. 

Q. WAs that the time you borrowed the money of him?—A. I have 
not said I borrowed money. 

Q. Who did borrow money—you of him, or he of you ?—A. It was 
not borrowed. I did not say it was borrowed. I did not say money 
borrowed. 

Q. What did you say?—A. I said that there was certain money com¬ 
ing to me. 

Q. How much ?—A. About $30. 

Q. About $30 coming to you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How came he to owe you that $30?—A. Little games of poker 
and one thing and another. He used often to come there to the rooms 
for a little game of poker, and he was $30 indebted to me. I wanted to go 
up Bed River, and I asked him for it. He said, “ You wait a few days, 
and Pll give it to you.” I waited a few days. Then he said, “Wait 
until after the election of Kellogg, and then I’ll give it to you.” 

Q. All that was between the 1st and 15th ?—A. Yes, sir; all between 
the 1st and 15th. 

Q. When did he give you the money ?—A. It was the next day after 
your election. 

Q. Do you know what day that was ?—A. I do not remember exactly ; 
it was the 11th or 12th of January, 1877. 

Q. And he gave it you about the 14th or 15th ?—A. No; I say about 
the 10 th or 11 th he gave it to me. 

Q. About the 10th or 11th he gave it to you?—A. About those days ; 

I do not know the exact time ; I do not remember the exact dates. 

Q. You have not fixed the time; I wish you would if you can.—A. 
The only way I can fix it is between the 1st and 15th of January. 

Q. How much money did he give you?—A. He gave me about $30. 

Q. That is what he owed you for the poker debts, &c. ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see him get that money ?—A. No, sir; I did not see him 
get the money. 

Q. Do you know he got that money for voting for me?—A. No, sir; 
he did not say he got it for voting for you. He said, “ There’s what I 
made off the election of Senator Kellogg.” 

Q. He came to you and said, “ There’s what I made by the election of 
Senator Kellogg, and I give you $30 ”; is that it ?—A. When we met in 
the room that night he pulled out a roll of money and said, “ Here’s 
your money.” 

Q. And that was about the 10th or 12th, you say?—A. Somewhere 
about that date; I do not remember the date. 

Q. Who was by when he paid you that money ?—A. No one but he 
and 1 in the room. 

Q. Who was present when you and he had the first conversation ?— 
A. He and I were in the room. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


457 


^ Was anybody present when be said to you, After the election of 
Kellogg I will pay you —A. No, sir; I do not remember any one being 
present. 

Q. Was any one present during any of these conversations ?—A. I 
do not remember that there was. He and I were in the room together, 
and it was at night when he came in there. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him in regard to the 
election of Senator except that ?—A. No, sir; it did not interest me in 
any way. 

Q. And you state that he told you in that room between the 1st and 
15th that he would pay you the ^30 after the election, and after the 
election he came to you and gave you $30. Is that it ?—A. That is it. 

Q. And it was about the 10th or 12th ?—A. About that. 

Q. Where is Mr. Baker'?—A. I do not know. I have not seen him 
since the si)ring of 1877, or heard of him. 

Q. Where does he reside'?—A. He is supposed to reside in Bossier 
Parish. 

Q. What is the parish seat of Bossier Parish ?—A. I do not know. I 
am not acquainted much in Bossier Parish. 

Q. Mr. Baker said to you, as I understand you, that he got this from 
the election of Governor Kellogg ? 

Senator Cameron. That he made it out of the election ? 

Tne Witness. That he made it out of the election. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Were those the exact words that he made 
Uvse of, “ out of the election” ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that all he said to you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did Baker sleep at nights during that time ?—A. lie gen¬ 
erally slept there. 

Q. Where did Mr. Baker sleep ?—A. He generally slei)t there with 
me in the room. We slept together. 1 do not remember that he ever 
slept out. 

(v>. Did he sleep with you along about that time, the lOlh, llth, and 
12th ?—A. Y^es, sir; all during that portion of January. 

Q. He slept right along with you all the time, the 10th, llth, and 
12th ?—A. Yes. 

(^. And the 13th ?—A. Yes; he has come there in the room and slept 
there. We slept there together. I do not remember his being out but 
one or two nights, and 1 cannot say where he was out. 

Q. ])o you know whether he slept there or not ?—A. Of course ho 
slei)t there. 

Q. Do you know of any night that he lost at all '?—A. One or two 
nights he was out during the month; I do not know where he slept out. 

Q. At this time, between the 1st and 15th, that you speak of ?—A. 
He was out one or two nights. 1 do not know where he went. 

Q. Do you know what nights he was out ?—A. I do not remember. 

Q. Was he out all night?—A. One or two nights he was out all night. 

Q. So he did not after all sleep in his room all the time ?—A. He had 
his clothes there and slept there all the time. 

Q. But you said a while ago that he slept there every night ?—A. All 
except one or two nights when he was out. 

Q. Do you know what those one or two nights were that he was out ?— 
A. No; 1 do not. 

Q. Now you say it was the 10th or llth. Tell the committee whether 
it was on the day of the election that he gav^e you that $30, the day 
after or the da}^ before ?—A. It was the next day after, I believe. 


458 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Where was it, and what time of day 1 —A. It was at night. I do 
not remember exactly what time at night, but it was after dinner. 

Q. In the evening*?—A. Yes, sir; in the evening. It was after five 
o’clock; it might have been about seven or eight. 

Q. Of the 11th or 12th *?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in the room where you roomed and no one was present but 
he and you *?—A. I do not remember of a;ny one being present. I do 
not remember whether there was or not. 

Q. He handed you the |30, and said, “ That’s what I made out of the 
election of Kellogg”?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I want you to tell the committee who first approached you about 
coming here ?—A. The first one that approached me about coming here 
was a man by the name of Frisbie—General Frisbie they call him. 

Q. n. W. Frisbie ?—A. I do not know the initials. He is a stranger 
to me. General Frisbie was introduced to me first. 

Q. What did Frisbie want?—A. I was going to Philadelphia, and he 
told me that I was wanted in Washington. 

Q. You were intending then to leave for Philadelphia ?—A. I intended 
to leave New Orleans for Philadelphia. 

Q. Now you tell the committee when that was.—A. It was about ten 
days ago. 

Q. Go on and tell us what he said.—A. He told me that he was going 
to have me summoned here to Washington in the Spofford-Kellogg 
case. 

Q. Well, go on. Is that all that occurred ?—A. That is about all that 
occurred. He told me he did not want me to go just then. He wanted 
me to delay my trip. I told him I could not very well. He asked me 
to delay it. 

Q. Hid you intend to go to Philadelphia to stay ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To stay north?—A. Yes, sir; I would have staid in Philadelphia. 

Q. Hid you tell him you wanted to be summoned ?—A. No; I did not 
tell him I wanted to be summoned. 

Q. Hid you tell him you would go without being summoned?—A. I 
did not tell him I would go without being summoned. 

Q. But you were summoned ?—A. Yes; I was summoned to come here 
to Washington. 

Q. Who summoned you—an ofiicer?—A. I do not know whether he 
was an ofiicer or not. 

Q. Was a subpoena served on you or read to you and jmu ordered to 
appear?—A. I was up there in an office. A man who pretended to be 
a sergeant-at-arms, I believe, said he wanted me to come to Washington. 

Q. Hid he give you any money to come ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who bought your ticket?—A. A gentleman in New Orleans. 

Q. Who is the gentleman ?—A. His name is Elder. 

Q. J. W. Elder?—A. Ido not know his initials. 

Q. Ho you know where he resides?—A. No, sir; he resides on Cus¬ 
tom-House street, I believe. 

Q. Is he a resident of New Orleans?—A. At present, I believe, he is 
a resident of this city. 

Q. What did he claim to do down there ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Hid he tell you he was an agent of Mr. Spofford ?—A. He told me 
he was getting witnesses. 

Q. He went and bought your ticket and gave it to you, to take a trip 
to Philadelphia?—A. No, sir; he did not give me a trip to Philadel¬ 
phia, but to Washington. 

Q. Where does your ticket run to ?—A. To Washington. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 459 

Q. Does it stop at \Yasbiugtou ?—A. No; it runs on to Boston—a 
stop-over ticket. 

Q. That will take you through Philadelphia ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So you will get to Philadelphia for nothing ?—A. I expect to pay 
my way on. He said to give this ticket back to him, and he would get, 
1 think, eight dollars on it. 

Q. All except that you, of course, would have the benefit of in com¬ 
ing on here. It would not come out of your pocket ?— A. Which ? 

Q. You did not pay anything for the ticket ?—A. No, sir; I did not. 
I had my ticket for Philadelphia, by the way of Saint Louis, and I went 
and sold it. 

Q. Did you report to the committee this morning, or to the sergeant- 
at-arms 1 —A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you reported to the sergeant-at-arms at all ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you reported to the committee at all ?—A. Yes, sir ; 1 have 
reported here. 

Q. Till you came on the stand to testify ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Now, I should like to see the summons. 

The Chairman. 1 do not think this witness’s name is on any sub- 
pcena at all. 

Senator Cameron. He states that he was subpoenaed. 

Mr. Merrick. He says that he was summoned. 

The Chairman. I suppose Mr. Francis iiotifled him to come. I do 
not think his name is on any subpoena. Mr. Spofford has summoned 
but eight witnesses. 

Mr. Merrick. Some that were summoned, I will state to the com¬ 
mittee, wmuld not come. They were notified to come, but would not 
come. 

Senator Cameron. That is contempt of the committee. 

Mr. Merrick. I did not think it worth while to press it, because I 
could not get them here in time. I will take them when I get down 
there. 

(By Senator Kellogg.) I understood you to say that an officer 
went into your office where you were and told you he w as Sergeant- 
at-Arms of the Senate, and summoned you ?—A. He told me he wanted 
me to come here. 

Q. Did you not state that an officer that claimed to be a sergeant-at- 
arms of the Senate came to you in an office and summoned you to 
come here?—A. We were in an office in New Orleans, and there was a 
gentleman came up there and wnuited to know if 1 was Coriiog. I told 
him yes; and he went out again, and then they came and said they 
wanted me to come to Washington ; that I was summoned to Washing¬ 
ton, and they wanted me to come Monday, but 1 could not leave. 

Q. Who were “they”? “They wanted” you to come—who were 
“ they ” ?—A. There were several of them there in the office. 

Q. Who were they ? Give the names.—A. It was up in Judge Bay’s 
ofiice in New Orleans. 

Q. John Bay ?—A. I do not know whether his name is John Bay or 
not. They call him Judge Bay.' 

Q. AVhat is the number of the office?—A. On Custom-House street 
and Exchange alley. 

Q. Do you know the number?—A. I do not. 

Q. Who was present?—A. Mr. Elder was present. 

Q. Anybody else?—A. No, sir. 

Just Mr. Elder?—A. Yes, sir. 

(J. Mr. Elder and the officer and you ?—A. Yes, sir. 


460 


SPOFFOKD VS, KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you know the officer’s name ?—A. No, sir. I nev^er saw the 
gentleman before to my knowledge. 

Q. What kind of a looking man was he?—A. He was a middle-sized 
man j large, kind of oldish; about forty-five years old, I suppose. 

Q. Gray hair!—A. Mixed with gray, I think. I did not notice 
much. 

Q. Did he have whiskers!—A. No; I do not think he had. 

Q. How old should you suppose he was !—A. I do not know. I 
should think a man about forty or forty-five. 

Q. A large man!—A. No; a medium sized man. 

Q. How long have you been in Louisiana!—A. In Louisiana—I went 
there in 1874—1875—or 18G5. 

^ Q. Where did you reside in 1865 ?—A. In 1865 1 resided in Philadel¬ 
phia. 

Q. Where did you reside in 1866!—A. I came there in the fall of 
1865. 

Q. Where did you reside in 1866!—A. I kept a photographic gallery, 
75 Camp street, in the city of New Orleans. 

Q. Where did you reside in 1867 ?—A. 75 Camp street. New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. In 1867, too !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you reside in 1868!—A. In 1868 I was in New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. Where did you reside in 1869 !—A. I was in Texas in 1869. 

Q. Where were you in 1870!—A. In 1870 I was in New Orleans. 

Q. Where were you in 1871!—A. In Red River Parish. 

Q. Where were you in 1872!—A. Red River Parish. 

Q. Where were you in 1873!—A. Red River Parish. 

Q. Where were you in 1874!—A. I was at Red River Parish a por¬ 
tion of the time and a portion of the time in New Orleans. 

Q. In 1873 and 1874 you were in Red River Parish !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where were you in 1875!—A. In 1875 I was in New Orleans. 

Q. In 1876 where were you!—A. In New Orleans. In 1876 I was in 
Red River Parish. 

Q. You went back to Red River Parish in 1876!—A. I w^as in Phila¬ 
delphia, and I came back, and I went up there as supervisor of regis¬ 
tration. 

Q. Where were you in 1877 !—A. In New Orleans. 

Q. Have you been there since!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All the time !—A. All the time. 

Q. What have you been doing there all the time since 1876 !—A. I 
am inspector in the custom-house. 

Q. When were you appointed inspector in the custom-house!—A. I 
was appointed there, I think it was in 1875. 

Q. How long were you in the custom-house !—A. I have been off and 
on in there since the 4th day of April, 1879. 

Q. Off and on since the 4th day of April, 1879 !—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. In the surveyor’s department!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Under Governor Wells !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who appointed you!—A. Casey appointed me the first time I was 
appointed, and then George L. Smith appointed me again, when he was 
in there. 

Q. Who else appointed you!—A. I do not know that anybody else 
appointed me. 

Q. You have been there since then up to the time you left!—A. I was 
there until the 4th day of April, 1879. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


4G1 


<). After George Smith appointed you ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were there until the 4th day of April, 1870 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What was the occasion of your leaving there ?—A. There was the 
steamship Hessian, and there was some misunderstanding about a night 
permit, and Aleck Wells and I had some words about it—the special 
deputy surveyor. 

Senator Kellogg. I begin to know you. 

Mr. Merrick. You appointed him supervisor, did you not? 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; I begin to know who he is. (To the wit¬ 
ness.) Now tell us what was the occasion of your being dismissed from 
the custom-house. 

Mr. Merrick. He did not say he was dismissed. 

A. I had a night permit to work the steamship Hessian, of the West 
India line, and I let her work at night. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg:) Contrary to law?—A. No, sir; I had a 
night permit to let her work. 

Q. Go on.—A. And she had bonded goods in from Mexico to Liver¬ 
pool, and Aleck Wells told me that I had ought to have a special per¬ 
mit to take on cotton. Well, it was a loading permit and a night per¬ 
mit to allow the vessel to work on nights, Sundays, and legal holidays. 
Day, night, Sundays and legal holidays, the permit read. I let her 
load on that permit, and I remained there all night. 

Q. That was the occasion of your being dismissed, was it?—A. Well, 
Aleck and I had some words about it. He said I did not do right, and 
1 told him I did do right. 

Q. You were dismissed from the custom-house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I asked you if you were dismissed ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is all 1 wanted to know. You could have avoided a good 
deal of talk about it. You were dismissed in April ?—A. Yes, sir; the 
4th day of April, 1879. 

Q. WLiat have you been doing since?—A. I ain’t been doing anything 
since. 

Q. Waiting to get a chance to go to Philadelphia?—A. I had my 
ticket to go to Philadelphia there a week ago. I had the ticket bought 
to go to Philadelphia. 

Q. Elder bought it for you, did he not?—A. No, sir; he did not. I 
bought it myself. 

Q. I thought you said Elder bought it for you.—A. He bought the 
ticket to go to Washington, and I went and sold the other ticket. This 
man came and told me that he wanted me to come here; that they 
wanted me come, and he told me to go up to a certain office on Custom- 
House street, and 1 went up there. 

Senator Kellogg. Now we are getting it. 

The Witness. And after J went up there they told me they wanted 
me summoned to come to Washington, in this affair. 

Q. That is, Elder and Kay and Frisbie?—A. It was in Kay’s office. 
I did not tell you that Judge Kay had anything to do with it. They 
was up ill Judge Kay’s office. I did not say that Kay had anything— 
he never spoke to mo about it. 

Q. 1 asked you who they were, and you said Elder, Kay, and you ?— 
A. Up in Kay’s office. Frisbie was up there often. 

Q. Frisbie was there too ?—A. Yes, sir; and there was another man 
there whose name is Kelso ; he was there. 

Q. That makes five.—A. And there was a man there by the name of 
John Lane. 


462 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. That makes six.—A. And there was a man there—one of Judge 
Kay’s sons. There was a colored man there—a porter. 

Q. Are those the ones that you mean when you say ‘‘they”?—A. They 
were up there in the office. You asked me who was in the office. 

Q. When they told you they wanted you to come on to Washington 
do you mean Frisbie and Elder and Kay ?—A. Yes j they were all sitting 
there at that time. 

Q. Did they all say that they wanted you to come on to Washington ? 
—A. No; it was Elder that told me that. First it was Frisbie that 
told me that. 

Q. You sold the ticket you had ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Elder bought you one from there to Boston ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And gave you that ticket, and it is upon that ticket you came?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you come with Mr. Elder?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you given him back that ticket ?—A. No, sir; I have the 
ticket in my pocket. 

Q. Your understanding is that you are to give it back to him so that 
he can go and get eight dollars drawback, is it?—A. I asked him why 
he got that ticket, and he said he could get it cheaper by getting that 
.ticket, and that he could get eight dollars when he handed that back. 

Q. Did Mr. Elder tell you where he got the money ?—A. No, sir; he 
did not. He may have found it. 

Q. He paid your expenses on your way?—A. I paid my own expenses. 
I didn’t have but six bits expense on the way. 

Q. You had your meals and the sleeping-car ?—A. I had my lunch 
with me. 1 only got one breakfast; I had plenty of lunch. 

Q. Who paid for your-sleeping car ?—A. That was in the ticket, I 
suppose; I do not know who paid for it; he gave me a ticket. 

Q. He gave you a sleeping-car ticket, did he ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. As well as the passenger ticket ?—A. We had sleepers on. 

Q. Did Elder give you the sleeper ticket as well as the passenger ? — 
A. No; he did not give me the sleeper before we left. 

Q. Where did he give you the sleeper ?—A. On the road. 

Q. Who paid for it ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Who gave it to you ?—A. Mr. Elder. 

Q. If I understand you right you have not seen Mr. Percy Baker for 
two years ?—A. I have not seen Percy Baker since the spring of 1877, I 
do not exactly remember the date. 

Q. When did you first speak to any one regarding -the conversation 
that you claim you had with Percy Baker?—A. When? 

Q. When did you first mention it to any one ?—A. I do not remember 
when I first mentioned it to any one. 

Q. Have you been sort of promiscuously around telling it? You never 
published it before to any one, did you?—A. I do not,remember that I 
had. 

Q. Did you ever tell anyone before you told Elder, that you can re¬ 
member?—A. No; Ido not remember. 

Q. Elder is the first one, is he, that you told it to ?—A. I do not know ; 
I could not say whether he was or not. 

Q. Can you tell us one ? Have you generally talked about it ? Can 
you give us the name of some one man that you told it to ?—A. No ; I 
do not remember who I told it to. I might have made it a general con¬ 
versation, and then again I might not; I do not remember. I do not 
remember who I first spoke to about it. 

Q. You do remember telling Elder and Frisbie?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


463 


Q. When was it you told them first ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Was it ten days ago ?—A. About, I guess. 

Q. That is after you bought the ticket to Philadelphia ?—A. Yes, sir. 

C^. And then you told Frisbie that, and right after that you went and 
sold your ticket to Philadelphia, and Elder—when did you tell Elder 
about it ?—A. I do not renieinber the date. 

Was it just after you told Frisbie?— A. It was sometime after¬ 
wards, I guess. 

Q. How long afterwards ? You say it was ten days ago you told Fris¬ 
bie. When did you tell Elder?—A. I do not know exactly what time 
it was. 

Q. Was it soon after ?—A. I did not keep any account of the time. 

Q. Was it fiv’e days after ?—A. No, sir; I do not think it was. 

Q. Was it three days after ?—A. Yes, sir; it might have been three 
days. 

Q. Then it was seven days ago you told Elder ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. ^ow long after that was it before you gave up or sold your ticket 
to Philadelphia, and Elder furnished you one to go through to Boston ?— 
A. I sold rny ticket to Philadelphia last Friday. There was a friend of 
mine that was going to Philadelphia. 

Q. And you sold it to him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You made different arrangements, did you ? Was it a limited 
ticket ?—A. Yes, sir; it was a limited ticket, because I expected to stop 
over in Saint Louis a week. 

Q. Elder told you he did not want you to go right off, did he ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And you had a limited ticket ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. And you staid over ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you sold your limited ticket ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,>. And Elder furnished you a ticket that was good up to date ? Was 
that limited—to Boston?—A. No, sir; it was not a limited- 

Q. So he bought you a ticket clear through to Boston ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he gave it to you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he furnished you with a sleeper berth ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Frisbie you first told about this thing ten days ago, and three 
days after you told Elder about it, and he told you he did not want 
you to go on now ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you had a limited ticket?—xV. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And you sold it—to Philadelphia ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And two da 3 :s after he bought you a ticket ?—xV. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Now tell how far Bossier Parish is from New Orleans.—A. It is 
about, I suppose,—I do not know the exact distance, butabout 800 miles 
by railway. 

Q. When did you arrive in Washington ?— A, Last night. 

Q. What time?—xV. 1 think it was about 12 minutes past 9. 

Q. Where did you stay?—A. I staid up on Oil H street. 

Q. You went there with Elder ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. You staid with Elder ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Elder stuck to you ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is he ?—A. I could not say. 

0. When did you see him last?—A. This morning. 

Q. When do you intend to leave the city—if you can get away ?—A. 
1 do not know. 

Q. Have you made arrangements when you intend to leave the city ? 
—A. No, sir ; I have not. 


464 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You have not ?—A. No, sir ; I may leave to-night, and 1 may not 
leave for a month. 

Q. This Percy Baker lived in Bossier, 800 miles away ?—A. I do not 
know. 1 told you that I had not seen him or heard tell of him. 

Q. He lives there, does he not?—A. Yes, sir j his father resides there 
and his wife.resides there. 

Q. And that is 800 miles from New Orleans ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. And there is no way of going down to New Orleans except by 
boat?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What other way ?—A. In 1870 he and I and a lot of us—George 
L. Smith and a man by the name of Hutton, supervisor of Bossier Par¬ 
ish, and a man by the name of Morris, supervisor of Webster, and Fred. 
Heath, from Webster- 

Senator Kellogg. Never mind that. 

The Witness. All of those came by the way of Shreveport, and from 
there to Galv-eston. 

Q. And then took the Morgan line and came around ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is more than 800 miles, is it not ?—A. Well, I sui)pose it is, 
but it is quicker than by water. 

Q. You could not get hiu: under three or four days from Bossier Par¬ 
ish, could you?—A. Two days. 

Q. So if the committee was going to close the investigation, you knew 
that we could not get Percy Baker here in three or four days?—A. I do 
not know what time you could get him here. 

Q. We could not, could we?—A. No, sir. 

Q. When did you expect to go back to New Orleans?—A. I do not 
know. 

Q. You do not expect to go back ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. You got fairly away on Elder’s ticket—a free ride?—A. No, sir; I 
expect to return Mr. Elder the money for the ticket. 

Q. When are you going to return Elder the money for the ticket ?— 
A. I do not know. 

Q. You do not know ?—A. No, sir ; I do not w ant Mr. Elder to give 
me anything for nothing. 

Q. You are too high-toned. So Elder slings his money around pro¬ 
miscuously, and hence you took it ?—A. He never gave me any money. 

Q. When did you expect to return that money ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. You never made any calculation about that?—A. No, sir; he never 
said anything to me about it, nor 1 to him. 

The Chairman. I do not conceive that this is very important. I do 
not think that there has been a witness here that the money has not 
been advanced for him to come upon. I do not think a single witness 
has been summoned before this committee where the money has not 
been advanced. I judge from the assignments which I have seen. 

Senator Kellogg. I had gone upon that assumption, and that the 
money which had been advanced by Mr. Elder and by me, respectively, 
in these examinations before the committee, was not out of money that 
belongs to the contingent fund of the Senate, but was irrespective of and 
outside of that. That is what I understand. I wish to say right here 
that inasmuch as I have summoned seven witnesses, and have not ex¬ 
amined all of them, I will substitute a witness that I have examined, 
not in the summons, and just take that same amount, if the committee 
will permit me. 

Mr. Merrick. Have you paid their way ? 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; I do not paj^ witnesses. 



SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 465 

Mr. Merrick. You said you wanted to take it back. I do not know 
wliat you mean. 

The Chairman. No witness will be paid by this committee that has 
not been summoned by the committee. 

Senator Kellogg. That is what 1 understood. As he has not been 
summoned by the committee, of course the money must come from some 
other source than the committee. 

The Chairman. That question I shall submit to the committee. I 
understand he has been notified by the Sergeant-at-Arms to appear. 
His name is not here. The question will be before the committe, whether 
be came upon summons or not. 

Senator Kellogg. Is the Sergeant-at-Arms here ? 

Senator Kernan. Go on with the witness. We can settle that when 
it comes up. 

Senator Houston. That is a question that we can settle afterwards. 
I propose to go on with the witness. 

Senator Kellogg. Is Colonel Bright here ? Is Mr. Francis here ? 

Senator Cameron. Go on with the examination. We can hear those 
gentlemen afterwards. 

By Mr. Shellabarger ; 

Q. I wish you would repeat the words that Baker used when he re¬ 
turned you that money. Tell the exact words he used.—A. The ex¬ 
act words were these; that “ here is the money that I owe you,” and 
he told out the exact amount; and he says, “ Here is what I made out of 
the Kellogg election.” That is all that I know ; I did not see him take it. 

Q. He did not say how’ he made it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Or who he got it from ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Or whether he made it by betting, or how he made it?—A. No, 
sir; that is his words, and that is all I know about it. 

Q. Simply that that was what he made off of the election ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Who was present when you played poker with Mr. Baker?—A. Mr. 
Baker and I. We used to often sit down at night and play a game of 
poker by ourselves, and often a man by the name of Fred. Heath and a 
man by the name of Sam. Gardner used to come in and play. Fred. 
Heath was a member of the legislature, and Sam. Gardner—I do not 
know; he came from Webster Parish. He had no jmsitiou, I think. 

By Senator Ca3IERON : 

Q. I want to ask you a question. AYhen did you first meet this Gen¬ 
eral Frisbie, as he calls himself ?—A. Let me see; it was last Monday 
was a week ago, I think was the date. 

Q. Had you ever seen him before, to 3 "Our knowledge ?—A. No, sir; 
not to my knowledge. I was not acquainted with the gentleman. He 
was introduced to me. 

Q. Who introduced him to you ?—A. I forget who it was; I think it 
was a man by the name of Lane, in the post-office department. 

Q. Where did he introduce you to him f—A. It was up iu the cus¬ 
tom house. 

Q. Who were present at that time?—xV. I do not think any one was 
but Lane, the gentleman that introduced him to me, and myself and 
Mr. P'risbie. 

Q. Were you acquainted with Mr. Lane before that?—A. Yes, sir. 

30 s K 


466 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Wbatis bis first name?—4. Jobii, I believe. 

Q. AVbere does b(^ reside?—A. He resides in New Orleans. 

Q. Wbat is bis business ?—A. I do not know ; be was in tbe post office 
department some time. I don’t know wbat department be is in now. 

Q. Do you know where be resides in New Orleans ?—A. No, sir ; he re¬ 
sides on Carondelet street somewhere. I could not say tbe number. He 
did reside on Saint Mary street, near Carondelet, but I think be has 
moved somewhere on Carondelet street. 1 cannot say the number. 

Q. Giv^e tbe committee tbe conversation you had with Frisbie after 
that introduction.—4. Frisbie said that he heard that I was going 
away. I told him yes. He asked me where to. I told him “Phila- 
phia—tbe home of my parents and he told me that I was wanted in 
Washington ; that I was going to be summoned to go to Washington 
in this Spofford-Kellogg case; and I asked him wbat I knew about it. 

Well,’’ he says, “ you know a great deal, and we want you to go there”; 
and he asked me if I would have any objections to going, and I told 
him no, I did not care much about it one way or tbe other, and be asked 
me to come up in bis office. His office was on Saint Charles street. I 
went up in bis office, and be and I had a talk about it. 

Q. Give tbe talk.—A. It was about tbe same as 1 have given it here. 

Q. Give it again—the talk you had in his office on Saint Charles 
street.—A. He asked me if I did not room in 1876 and 1877 with Percy 
Baker. I told him that I did, and be asked me wbat 1 knew about this 
affair; that be bad beard of it; and I told him then about Percy Baker 
giving me the money—that be bad received money for tbe Kellogg elec¬ 
tion ; that was about all that transpired between this man Frisbie and I. 

Q. To whom bad you related this conversatiou you had with Baker 
before you mentioned it to him ?—A. 1 do not know ; it came through 
Lane. I do not know who—I do not remember. 

Q. Do you remember whether you related it to any one or not ?—A. I 
must have related it to some one, because- 

Q. That does not follow, that you must have related it to some one.— 
A. No, sir; 1 do not remember. 

Q. You do not remember having mentioned it to any one.—A. No, sir. 

Q. AVben did you first meet Elder?—A. It was last week some time, 
I do not know—tbe fore part of tbe week, I believe. 

Q. AVbo introduced you to him ?—A. A man by the name of Kelso. 

Q. AATiere ?—A. In New Orleans. 

Q. At what place?—A. I do not remember. 1 think it was on the 
street—Exchange alley, 1 think. It was somewhere in that locality. I 
<lo not remember exactly. 

Q. Who is Kelso ?—A. He used to be a State senator. 

Q. Where from?—A. Kapides Parish. He was the first one that in¬ 
troduced me to him. 

Q. Did he inform you, before he introduced you to Elder, that he 
wanted to introduce you to him ?—A. Yes, sir; he said that he wanted 
me to go to Washington. 

Q How is that ?—A. He wanted me to be—to come here to Washing- 
ingtou. 

Q. Who told you that ?—A. Kelso told me that Mr. Elder wanted to 
see me ; that he wanted me to come to Washington. 

Q. Did be ask you to go with liiin to find Mr. Elder?—A. No, sir; we 
were standing on tbe street talking when Mr. Elder came along. It was 
not by an apjmiutinent with Mr. Elder. ' 

Q. Wbat conversation did you have with Elder then, after you were 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 467 

introduced to him ?—A. Well, it api)ear 3 that this here Frisbie had 
told him my conversation with Frisbie. 

I am asking you the conversation you had with Elder.—A. It was 
about the same as with Frisbie. 

Q. Just repeat it.—A. That he asked me if I was not rooming with 
this Percy I>aker, and the remarks that Percy Baker made about giving 
me that money right after the election of Senator Kellogg. 

Q. What else?—A. That is about all. 

Q. If it is about all, give all of it.—A. Well, that was all; ves, sir. 

That was all ?-A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long were you in conversation with him at that time?—A. 
Kot many minutes. 

Q. How many?—A. Well, about fiv^e minutes, I suppose. 

Q. What arrangement did you make with him about coming on to 
Washington?—A. I didn’t make no arrangement with him at that pres¬ 
ent time. I saw him up in Judge Ray’s office after that. 

Q. How did you happen to go to Ray’s office ?—A. He asked me to 
go up to Ray’s office. 

Q. When did you go to Ray’s office?—A. I think it was yesterday 
one week ago ; on Wednesday or Thursday of last week. I do not re¬ 
member exactly which day ; it was one of those days. I had my ticket. 
1 was to go to Philadelphia on Tuesday, and this here Frisbie told rn 0 
to lay over. It was on Wednesday, I think—Wednesday or Thursday. 
That was Wednesday that I first seen this man Elder, and it was Thurs¬ 
day, I think, that I went into Judge Ray‘s office. 

Q. Give the name of anj^ i)erson to whom you related your conversa¬ 
tion with Baker, or related the fact that Baker owed you and paid you 
soon after Kellogg was elected. Give the name of any one to whom 
you stated that from January, 1877, up to the time that you had this 
conversation with Baker. 

Senator Houston. The witness has stated two or three or four times 
since I have been here that he does not remember stating it to anybody 
at all. He said that he supposed that he must have done it, but he did 
not remember to whom. 

The Witness. I think it came from a man by the name of John Lane. 
I do not remember that, but I think it came from him. 

Mr. Merrick. He said that before. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron) I asked you to give the name and not who 
it came from. I asked you to give the name of any person to whom you 
told it.—A. I do not remember; I must have said it to somebody. 

Q. I do not ask you that; give the name.—A. I do not remember. 

Senator Houston. That is just what he said. 

Senator Cameron. If you want to object to my question do so. 

Senator Houston. I do object to it. That is the second or third time. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) When did you last see Lane before the 
time he introduced you to Frisbie?—A. I do not remember; I used to 
see Lane nearly every day. 

Q. When did you last see him before he introduced you to Frisbie ?— 
A. I suppose nearly every day. I do not remember. 

Q. I do not ask you what you suppose.—A. I do not remember. 

Q. Did you see him the day before that?—A. I do not remember 
positively whether I did or not. 

Q. Did 30 U see him within a week before that time ?—A. I must have 
seen him, because he was man that I nearly saw every day. I do not 
remember. 

Q. You do not remember ?—A. I do not remember whether I saw him 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


468 

a day before or a week before. I could not say positively whether I did * 
see him or not. * 

By Mr. Merrtck : j 

Q. I only want to ask you one question. You stated, I believe, in * 
reply to Mr. Kellogg, that you were supervisor of registration in 1876^ 
in Red River Parish ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were such supervisor?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In Red River Parish ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Governor Kellogg was then governor of the State, was he not ?— 

A. Yes, sir; I suppose so. 

Q. Who had the appointment of these supervisors of registration ?— 

A. Well, the appointment came from Governor Kellogg, 1 think. 

Q. That is what I supposed. You were not then living in Red River 
Parish at the time you were appointed supervisor, but living in New 
Orleans?—A. No, sir. In 1876 I went to Philadelphia, to the Centen¬ 
nial, and I was asked to come on and go as supervisor to Red River 
Parish. No, sir; I was not living there that year. 

Q. You were asked to go on and go as supervisor to Red River 
Parish ?—A. A"es, sir. 

Mr. Merrice;. That is all I have to ask him. There are some other 
questions in regard to the case that I shall ask this witness which occur i 
to me now, but they do not bear upon matters of inquiry that I think I 
ought to open at present. I need further time for inquiry in reference 
to them ; but it is quite manifest to me that I shall have something fur¬ 
ther of to ask of this witness. 

The Chairman. Will you have it from him while he is in Washing¬ 
ton ? 

Mr. Merrick. No, sir; not while he is here. 

Senator Houston. Are you done with him ? 

Mr. Merrick. I am done with him. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. When were you appointed ? Mr. Merrick has brought out some¬ 
thing about your being appointed supervisor during my administra¬ 
tion.—A. I was appointed in the month of August, I think. 

Q. What year ?—A. In the year 1876. 

Q. In the month of August ?—A. Yes, sir ; I came from Philadelphia 
on the 14th day of August, and I got my appointment a few days after¬ 
wards, and went up to Red River. - 

Q. Who recommended you ?—A. George L. Smith. I 

Q. Ho you not know that I was in Philadelphia at the time you were j 
appointed by Governor Antoine ?—A. I do not know—I do not remem- | 
ber. I 

Q. W^ho signed your commission ?—A. I do not know. I did not X 
notice, as I remember. J know it come from the governor’s office. J® 

Q. Do you not remember that I was in Philadelphia the whole | 
mouth?—A. No, sir. I 

Q. Do you not know that I was absent from the city ?—A. No, sir. ■ 
Q. Then you do not know that I signed the commission ?—A. I do X 
not remember. I know it came from the governor’s office. 

By Mr. Merrick : I 

Q. Governor Kellogg indicates that he was in Philadelphia at the I 
time ?—A. I do not know. I| 

Q. You were in Philadelphia, as I understand.—A. Yes, sir. J| 

Q. And you were sent for to go to Louisiana from Philadelphia ?—A. 1 ' 
Yes, sir. 1 




I 

I 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 469 

(^. \ou were not residing in Philadelphia ?— A. I was on there but a 
inonth.^ 1 went on there in July, and came back in August. 

(>>. \ou were sent tor to come back, and you were commissioned to go 
to Ked^Jtiver Parish ?—A. Yes, sir. ‘ 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Did you ever see me before ? Did you ever have any conversation 
with me before to-day ?—A. Yes, sir; I have seen you before. 

Q. Did you ever have any couversation with me before to-day?—A. 
Y"es, sir j I have had some conversation with you before. 

Q. Anything more than-A. In 1872, in Red River Parish, I think 

I had some conversation with you. 

Q. When I was canvassing through the parish ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Anything besides that ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. By whom were you sent for to Philadelphia?—A. George L. 
Smith. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Did you make the registration that year ?—A. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 would rather not make any inquiry about that now; 
that is the question I referred to. 

EXAMINATION OF F. A. CLOVER. 

Francis Albert Clover, a witness called by the sitting member^ 
sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. Were you a member of the Packard legislature in 1877 ?— 
Answer. No, sir. 

Q. I was misinformed. What relation did you sustain to that body ?— 
A. I was chief minute clerk. 

Q. Were you present at the time of the election of Senator—the 
lOth day of January?—A. 1 was. 

Q. What duties did you perform in the calling of the roll on the elec¬ 
tion?—A. I kept a private tally-sheet. 

Q. Kep" a tally-sheet as minute clerk ?—A. Y'es, sir. There were 
half a dozen tally-sheets being kept along on the desk occupied by the 
clerks. As the members answered to their names and voted, it was 
necessary, you know, to take down the name of the person voted for, 
as is customary, I presume. 

Q. Do you reinember as a matter of fact whether you looked to see, 
when a name was called, whether he was present and voted—the man 
who answered ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether Thomas, of Bossier, was present?—A. I do 
know he was present. 

Q. How do you know he was present ?—A. I saw him rise in his seat 
and answer to his name. 

Q. On the election of Senator ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. How was it as to Seveignes ?—A. He was there also. 

Q. The man who testified here the other day ?—A. I did not know, 
sir, that he had testified; I have not read the papers. I was not here; 
1 came here yesterday morning. 

Q. What parish was he from ?—A. Seveignes? 

Q, Yes.—A. Really I do not know. 

Q. Do you know the man ?— A. Y'es, sir. 



470 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. He is from Lafourche I am told. Bid he vote !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many voted on that day in the housej do you remember?— 
A. Sixty-six, I think. 

Q. How was the order—the quietness or the want of quietness—in 
the body during the progress of that roll-call for Senator ?—A. Such as 
is usual in all legislative bodies that I have ever witnessed when an 
election for Senator was being had; very orderly and quiet. 

Q. There was no such disturbance as would prevent your knowing 
who voted ?—A. None at all; the members were seated, and they rose 
to their feet when their names were called and voted. 

Q. Bid you see Murray in that hall during that morning ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Where was he at the time that Thomas voted; can you tell that?— 
A. He was sitting down at my feet while the vote was going on. I 
would state that the platform upon which the clerks^ desk w^as located 
was off to the—the pages and other persons who from courtesy received 
the privileges of the floor—they would often come in there and sit in 
front of the officers^ desks. It*was considerably over their heads, but 
he was sitting on my end—on the left end of the row of desks. 

Q. What circumstances, if any, enable you to remember that fact of 
Murray’s being then there?—A. My deputy had been conversing with 
him, and I called his attention to the fact that I thought he had enough 
to do to attend to his duties. 

Q. Then you are certain he was there ?—A. I am certain he was 
there. 

Q. Could Murray readily see Thomas when Thomas voted, if he did 
vote, from where he was at the time ?—A. Yes, sir; he could see him. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Wheie do you reside, Mr. Clover ?—A. In the city of New Orleans, 

Q. How long have you resided there?—A. Well, sir, 1 have resided 
there since 1874. 

Q. Since 1874? —A. Not permanently; but I consider that — I went 
in New Orleans to make my home there about that time. Some time, 
perhaps, about July. 

Q. Where did you come from ?—A. The State of Mississippi. 

Q. Bid you not hold an office in the State of Mississippi up to Feb¬ 
ruary or March, 1876?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Were you not elected to the legislature in Mississippi for two 
years from the year 1873 ?—A. I was; yes, sir. 

Q. You say you came to New Orleans at what time to reside?—A. 
About July, 1874. My actual duties as a member of the legislature of 
the State of Mississippi would cease after the January, after the winter 
term of 1864. 

Q. 1874, you mean.—A. 1874, I mean; yes, sir. 

Q. When did the term of the legislature begin; the first of January, 
1874?—A. I think so; the first or second of January. The first Mon¬ 
day, I think ; or the first Tuesday after the first Monday. I do not re¬ 
member exactly about that. 

Q. Were you supervisor of registration for East Baton Eouge?—A. 
I was. 

Q. When were you appointed?—A. Some time in August, 1876. 

Q. Who appointed you?—A. 1 think I was appointed by C. C. An¬ 
toine, the lieutenant-governor of the State of Louisiana. 

Q. Were all the registrars appointed in August, 1876?—A. I am not 
able to say. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 471 

Q. \\ as that the j^eneral time of their appointment ?—A. I am not 
])re|>are(l to say about that; I do not know. 

(j. \on do not know anything about that ?—A. I do not know. 1 was 
ai)i)ointed diirinj; the montli of Anj^nst. 

Yon were appointed registrar for what place ?—A. The parish ot 
East Ihiton Jlonge. 

Q. Had yon ever been in East H iton Rouge ?—A. Yes, sir; I had. 

(^). How long i)i ior to the time otyonr appointment ?—A. .Many years 
prior to it. 

Q. llow many years ?—A. Well, perhaps, twenty. 

You had not been in East Ihiton Uonge for twenty years, then ?— 
A. Xo, sir; and then there only temporarily. 

And yon were sent np there to register those voters ?—A. I was, 

(^. J)id yon make your registration ?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Did yon, under the laws of Louisiana, prepare a consolidated 
statement, as they called it, of the returns ?—A. 1 did. 

Did yon make an adidavit to it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,). Did yon alter it after yon made yonr aftidavit ?—A. Did 1 make 
an adidavit to my consolidated statement of votes? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SiiELLAiiA-iiGER. If this thing is to be gone into it opens a pretty 
wide tield. What is the point ? 

.Mr. Merrick. I am not going into it as a matter of substantive fact. 
1 am going into it simply for the purpose of this witness; that is all. 
It is cross examination, and 1 do not ask the committee to consider as 
material and original evidence in the case what I bring out on the cross- 
examination, but only as applicable to the witness. 

The Chairman. 1 must say to the counsel on both sides that I think 
they have opened this (piestion very wide. There was a certified list 
from the returning board, of the members, ottered in evidence this 
morning. I thought it exceedingly strange that it should be offered in 
evidence; because, in my opinion, if you offer anything in reference to 
the returning-board you open up the whole (piestion of the conduct of 
the returning-board. I thought it singular tnis morning. 

Senator Kellogg. You are mistaken. It was the (jertificate of the 
secretary of state to the legislature that was offered in evidence this 
morning. 

The Chairman. Of the returning-board members ? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir; that was it. I did not object to it. 

Senator Kellogg. The law reipiires that. 

The CiiAiR.MAN. 1 should be glad if this investigation could be limited 
within pro[)er rules; but when counsel, who are able and of acknowl¬ 
edged ability, conduct the examination, I have not interfered with it 
much, because 1 think they are competent to Judge of their cases them¬ 
selves. 

311’. 31ERRICK. I said nothing about that paper that was offered by 
the other side. 1 told them to let it go in, and to put it in if they 
wanted to, for the reason that if they offer it as the list 1 have tlie right 
to impeach it, and I am going to impeach it, at the proper time, and 
show how far that certificate was an honest certificate, or whether it 
was part of the consiiiracy of which I have spoken, to organize a legis¬ 
lature to elect Governor Kellogg. 

Senator Kellogg. I want to state that that certificate is the certifi¬ 
cate that is set forth in the otticial journal; and in the ollicial Journal, 
where the names are called, they are called by their surnames often¬ 
times, and not by their Christian names. To determine the matter, 


472 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


that was offered—simply to verify the roll furnished under the election 
law of the State by the secretary of state, and not by the returnin^- 
board. The law of 1872, under which that legislature was organized, 
provided that it should be the duty of the secretary of state to furnish 
to the clerk of the house the members of the legislature returned as 
elected; and that it should be the duty of the clerk to call that roll; 
and the official journal shows that on that day he proceeded to call that 
roll from that certificate—not from the returuiug-board, but from the 
secretary of state, as the law required. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the witness. 

Mr. Merrick. I want to say to the committee that I was not offering 
this as substantive testimony, now. 

Senator Houston. What is the object of it ? 

Mr. Merrick. The object is to show the character of the witness now 
being examined. It relates only to him, and to him alone, in the dis¬ 
charge of his official duties. 

Senator Kellogg. The list had nothing to do with the returning- 
board. 

Mr. Merrick. If the committee think that by this examination I am 
opening the question, I will stop where I am. I do not want to open it 
at this time. 

The Chairman. I prefer to let counsel manage their own case. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Hid you make an affidavit in reference to that subject, and then 
change it—not the affidavit, but right in the affidavit, right over the 
affidavit, some additional matter that was not in there when you swore 
to it? 

(The witness pauses.) 

Q. Does the witness understand the question?—A. Yes, sir, tho¬ 
roughly. 

Q. Answer it, please.—A. Yes, sir, in a moment.—The law under 
which a supervisor of registration and election acts requires that 
he shall take cognizance ot disturbances that occur in the parish, which 
in any manner tends to impede a free ballot, and where violence and 
intimidation has been resorted to. It also requires that he shall 
make affidavit to cases coming to his knowledge. The notes for that 
purpose were in my possession, and would have been incorporated 
into the general return, were it not that I myself was intimidated in 
the discharge of my duties as supervisor of registration, after the 
election held in Baton Eouge. And I will also state that such was the 
character of the intimidation that I was afraid ot my life, as threats 
were made against me. 

Q. Is that your answer?—A. That is a part of my answer. 

Q. I thought you were through.—A. I will answer you, sir, iu full. 

Q. I want it all.—A. I want to do it intelligently, though. As the 
votes came in they were compiled and consolidated*^ upon this general 
tally-sheet- 

Mr. Merrick. Just suspend one single moment. I want to call the 
attention of the committee to the testimony as it is given, with a view 
that they may determine what part of it is voluntary, and what part I 
have drawn out. That question has sometimes made some little embar¬ 
rassment between one of the committee and myself. 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. I Submit that the witness is going on fairly and 
carefully to answer my friend’s question. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


473 


^Ir. Mekrick. I do not want to interrupt liiin ; but will the stenog- 
rai)her read the question that I propounded f 

The Stenograruer (reading): 

0. Difl you make an atiulavit in reference to that subject and then change it—not 
the affidavit—but right in the affidavit, right over the affidavit, some additional matter 
that w as not in there when you swore to it ? 

The Witness. Tliat is not plain enough. 

^Ir. ^Ierrick. That is not the question you want. 

The Witness. What is your name ? 

Mr. ^Ierrick. ]\Iy name is Merrick. 

The Witness. 1 will say to the committee, and to you in particular, 
now, that I shall endeavor to the best of my ability, on my oath here, 
to answer every question in a becoming manner; but 1 do not propose 
that I shall be dictated to in the manner of my answer, as 1 am under 
oath, and I will appeal to the chairman of the committee to allow me to 
be permitted to answer questions in a gentlemanly manner. 

Mr. Merrick. You said my <iuestion was not broad enough. 

The Witness. No, sir; 1 did not insinuate that. 

Mr. ]\Ierrick. My question did not suit you. 

The Witness. That is not the proper way to put it to me. 

i\Ir. Merrick. You criticised my question, did you not? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ^Merrick. Answer it without criticism, if you please. 

The Witness. I want to do it intelligently. 

Mr. ]\Ierrick. Answer my (]uestion without criticising the question. 

“Mr. ISiiELLARARGER. Go Oil with the answer. 

The Witness. If the committee will allow me as a witness to answer, 
I will do so. 

Mr. Merrtck. They will allow me, as the examiner, to propound. 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

iMr. Merrick. You have my question. 

The Witness. 1 would like to have it read, in order to do it intelli¬ 
gently. 

Senator Houston (to the stenographer). Head the question and what 
answer he has made to it. 

The Witness. That is not the subject that I want. 

The Stenographer (reading): 

Q. Did you, under the laws of Louisianii, prepare a consolidated statement, as they 
called it, of the returns ?—A. I did. 

Q. Did yon make an affidavit to it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did yon alter it after yon made yonr affidavit ?—A. Did I make an affidavit to 
my consolidated statement of votes ? 

Q. Yes. sir.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did yon make an affidavit in reference to that subject and then change it—not 
the affidaGt—but right in the affidavit, right over the affidavit, some additional matter 
that was not in there when yon swore to it ? 

A. The law under which a supervisor of registration and election acts reipiires that 
he shall Take cognizance of disturbances that shall occur in the i>.arishes which in any 
manner tends to impede a free ballot, and where violence and intimidation has been 
resorted to. It also recpiires th.at he shall make affidavit to cases coming to his knowl¬ 
edge. The notes for that purpose were in my possession, and would have been iucor- 
porate<l into the general return w'ere it not that I myself was intimidated in the dis¬ 
charge of mj' duty as supervisor of registration after the election held in Raton Rouge, 
and I will also sta‘te that such \vas the character of the intimidation that I was afraid 
of my life, Jis threats were made against me. 

Tlic Witness. That is part of the answer, and I will tinish it. 

Mr. 3IERRICK. Now, 1 call the attention of the committee to it, so 


474 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


that they may determine how much of that was voluntary and bow 
much was in response to u)y question. 

The Witness. That is all in response to the question. 

Mr. Merrick. I am not asking you. 

Mr. Shellabarger. 1 submit to my friend and to the committee 
that this witness be allowed to proceed. It is apparent to every gentle¬ 
man on the committee that the witness is fairly answering the question. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 am not objecting to his proceeding. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Why not let him proceed ! 

Mr. Merrick. I call the attention of the committee to the fact. If 
the committee chooses to let it go on I have no objection to it. 

The Witness. If any irregularities occurred in connection with any 
of the polling precincts on election day, that should be noted in the col¬ 
umn of remarks on this consolidated tally-sheet j and the notes for all 
these, taken down at the time, were in my possession and would have 
been incorporated upon this consolidated statement of votes, were it 
not for the intimidation to which I have referred. They were not will¬ 
ing that that should be done, and in order to protect my life it was 
necessary for me to call upon the commanding officer to furnish me an offi¬ 
cer, without any presence of soldiers, whose presence there would com¬ 
mand sufficient respect to allow me to go on in the discharge of my 
duties. Therefore, being afraid of my life, I got on the boat and came 
to New Orleans. I compiled the statement of votes and presented it to 
the clerk, and he qualified it by attaching his signature as the law directs. 
When I arrived in the city of New Orleans I attached the notes upon 
this tally-sheet—this consolidated sheet—in the column of remarks, 
stating why certain polls were not returned and why certain others 
were. That is my answer to the interrogatory. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick. ) In other words, your answer is, that what 
was in the returns would have been put there but for intimidation ?— 
A. I have answered the question. 

Q. When did you make that affidavit?—A. W^hich affidavit? 

Q. The affidavit that accompanied the returns that you have spoken 
of ?—A. You and I—you have not understood me. 

Q. Did you make the affidavit?—A. I qualified to the consolidated 
statement of votes. 

Q. That is an affidavit, is it not ?—A. Yes, sir; I made that in the 
city of Baton Bouge, before lea ving the parish. 

Q. You made the affidavit in the city of Baton Rouge, before leaving 
the parisn !—A. It was not so much of an affidavit. It is a sort of a cer¬ 
tificate that the law requires the supervisor to make. 

Q. Did you not swear to it ?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Is it not an affidavit if you swore to it ?—A. I presume it is. 

Q. Then it was an affidavit that you made to the consolidated returns 
in Baton Rouge before you lett ?—A. It was in a manner. More par¬ 
ticularly speaking, I qualified to the correctness of the returns. 

Q. You made the affidavit that the law requires?—A. I qualified to 
the returns before the proper officer as the law requires. That is my 
answer. 

Q. You qualified to the returns as the law requires ?—A. Before the 
proper officer. 

Q. You were not too much intimidated then to make the affidavit, or 
the qualification, to the returns ?—A. I was intimidated considerably. 

Q. But you were not so much intimidated that you could not make 
your certificate according to law ?—A. Well, I qualified the certificate 
according to law ; but I was considerably intimidated. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


475 


Q. But you were intimidated?—A. 1 have given my answer. 

(^. You did it, though ?—A. 1 have answered the question. 

(,>. Y"ou qualitied in Baton Itouge to that consolidated return ?—A. I 
did. 

Q. Is not the affidavit the last thing attached to the consolidated re¬ 
turn ?—A. I suppose so. 

Q. Then if you were not too much intimidated to make your affidavit, 
why were you so much intimidated that you could not put into your 
returns all that the law required you to put there ?—A. Well, it was of 
great importance to the opposition to prevent me from doing that. In 
fact, it was the pivot upon which the machinery turned and revolved. 
Do you get my meaning ? 

Mr. Merrick. Not exactly. 

The Witness. I will explain it more clearly to you. In other words, 
if I could be prevented from incorporating this testimony required by 
law in any form, the oppposition would have a better opportunity of 
carrying their point. 

Q. That is what you mean ?—A. That is the way I looked at it at that 
time. 

Q. If j*ou could have been prevented from making the affidavit, would 
not that have been the same thing ?—A. I presume it would. It would 
have some effect. 

Q. Then how was it that 3 ’ou were prevented only from incorporating 
what the law required you to put into the paper, and not prevented 
from putting in some other thing’s that the law reipiired to be put in ?— 
A. The longer I staid in Baton Bouge in the discharge of those duties 
the more imminent the peril was. 

Q. How long would it have taken you to incorporate into the affida¬ 
vit, in the returns, what you incorporated into it after you made the 
affidavit, had you done it at Baton Bouge ?—A. A couple of days, 
I suppose. 

Q. A couple of days to have done it ?—A. Yes, sir; it requires a con¬ 
siderable writing to reduce it. 

Q. How many pages are in there that you incorporated in New Or¬ 
leans ?—A. The notes were- 

Q. How many pages f—A. I suppose there were B2 or 14 pages of 
notes. 

Q. Incorporated in the return ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. At what time was that incorporation into the return made ?—A. 
Soon after my arrival in New Orleans. 

Q. When did 3^011 arrive in New Orleans?—A. I do not recollect ex¬ 
actly when. 

Q. How long after the election did j^ou leave Baton Bouge?— A. Per- 
hai)s three or four da^^s afterwards. 

Q. How long did it take you to go to New Orleans?—A. We left 
Baton Bouge, I think, about 10 or 12 o’clock one day and reached New 
Orleans about the same time the next, or a little later at that season 
of the year. 

Q. Y"ou remained in Baton Bouge three or four days after the election. 
It took you one day to go to New Orleans. How long after you reached 
New Orleans was it before you incorporated these notes into the re¬ 
turn ?—A. I cannot remember now. I don’t remember. 

Q. Were you in the custom-house in New Orleans for several days 
engaged in this business—in and about it ?—A. Yes, sir; it was done 
there. 

Q. It was done in the custom-house ?—A. Y"es, sir. 



476 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Had uot more than ten days after the election elapsed before you 
made that alteration in the returns—ten days since the election ?—xl. 
An alteration ! 

Q. Yes; an alteration. It was an alteration. It was an addition.—A. 
Well, I don’t remember the time that elapsed. I know that when I re¬ 
turned to Yew Orleans my family was not well, and I devoted the most 
of my time to my home. 

Q. That was ver^^ proper; I have no objection to that. Now, state to 
the committee bow many days elapsed after you reached YeAv Orleans 
before you completed the interpolations in the returns to which you made 
affidavit in Baton Konge.—A. Really, I am uuaule to do so. I do uot 
know now. It has been a long time since, and I have not thought of 
the matter. 

Q. You have not thought of the matter at alH—A. Very little indeed, 
if any. 

Q. You have been examined upon it before, have you uot I—A. Yes, 
sir; but that has been a long time since. I was examined before the 
committee of which Mr. Morrison was chairman; but it has been so long 
since, and my thoughts have been turned into other channels, that I 
have not thought about the matter. 

Q. It was brought to your mind, however, when yon were examined 
before Mr. Morrison’s committee?—A. Yes, sir; it was fresh in my 
memory at that time. In fact, the committee reached Yew Orleans a 
short time after the matters occurred to which you refer. 

Q. Did you state as follows, on page 65: 

Q. Did uot you afterward iuteri)olate certain facts after you bad sworn to it— 

That is the consolidated returns— 

with reference to certain polls, on the face of the papers ?—A. I had memoranda in 
my possession taken at the time. At the time I tiled the returns it was made my duty 
to keep a memorandum of the facts connected with the matter to be entered in the 
column of remarks. And the addition of the memoranda referred to was added by 
me in the city of New Orleans. 

Q. That was written above the jurat, and upon the face of the papers after yon had 
sworn to it?—A. Yes, sir; it was written where the law requires these remarks to be 
made. I didn’t have the time to attach them at the city of Baton Rouge; they were 
simply the remarks made by the supervisor of registration. 

Is that true ; did you swear to that? 

The Witness. What are you readiug from? 

Mr. Merrick. I ask you if you swore to that ? I am asking you in 
regard to the testimony before the Morrison committee. 

The Witness. How do you know that is my testimony ? 

Mr. Merrick. You can tell me. 

The WiTNKSS. I do not know. P have not read that. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) I ask you if you have ever sworn to that, and 
yon can tell what you swore to and what you did uot, and whether it is 
true or not?—A. I have already answered that question, I think. If I 
have uot, I will answer your question, but I think I have. 

The Chairman. The question is, Did you swear to that ? 

The Witness. Did J swear to which ? 

Mr. Merrick. What I have just read to you. 

The Witness. That I incorporated this after the jurat was added ? 

Mr. Merrick. Shall I read it to you again ? 

The Witness. Yes, if you please. 

Mr. Merrick. I will go back one question more, put by Mr. Jenks: 

Tell us what was ou it at the time you swore to it. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


477 


That is, the retaru, at the time yon swore to it. 

A. Ibere was .a report from the several boxes, which came in accordance with law. 
They were added np on that consolidated statement. 

Q. Was that all that was on your return when you first swore to it?—A. That was 
all, I think. 

Q. Did not you afterward interpolate certain facts after you had sworn to it, with 
reference to certain polls, on tlie face of the papers?—A. I had memoranda in my 
poss^’ssion taken at the tiine. At the time I filed the returns it was made my duty to 
keep a memorandum of the facts connected with the matter to be entered in the column 
of remarks. And the addition of the memoranda referred to was added by me in the 
city of New Orleans. 

Q. That was written above the jurat, and upon the face of the papers, after you had 
sworn to it ?—A. Yes, sir ; it was written where the law requires these remarks to be 
made. I didn’t have the time to attach them at the city of Baton Rouge; they were 
simply the remarks made by the supervisor of registration. 

The Witness. That is correct. 

Q. You (lid Dot have time; you stated that did you ?—A. I stated 
that, I believe, on my direct examination. 

Q. Who was present at the time you made those interpolations in the 
custom-house ?—A. 1 do not remember now. 

Q. Who did you show them to before you made them ?—A. I did not 
show them to anybody, I think. 

Q. Who did you consult with about making them, before you got to 
New Orleans ?—A. It was not necessary to consult anybody. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) I did not ask you that.—A. Then, sir; I didn’t 
consult any one. 

Q. Now, can you tell us about the time you interpolated those re¬ 
marks ?—A. I might have been able to have done it at that time; but 
I must confess it was done so long since that I am unable to answer that 
question now. 

Q. Was your family sick when you got to New Orleans?— A. My wife 
was an invalid, and has been so for 14 years. 

Q. How much of your time was occupied by any emergency at your 
own house before you could get to this work ? I do not ask you about 
any family matters.—A. All of my time when not on duty. In other 
words, when my duty was not of the utmost importance. 

Q. I may have misapprehended your reply; but I understood it that 
you found, when you reached New Orleans, such a condition there that 
it rendered it impossible for you, without neglect of domestic duties, to 
attend to any other work for a little while. Was I right ?—A. I had 
been absent from home a considerable period, and when I returned— 
people generally are glad to get home, and as there was a good deal of 
commotion in the city and no immediate necessity for my performing 
this duty, I presume, sir, that I Si)ent a good deal of my time at home. 

Q. Was there not a period prescribed by law within which that duty 
was to be performed ?—A. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Q. Do you not know that that period had elapsed before you attached 
these things to that return, and have you not so stated ?—A. I do not 
remember now. 

Q. Do you not know that the period had elapsed by law within which 
you were required to make that certificate; that it had elapsed before 
you attached these facts that are now attached, and were interpolated 
in that return ?—A. I do not remember at this time. 

Q. What is your best recollection ?—A. That I do not remember at 
this time. 

Q. You have no recollection about it ?—-A. That is my answer. I do 
not now remember. 


478 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Yon did not make another affidavit after you got to New Orleans, 
did you? 

The Witness. Of what character ? 

Mr. Merrick. To these returns. 

The Witness. 1 would like to know to what you refer. 

Mr. Merrick. I refer to the returns that you made as supervisor of 
registration. After you reached New Orleans, did you make any other 
affidavit?—A. I have no recollection now of the law requiring any affi¬ 
davit except the one to which reference has been made. I remember 
making no other in connection with my duty as supervisor of registra¬ 
tion. 

Q. That is all I wanted to know. What business are you now en¬ 
gaged in ?—A. 1 am engaged in the custom-house at New Orleans, as 
weigher. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. You have spoken of your having been intimidated. Now, I ask 
you with reference to what thing was the intimidation exercised against 
you? What was it sought to accomplish?—A. Well, that question, to 
answer intelligently, would cover a good deal of ground. 

Q. I want it answered so as to be intelligent, so that we can under¬ 
stand what they were directing their threats to accomplish.—A. When 
the election had been finished, either through ignorance or design on 
the part of the representatives of the Democratic party at the polls, 
they insisted upon looking up and sealing in the ballot-boxes the re¬ 
turns which the law required thetu to make as commissioners of elec¬ 
tion. When they reached the county seat with those returns they dis¬ 
covered that they had made a slight mistake in their zeal to advance 
the good cause 5 and they were very desirous that I should break the 
ballot-boxes open and take out the returns, which I refused to do, or 
permit to be done. Then they were anxious that I should take the so- 
called returns from the polling places in which these returns had been 
sealed up—to take their private—to take the tally of private members 
of their own party, and incorporate this general return required to be 
made by me as supervisor- 

Q. Now, that general return required to be made by you as supervisor 
is what you call the consolidated return?—A. Yes, sir; the consolidated 
statement of votes. 

Q. And it embraces the votes of each precinct of the parish?—A. It 
do( s. 

Q. And that is the paper that Mr. Merrick has been asking you about, 
the consolidated return ?—A. The consolidated statement of votes, I 
understand, is the paper referred to. 

Q. Now I will not interrupt you further. Go on with your state¬ 
ment.—A. So great was the anxiety of the leaders of the party that 
they went so far as pulling out their pistols in the court-house, with the 
view of intimidating me so that I would allow the box to be opened. 

I did not do that. It seemed to have been a disappointment to them to 
be unable to get the record from those polling places incorporated upon 
the consolidated return. They were anxious to. prevent me from incor¬ 
porating the notes referred to as being attached afterwards in the city 
of New Orleans. They were anxious to prevent me from incorporating 
the notes referred to as being attached afterwards in the city of New 
Orleans—they were anxious to prevent that. 

Q. How did they show that anxiety; in what way?—A. By filling 

up my office where it was expected that this work would be performed_ 

crowding and, by their presence, threatening ; by- 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


479 


Q. What did they demand, in those threats, that you should do? 
dust tell it. —A. That I should make a return of all the votes from all 
the polling ])laces. 

Q. Did they demand that you should leave out those notes showing 
the irregularities and violence?—A. No, sir; they did not. 

Q. What did they do ?—A. Thej^ wanted me to take their returns, 
kept by private parties, the others having been been sealed up in the 
ballot-boxes; they wanted me to take theirs. 

Q. And make your return from that?—A. And make my return from 
that; and in some instances they intimidated the Rei)ublican represent¬ 
atives by making them attach their hands to them. 

Q. Was there any display of pistols at that time?—A. Yes, sir; there 
were threats made. 

Q. Threats to use them ?—A. Well, a general brandishing, you know, 
of pistols. That is calculated to- 

Q. So that the thing w’hich you omitted, and which you afterwards 
attached in New Orleans, was the showing of these irregularities, which, 
under the law, would give jurisdiction to the returning-board to exercise 
their discretion under the section about violence ?—A. Yes, sir ; that is 
it. 

Q. And that was prevented by the intimidation, and that is the pivot 
that you spoke ot awhile ago?—A. Yes, sir; that is the pivot. 

Q. And you went to New Orleans, and you attached in New Orleans 
that which but for these pistols and threats you would have done up in 
the parish ?—A. A"es, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. You testified, in reply to Mr. ]\Ierrick’s question, that you were 
supervisor of registration for East Baton Rouge?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He asked you if you registered the voters. Did you in 1870 ?—A. 
I did legister the voters. 

Q. What was the total registration ?—A. I have forgotten now. 

Q. State as near as you can remember ?—A. Sometliiug over 5,000, by 
giving a rough guess of it. 

Q. What ])roportion were colored and what proportion white?—A. 
About two-thirds colored. 

Q. Two-thirds colored and one-third white voters in the parish ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it a large Republican parish ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had that been about tbe registration for a great many years?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You had the books in your possession, and you knew ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was about that proportion ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, as supervisor, you answered certain interrogatories, did you 
not, in regard to your duties—traveling over a good deal of ground that 
Mr. Merrick has required you to travel over in his questions—and in res¬ 
pect to questions propounded by the returning board and by the coumsel 
to the Republican and Democratic party in connection with the return¬ 
ing board, did you not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Other witnesses testified in the same way?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Speaking of the terrorism, did not the proof show that there were 
at least (K) colored Rei)ublicans killed in the eight months prior to the 
November election in East Baton Rouge? 

Mr. Merrick. Wait a moment before you answer that question. I 
submit to the committee that I think it is for you to determine what the 
proof shows. 



480 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. Well, I will withdraw the question. It will open 
it up and make an examination here all day. 

Mr. Merrick. I have no objection to the proof. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Wlien did you make those memoranda to which you have refer¬ 
red !—A. At the time that the knowledge was brought to my attention. 

Q. I will read from the testimony as reported iu the book which I 
have in my hands, and ask you if you so testified: 

Q. Where did you make those memoranda ? (Referring; to the memor.iuda of which 
I have spoken.)—A. In the ciry of Baton Rouge. 

Q. When ?—A. After the facts came to my knowledge; about the 8th of November. 

Q. Did you swear to that? Is that correct i —A. Ko, sir; that is not 
correct. 

Q. You did not swear to that ?—A. I did not swear to that. 

Q. I ask you if you swore to what I have read ?—A. I do not—no, 
sir ; I am just telling you that I never read that. 

Q. I an reading it to you.—A. I do not know yet what that is—what 
you are reading from. I would like to know. 

Q. I have told you once before that I was reading from a report of 
the testimony taken by the Morrison committee.—A. AYs, sir; well, 
that was never submitted to me for my signature, as testimony. 

Q. Did the committee submit the testimony taken for the signature 
of any of the witnesses ?—A. They promised to do so iu my case ; I don’t 
know. I asked to have the testimony submitted to me, iu order that I 
might correct anything that was wrong in it. 

Q, Just answer the question now as I have propounded it to you. 
Did you swear as follows, iu response to questions, as I will read ? 

Q. Where did you make those memoranda ?—A. Iu the city of Baton Rouge. 

Q. When ?—A. After the facts came to my knowledge ; about the 8th of November. 

Q. Did you so swear ?—A. I do not think I swore to that that way. 

Q. You don’t think you swore to that ?—A. No, sir ; I do not. I will 
answer the question. 

Mr. Merrick. That is an answer to my question. 

The Witness. It is not an answer to your question. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Let him answer. 

Mr. Merrick. If he has any explanation to make he can make it; 
but I asked him if he had so sworn, and he said he did not. 

Senator Cameron. He did not say so. He said he did not think he 
did. 

The Witness. I will answer the question. You want the testimony 
of the witness on the stand t 

Mr. Merrick. I want an answer to my question, so far as I am con¬ 
cerned. As to any exidauation you want to give, you can give that— 
give it on your own account; but not in answer to my question. 

Senator Cameron. Go on and answer the question. 

The Witness. I will answer it. This information came to my knowl¬ 
edge from, perhaps, the first week that registration began in the parish 
of East Baton Kouge, and continued to come to me until the close of 
registration, and up to the time of election. That is the answer. 

Mr. Merrick. There is nothing inconsistent between that and this. . 

Senator Cameron. He understood you to say that the information 
came to him about the 8th of November. I think it will bear that con¬ 
struction. 

The Witness. I thought so. 

Mr. Merrick. The question is : 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


481 


Q. Where did you make those memoranda f —A. In the city of Baton Rouge. 

Q. When f—A. After the facts came to my knowledge ; [there there is a semi-colon ;J 
about the 8th of November. 

Senator Vance. That is when lie made the memoranda. 

Mr. Merrick. The facts came to him ; and then be locates the date 
when he made the memoranda, to wit, the 8th of November. 

The Witness. 1 made the memorandum every time the facts came to 
iny notice, prior to the 8th of November and up to and including that 
day. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Then you say you do not think you swore to 
this—that it was on the 8th of November that you made the memo¬ 
randa ?—A. 1 could not have sworn to that. 

Q. You could not have sworn to that'?—A. No, sir ; not the way that 
question is put. I have answered you- 

Q. Then follows another question, which I will read to you : 

Q. You made those memorauda on the 8th of November?—A. Yes, sir; I thiuk so. 

Q. Is that correct ? Did you swear to that question and answer ?—A. 
I could not have sworn to that. I did not to the other. 

Q. That is not the question. I am not so sure about that.—A. I am, 
perfectly, sir. There is no doubt on my mind at all. 

Senator Kellogg. What page is that '! 

Mr. Merrick. It is page 70. 

Senator Kellogg. Is that the House report ? 

Senator Cameron. The Morrison report. 

Mr. Merrick. It is the election in Louisiana in 1870, part first, sec¬ 
ond session Forty-fonrtli Congress, Library of the House of Kepresent- 
atives. Miscellaneous Document 84. 

The Witness. It is miscellaneous testimony. 

:Mr. SiiELLABARGER. It is the Morrison reiiort. 

^Ir. Merrick. I said so before. It is the Morrison report, in several 

volumes. 

Senator Kellogg. It is the House report. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

(L In making your consolidated return did you not exclude certain 
polling-jilaces in the jiarish of East Baton Rouge ?—A. Exclude ? 

(^). Yes.—A. It would scarcely beur that interpretation, I think. 

Did you not, then, omit to include .seven jiolling-places in East 
Baton Rouge ?—A. I do not remember the number; but you have got 
the language proper this time. I do not remember the number. 

(L If you omitted to include, did you not then necessarily exclude 
from the number ofttu’cd you to be [lut in ?—A. I did not exclude. It 
•would scarcely bear that. 

Mr. Merrick. We will not quarrel about terms. 

The Wri'NESS. I don’t think we had better. 

(L You seem to be something of a |)hilologist ?—A,. I remember the 
occasion and my duti(‘s, and therefore I did not state it that way. 

(,>. 1 thiuk you had some discussion that way.—A. I think there was, 
in the Morrison report. 

(J. You recolleid that—that there was some question about “ exclude” 
ami “ include” ?—A. Would you have me call to your mind certain rec¬ 
ollections about the Morrison committee ? 

(,). 1 ask yon whether you recollect, in giving your testimony before 
the Morrison committee, any (piestion between you and the committee 
as to the words exclude and include, as used relatively to those points not 
31 s K 



482 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


embraced in your return ?—xV. I recollect that that word was not put 
that way. 1 will tell you how it was put. 

Q. I ask you if you recollect any discussion about it ?—xl. I think 
there was certain questions propounded that I did not answer just as 
they were propounded to me. I thought that I knew how to answer 
them more properly. 

Q. Let me read to you a question, and ask you if you swore to this, 

(on page 58); 

Q. Did you not exclude polling-places Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 13, in the parish of East 
Baton Rouge ?—A. I excluded those not made in accordance with law. 

xV. I did not answer that question that way. 

Q. You did not!—A. Never. Tb^t is about the way I thought it 
would appear, though. 

Q. Let me read you another answer. That is about the way you 
thought it would appear f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because the gentleman did not keep his word with me 
as be promised in submitting it, in submitting the testimony to me for 
my perusal afterward for my signature. They were taken down in short¬ 
hand, and I am not acquainted with stenography, and therefore I could 
not read it. I asked to be allowed to see the testimony and it was re¬ 
fused; but as it was given it was telegraphed on to the city of Wash¬ 
ington, and I have never had the opportunity to see it. 

Q, I will read you the next question : 

Q. Didn’t you exclude those polling-places ?—A. I didn’t include in my consolidated 
statement any of the polling-places not according to law. 

Is that correct ? Had you sworn to that?—A. Bead that again. 

Q. This is it: 

Q. Didn’t you exclude those polling-places?—A. I didn’t include in my consolidated 
statement auy of the polling-places not according to law. 

A. I think that is correct. 

Q. Did you swear to this, on page 09 ? 

Q. There were fourteen polling-places. How many of them did you exclude from 
your consolidated statement?—A. I don’t recollect now; that is a matter of record. 

I think there were seven. 

A. That is a matter of record. 

Q. Did you swear to that? 1 am not asking you what is a fact.—A. 

I must bav^e said something like that. As to the number I do not even 
remember now. 

Q. I will read the next question : 

Q. There were then seven.included and seven excluded in your consolidated state-^^J 
ment as you recollect it ?—A. There were seven included, I think. ^ 

Did you swear to that?—A. If the number was right, the language^! 
appears to be proper. | , 

Q. Did you swear to that? I am not asking you as to the fact.—A. t 
I don’t know. I do not know whether the number seven was the num- | 
ber propounded to me or not. I don’t recollect that now j but that is f 
also matter of record. ' , 

Q. What is your recollection of it. Were there not seven that you did 
not include?—A. I don’t remember now 5 but it is a matter of record, j 

Q. What is your best recollection of the number you failed to in- 1 
elude?—A. I cannot recollect at this time, J 

Q. Can you come anywhere near it ? Is it one, or two, or three ?—A. B 
It is not material. It is a matter of record. ® 




SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


483 


(J. That is not for you to determine; was there one, or two, or three 
that you did not include ?—A. There were more than three, I think— 
there were four. 

Q. Was there more than six?—A. I don’t remember that. 

Q. Was there less than six?— A. 1 wouldn’t like to say. 

Q. What is your best recollection ?—A. That is my best recollection, 
that I do not now remember. 

Q. There were more than three, were there ?—A. I have answered the 
question. 

Q. There were more than three, did I understand you to say ?—A. 
My answer is, at this time, I do’not remember. 

Q. Were there more than tliree ?—A. I think there were more than 
three. It is a long time since and I have not given my attention to it 
at all. 

Q. Who were they that exhibited pistols on this occasion that you 
have testified to ? Give me tlie name of the man.—A. Hem! That 
would be pretty ditficult at this time. It is—nearly everybody there 
carried arms. 

Q. That is not my question.—A. No ; I understand your quevStiou. I 
will come to it soon. 

Q. Who did you see exhibit a pistol ?—A. I saw several persons ex¬ 
hibit arms. I do not now remember their names. 

(}. Who was it threatened you individually ?—A. One—Mr. Booth 
was one- 

Q. What was his first name?—A. -At various times ? 

Q. On this occasion ; about this consolidated return I am speaking 
now. Who was it threatened you ?—A. I mentioned the name. 

Q. Nobody else ?—A. I don’t remember now ; there were others, I 
think. 

Q. What is Booth’s first name ?—A. I don’t know even that. He is 
the brother of the gentleman who ran for sheriff of the parish that year. 
He ran on the Democratic ticket for sheriff of the parish of East Baton 
Eouge at that election. 

The Chairman. Any other question ? 

]\Ir. SiiELLABARGER. I think not. I wish to put right here a sugges¬ 
tion of Mr. Kellogg’s, and 1 tliink it is proper in regard to ourselves. We 
have not intended in examining this witness to go into these matters 
as independent evidence; and I do not understand that brother Mer¬ 
rick offers any of this testimony as direct, independent evidence, but 
only as conducting his examination with reference to this witness as 
reflecting upon his credibility: It is in that view that myself and the 
Senator have examined him. Of course we have protested in the papers 
that we have filed with the committee, and we wish it to be understood 
all the time that we deny the competency of any of this evidence on this 
trial. In that view I have no further questions to ask of this witness. 

EXAMINATION OF JOSEPH J. JOHNSON. 

Joseph J. Johnson (colored), a witness for the memorialist, recalled 
by the sitting member and examined. 

By Mr. SiiELLABARGER: 

(Question. Do you know the witness that was on the stand next before 
Mr. Clover ?—Answt r. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is his name ?—A. Mr. Cornog. 

Mr. Merrick. Who ? 


484 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator. Cameron. Your reel-headed witness. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabar^jer.) Did he have any conversation with you 
about this Kellogg-Spofford case before you came up to New Oileaus or 
from New Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was it first f—A. I think it was on the last day of May— 
Saturday before last, about half past five in the evening, when I quit 
my work. 

Q. Did he come to you or did you go to him ?—A. He met me; I was 
coming away from my work, and it was raining, and he came up there 
at the mill. 

Q. At the mill?—A. At the sawmill—Capt. A. Martin’s sawmill, 
which is called the Pelican mill. 

Q. Now state anything that he said to you in regard to this case 
on that occasion ; I speak of that first occasion.—A. He came to me 
whilst he was going—I w'as going home from my work, and I looked 
around and he says, “ Ha ! Johnson, you are the very man I am look¬ 
ing for.” I says, “ What are. you looking for me for ?” 1 says, “ I never 

seen you out tiiis way before.” “ Well,” he says, “ I want to see you ou 
some very particular business.” I says, “ What is your business you 
want to see me on ?” He says to me, “ Well, I come to see you to let 
you kno\¥ that there are—did you hear of this fight of Spoffbrd and 
Kellogg?” I says, “ Yes, I heard of it.” “ Well,” he says,do you 
know any thing about it ?” I says, “We are on the street, and I don’t 
feel much like talking about it here, and I guess if you walk down to 
my room me and you will talk about it.” Well, he went on to my room 
with me, on the corner of Gravier and Jackson, and sat there and had 
a lively conversation ; and he began to tell me questions about this mat¬ 
ter of Governor Kellogg and Mr. S[)offord. L says to him, “ Mr. Cornog, 
surely you came here to try me 5 and I don’t wish to be tried by no man, 
because you know you are an enemy against Mr. Kellogg.” “ Well,” 
sa.^ s he, “ Johnson, you know yourself that I have been working in the 
custom house, and 1 am kicked out.” He says, “Now is your time, old 
boy, to make.” I says to him, “What ?” He says, “ You know what 
I am talking about.” 1 says, “ No, I don’t know what you are talking 
about.” I pretended I didn’t know, but yet I knew what he was speaking 
about, of course. I sat there awhile, and he talked to me about a half an 
hour, and I didn’t give him any satisfaction. He asked me to come 
to his house Sunday morning—that was Sunday morning, the first day 
of June, Sunday before last—and of course it was raining very hard 
then fora little while, and I went to his house, and when I arrived there 
he was sitting there at the breakfast-table. Then I went up in his room 
after he got breakfast, and whilst going up there he says, “Now”—to 
me, he says, “ Can’t you make a statement to me about Kellogg pay¬ 
ing you money ?” 1 says, “ Mr. Cornoy, has anybody told you that Mr. 
Kellogg paid any money for his election?” He says, “No, they haven’t 
told me, but you are a friend to me, and I want to find out from you, 
because you would be the one to tell me.” I says, “ Why don’t you go 
to those other men ; they know more about it than I do. I don’t know 
anything about it.” He says, “You knowhow it is; I have been a 
friend to you.” I says, “ Of course, you have.” I says, “ Mr. Cornog, 
there is another thing 1 have got to tell you. Every man that comes to 
me, as Mr.”—let me see what his name is; I’ll recollect his name in a 
minute—“ as Mr. Kelso, the night he taken me out to Mr. Elder and he 
gave me fifty cents to try to make me make an affidavit against Mr. 
Kellogg, I will pitch it into his face.” So, of course, he found out thi t 
somebody had been talking to me about it. He says, “ Now, I will tell 


SPOFFORD V?. KELLOGG. 


485 


yon one tliinj?: yon can get, perhaps, fifty dollars or two liniidred dol¬ 
lars, or whatsiiniever yon call for, and if we get this money yon and 
me will go to Colorado and we will dig gold.” 1 says, “ Tiiat’s ail right, 
that is all I wanted to know.” lie says, “ Now, can yon give me a word 
about Kellogg paying money ? Jnst give me a statement.” I say, “ No, 
sir; 1 can’t give yon anything, for I don’t know anything about it. 1 
gness I have not got rnnch time to stay here anyhow.” lie says to me, 
“ rnt as much as yon want, and if I get a certain party to come over will 
yon tell him these things and just tell him yonr amount.” I says, “ 1 
won’t si)eak to anybody without they put 3,000 dollars in my hand, for 
I don’t go by promises at all.” I says, “ Put it in my hand and Pll put 
it in my pocket, and then Pll talk ; bnt before 1 won’t do it.” Then I 
said, “Well, 1 l)elieve I will go, >Ir. Cornog.” He says, “No, wait a 
little longer,” and then me and him took a very good drink of brandy. 
He asked me to come back to his house the next morning, and I went 
back as I promised him ; and upon,the very same (jnestion the gentle¬ 
man asked me to tell him, and I refused him ; and I i)romise<l him to re¬ 
turn back again Monday at half past four, and about that time I was on 
the cars coming to Washington. 1 didn’t let him know my own busi¬ 
ness. Of conrse, when he came here he found me here. 1 never have 
seen him from that day to this morning. That is the amount of monej’ 
he told me I could get, and i)erhaps we would go off in a gold mine and 
dig gold. 

Q. How much did he say?—A. Two hundred dollars or five linndred 
dollars, or as mnch as I had a mind to make my bill np to; and I told 
him my bill would be as mnch as 3,000 dollars, and it would have to be 
placed in my hands, and by no means promised, so that 1 could put it 
in my pocket and then 1 would talk. He says, “ There is a certain party 
told me yon have made an atfidavit.” I says, “ Who tol’ yon so ?” He 
says, “Never mind; 1 want to know of yon now without fail, did yon?” 
And I says “No.” And I told him right to his face, and he is here to¬ 
day to hear for himself, and of conrse 1 left him on those words. 

Q. Hid yon tell him in that conversation or any of those conversa- 
tioi»s that yon had or had not got money from Mr. Kellogg or from 
Kellogg’s friend ?—A. 1 told him 1 liadn’t got any money from nobody. 
That is what 1 told Mr. Cornog. Put he wanted me to tell him who did 
get money; and 1 couldn’t tell about anybody else, because I don't know 
about anybody else getting any money. 

(,>. After yon tohl him that yon did not get any money, and did not 
know of any body else that hail got any, di<l he still want yon to goon 
and make an affidavit?—A. He asked me to return back Monday morn¬ 
ing—and I did so—to make this affidavit; and I returned back Monday 
morning, not in the intention of making any affidavit, bnt to get every¬ 
thing 1 could out of him—to find out what kind of a Ilepnblican he was. 

(2. Hid he tell yon w here that moiiey was to come from—this 200 to 
500 dollars?—A. No, sir; he would not tell me no certai i person who 
it was to come from; bat he told me there was a (iertain p irty—he 
didn’t give anybody’s name it would come from at all—bnt he only 
said a certabi party told him. 1 asked him, I says, “ El ler ?’’ 11 * says, 

“ O, damn Elder.” He says, “ Yon let E d ‘,r aail K dso alone, and stick 
to me, and don’t yon tell anybody what I have said to yon.” He didn’t 
seem like it was anythitig about Mr Elder, nor he didn’t cdi any per¬ 
son’s name. 

Q. Hid he tell yon that he had been kicked ont of the custom-house 
in the first conversation yon had with him?—A. \es, sir; thar is the 
first thing he brought np—about tlie cnstom-honse—about the first 


486 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


tbiug; because I was hauling lumber ou the levee, and! asked him what 
he was doing out of the custom-house. I says, “ I thought you were a 
day inspector on the levee and he says, “ No j 1 am out now j they 
kicked me out.” And he told me, “ You know how the fellows are in the 
custom-house;” and I told him, “Yes; I know them all.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You told him you didn’t make an affidavit?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Had you not made one ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are the same man who had the headache the other day ?—A. 
Yes, sir; I had the headache, and I have got over it since. I was the 
same man that had the headache, and the same one that was bulldozed. 
I didn’t know there were bulldozers here. 

Q. You did not come here to bulldoze the committee?—xV. No, sir; 
butsomebody bulldozed me; they had me locked up. 

Q. Did you not admit here the other day, when you were on the exam¬ 
ination, your signature to an affidavit?—A. 1 admitted the signature, 
but didn’t admit of placing those words in that affidavit that was read 
here. I don’t deny the signature. 

Q. You did swear to something, did you not?—A. Swear to what? 

Q. Swear to an affidavit? You made an affidavit of some sort or 
another.—A. Who ? 

Q. You ?—A. No, sir; I didn’t swear to any affidavit. 

Q. Did you not say so the other day ?—A. No, sir; I didn’t tell noth¬ 
ing about 1 swearing to any affidavit, because I have never been in no 
magistry office and before no judge or anybody else to make an affidavit. 
This is the only place I swore—when 1 kissed that Bible. 

Q. Did you not say the other day that you had sworn somewhere else? 
-A. I said I signed my signature. I said I didn’t know the gentleman 
that came over and read the French language over it. 

Q. Read the French language ; was it in French ?—A. I don’t know 
nis name, but he is a Frenchman. 

Q. Was it in French ?—A. He spoke it half way in French and half 
in English. 

Q. You didn’t tell us that way the other day.—A. You wouldn’t let 
me alone. Y^ou intimidated me so I was sick that day. 

Mr. Merrick. It was not I that intimidated you so, but the Senator 
from Wisconsin. 

Senator Cameron. O, no. 

The Witness. I don’t feel so well, it’s true, to-day, but then my voice 
is strong. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Y^our headache is gone?— A. No; my head¬ 
ache ain’t quite yet. I have got the headache a little bit yet; but you 
know when I was bulldozed here 1 had it still worse. 

Q. You had it worse?—A. Yes, sir; it made me sick. It was some¬ 
thing 1 had never been—in jail. 

Q. Y"ou complained when you first were called that you had a head¬ 
ache ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was not the bulldozing that gave you the headache ?— A. It 
made it worse. 

Q. You told him that you could not tell anything about this matter 
unless they put $3,000 in your hand ?—A. YY-s, sir. 

Q. That was your price ?—A. No, sir; It was not my price. The rea¬ 
son I told him that, it was to prevent anybody talking to me, and I i>ut 
that price to stop anybody doing it; for they hadn’t that much money to 
give it away. I merely said that to keep them from bothering me so much 


SPOFFORD V8. KELLOGG. 


487 


Kelso bad been after me, and Mr. Elder took me off on the dock some¬ 
where on Danpliine street, and I refused him ; I told him I couldn’t give 
no testimony in the dark j if he wanted to hear me talk to come iu the 
daytime. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. I want to ask you three or four questions. W hen were you sum 
moned to come here ?—A. Last Monday ; this Monday a week ago. 

Q. Who were you summoned by ?—A. I was summoned by the deputy 
sergeant-at*arms of this house. 

Q. In whose interests?—A. In Mr. Spofford’s interests. 

Q. Did Mr. Oavauac tell you coming along on the cars that he had 
more coutidence in you than in any other man?—A. Yes, sir; he told 
me that. 

Q. You spoke right up to him?—A. Yes, sir; and I stood up to him 
and told the truth. 

Q. He said he expected you to stand by that affidavit that you had 
made ?—A. To stand by everything. 

Q. And to see that the other boys stood right along?—A. Yes, sir. 

(i. And to swear right up to their affidavits?—A. Yes, sir; all the 
boys to speak right up. 

Q. He had every confidence iu you: more than anybody else?—A. 
More than all on the other side. 

Q. All of them combined and put together?—A. All put together. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg knock that all out of your head since you got 
here?—A. No, sir; 1 didn’t see him at all. I never seen him. 

Q. Swazie, then ?—A. He never talked to me at all. 

Q. Lewis ?—A. No, sir; the biggest conversation me and Colonel Lewis 
had we had—I was standing on the cars—about showing me different 
departments here, and through the Patent Department here, from a 
needle up. 

Q. From what ?—A. From the patenting from a needle up to a steam¬ 
boat. 

Q. Which one did he say he was going to put you in ?—A. He didn’t 
say that. Pie showed me passing, that 1 might learn something while 
I was here, and I thanked him for it. He treated me a good deal on 
the cars coming up. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. You did not see me when you came here ?—A. I saw you in the 
Senate Chamber, but I didn’t speak to you. 

Q. Until you had testified ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But you thought it was your duty to tell the truth ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. As a liepublican ?—A. Of course. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Y^'ou told the truth as a Eepublican, did you not?—A. I didn’t say 
anything against my conscience. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. You were not going to swear to any Democratic affidavits ?—A. 
No, sir. 


488 


SPOFFORD VS. ICELLOGG. 


EXAMIlifATIOK OF JOHN E. PEANOIS. 

John E. Francis, a witness called by the sitting member, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. Did yon summon a gentleman by the name of Oarnog to 
come here?—Answer. I can tell by looking at my list. The name is 
not very familiar to me. 

The Ch/virman. The subpoena shows all that. 

Senator Kellogg. Then I will ask him one question and that will 
settle it. (To the witness.) Did you tell any one to come here except as 
you summoned them regularly, and entered their names upon the sum¬ 
mons ?—A. I did not. 

Senator Cameron. Subpoena, you mean ? 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, subpoena. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Q. There were some persons with you assisting in this summoning?— 
A. They were not. 

Q. Not in an official capacity, but they were with you to find the men, 
were they not ?—A. There was Mr. Cavanac there. He pointed the 
men out to me who were in Mr. Spofford’s case. I believe he pointed 
them all out. 

Q. Did not one or two witnesses decline to come on the summons?— 
A. Yes, sir j there was one. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Do you know who it was?—A. It was Mr. Kern. 

Q. It was not Mr. Carnog?—A. No, sir. 

EXAMINATION OF ANDEEW J. DEMONT. 

Andrew J. Dumont (colored), a witness called by the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In what is generally called 
Algiers, the fifth district of New Orleans. 

Q. How long have you resided in Louisiana ?—A. I was born there, 
in 1845. 

Q. Were you a member of what is called the Packard senate ?—A. 
Yesj I was a member of the legislature of Louisiana during six years. 

Q. And you were in the legislature that assembled the first of Janu¬ 
ary, 1877 ?—A. I was. 1 was a holding-over senator. 

Q. Were you present on the 10th day of January, the day of the vote 
in joint convention for United States Senator ?—A. I was. 

Q. How many senators were there who participated in that vote ?— 
A. 17. 

Q. You were one of the number?—A. I was one of the number. 

Q. Were you present at the roll calf ?—A. I was present at the roll- 
call from the 1st day of January. 

Q. Were you present at the roll-call when they voted for Senator?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the condition of the hall of the house as to order dur¬ 
ing the roll-call ?—A. It was as orderly as usual. As orderly as I have 
seen any other general assembly in joint session. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


489 


Q. Was it still aud orderly enough to hear who voted ?—A. Yes, sir j 
it was very orderly after the nominations, andev’eu previous to the nom¬ 
inations I saw nothing whatever disorderly. 

Q. Do you remember, as a matter of hict, whether Thomas of Bossier 
voted on that day f—A. 1 was very well acquainted with Thomas, and 
he voted on that (fay. 

Q. Whom did he vote for ?—A. He voted for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Is there any circumstance that makes you remember that Thomas 
voted ?—A. Well, yes, sir; I was very much interested in the election 
of Mr. Kellogg, being friendly to his cause, and I noticed every mem¬ 
ber that voted, and remember the number that voted on that day. 

Q. Do you remember the fact, as a substantive fact, how any votes 
Kellogg got in eacih body?—A. lie got 66 from the house aud \l from 
the senate. 

Q. Do you think that if any one had been absent and had been per¬ 
sonated by somebody else your opportunities and observation there 
would enable you now to testify about that fact?—A. Undoubtedly; 
for 1 had one of the front seats and kept a very close attention, and kept 
my eyes continually on the members there as they voted. 

Q. When did the senate first get a quorum ; what day in the ses¬ 
sion ? Was it the first day or the second day ?—A. I think we had a 
quorum—yes, sir; on the first day of the session. Y'es, sir; we had a 
quorum on the first day. It was afterwards that our quorum broke up. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Were you present the first day of the senate ?—A. Yes, sir ; I was 
present the first day. I arrived at the State-house at 11 o’clock and par¬ 
ticipated in the nomination of the officers. We had a caucus in which 
the officers were nominated. I had not been at the State-house for three 
days. I remember Governor Packard was a little anxious about myself. 
He thought 1 was sick. 

Q. Was that the first day ?—A. A^es, sir. 

(»). Was a quoripn present?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Of returning board members?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you in attendance during the week ?—A. Y^s, sir. 

t^). Every day ?—A. Nearly so. 1 was sick during the legislature, 
but that was after your election. 

Q. The second jNIonday were you there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. When the governor was inaugurated ?—A. Y^'es, sir; when he was 
inaugurated. 

Q. In the joint assembly ?—A. In the joint assembly. 

Q. Was there a quorum present in the senate?—A. On that day of 
the governor being inaugurated ? 

Q. Yes^ sir.—A. 1 don’t remember that positively, but 1 think so. I 
am not so positive as to that. 

Q. Do you not know that there were twenty one senators present ?— 
A. I know there were twenty one after we had met; but 1 don’t remem¬ 
ber whether at the time of the inauguration—I cannot say positively 
that there was that number. I don’t know. 

Q. You say you were present ?—A. At the inauguration of the gov¬ 
ernor ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. I was present. 

Q. You were present on Wednesday wdien the Senator was elected ?— 
A. I'es, sir; and \oted. 

Q. Who were the candidates for the long term ?—A. There was but 


490 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


one candidate, and that was yourself—nominated by D’Avey, Saint 
Landry. 

Q. Were you chairman of the Republican campaign committee'?—A. 
No, sir; I was afterwards. 

Q. You are a prominent Republican'?—A. I think^I am regarded so 
by the Republicans in Louisiana. 

Q. You were in a condition to know the feelings and sentiments of 
the Republican leaders in reference to Senator ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any one of the leading Republicans in the State, 
of the incomiug or outgoing administration, that was not for me as 
Senator?—A. Alltheleaders, orall of those known as Packard men, were 
all strong advocates for you as the Senator; and on the other side it 
was understood that we were going to vote for you j but there was a 
little division as to the shortterm—some for Governor Wormoth and 
some for Antoine. 

Q. Was it not understood that there should be a white man for the 
long term and a colored man for the short term ?—A. That was the 
wishes of a majority of the legislature. 

Q. Was it not the wish of the leaders generally ?—A. Generally. 

Q. As a matter of fact did not Governor Wormoth and all who were 
candidates withdraw in my favor?—A. Yes, sir, no other man was 
nominated in the legislature but yourself. 

Q. Did not Governor Warmoth get up in the legislature and make 
a speech and say he thought it was best to vote for me ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So that I was the only candidate ?—A. Yes, sir j I remember but 
one member voting blank, and he had his vote afterwards changed, 
previous to the announcement. 

Q. Now, 1 ask you was not Governor Packard, and were not all the 
State officers under him—every one of them, from first to last for me ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. What has that to do with this case ? 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) What did the legislature do- 

Mr. Merrick. I object to this testimony, and i move that it be 
stricken out—what Governor Wormoth and the whole of the State 
©fficers were for. 

Senator Kellogg. I have got through with that. 

Mr. Merrick. I move that it be stricken out. 

The Chairman. O, well, it is in. 

Mr. Merrick. Very well; 1 withdraw my objection. 

Senator Kellogg. I simply want to show that there was no special 
incitement or argument for paying money when every leader was for me, 
and when Governor Warmoth was for me, when he led the faction on 
the speakership fight. There was no object in buying up the whole 
legislature if I had got a majority of those present to elect me, and I 
got every vote. (To the witness.) Did the legislature take a recess for 
an hour ? Did not the general assembly take a recess for an hour ?—A. 
Yes, sir; I think they did. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Then did they proceed, on reassembling, 
to ballot for the Senator for the short term ?—A. Yes, sir; and failed to 
agree on a candidate. 

Q. Were there a number of candidates, all colored men?—A. Yes, 
sir. Well, I think there was a white man. 

Q. The leading candidates ?—A. Colonel Lewis was a candidate. 

Q. Antoine was a candidate?—A. Yes, sir; he was a candidate, but 
I don’t think he received as many votes. Among the pronounced can¬ 
didates were Governor Pinchback, Colonel Lewis, and Governor Antoine. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


491 


1 desire to say this: always before the noiniiiatioii of a candidate for 
election in general assembly they always caucused for it. In our cau¬ 
cus the vote was unanimous for Mr. Kellogg—in the Senate caucus—for 
the long term. For the short term we advocated ditierent candidates. 
Governor Warmoth had some friends, and a few others. 

Q. Did I not leave imtnediately almost, or very soon after, for Wash¬ 
ington ?—A. \ ery soon after. We were surprised at your sudden leav¬ 
ing at the time. 

Q. Do you remember the day I left?—A. No, sirj but I know it was 
very shortly after your nomination. 

Q. as it not generally’ desired that I should come on here and look 
alter the interests of Governor Packard and the State government?— 
A. \ es, sir; that was the desire of the leading Republicans there. They 
all counseled you to come here to Washington to advocate the cause of 
our State government. That was the desire and the wish of the ma¬ 
jority. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Were you summoned?—A. No, sir. 

Q. When did you come?—A. I got here'yesterday morning, bj^ the 
Jackson route. 

Q. What did you come here for?—A. 1 came here to assist the case 
of Governor Kellogg. 

Q. What is the |)osition you hold under the Federal administration ?— 
A. 1 have been apjminted, since the appointment of General Badger, 
deputy collector of customs at New Orleans. 

Q. You say you occupied a front seat?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the joint-A. I sat in a chair and had no desk before me. 

Q. A front seat in the joint convention ?—A. In the joint assembly. 

Q. The seats were arranged in a sort of semicircle, were they not?— 
A. Yes, sirj but each senacor changed his seat to suit himself. 

Q. Just wait until you hear my question. They were arranged in a 
sort of semicircle, so that the seats fronted the speaker or presiding 
otticer, did they not ?—A. We found the chairs so arranged when we 
entered ; but each senator turned his chair to suit himself, as there was 
no desk before us. 

Q. And yours was a front seat?—A. xMine was a front seat, on the 
extreme left, near Senator Waketield. 

Q. You indicated that that gave you particular facilities for observa¬ 
tion ?—Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you right about that?—A. 1 am right about that; and even 
before the end of the roll-call 1 left my seat and went near the door that 
led to the private room of the speaker of the house, and stood ther«\ 

Q. That is not a part of my (jnestion; I do not care about that. 
Governor Warmoth withdrew on the morning of the joint convention, 
did he not?—A. 1 did not hear his name mentioned at all in the joint 
assembly as nominated by any one. I did not hear him nominated, I 
should have said. 

Q. That is true; he was not nominated.—A. lie was not nominated. 

Q. Di«l you not hear him declare that he withdrew on that morn¬ 
ing ?—A. i did. 

Q. He was beaten ?—A. Well, he didn’t run. 

Q. A man that withdraws on the day of election is generally beaten ?— 
A. I don’t know. A man is not generally beaten unless he runs. 

Q. He forfeits the stakes and gives up. You say there was a senate 
caucus ?—A. Yes, sir; there was a senate caucus. 



492 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. There was not a united caucus of the house and senate?—No, sir; 
there was a separate caucus of the senate. 1 don’t know that the house 
held any caucus, only by hearsay. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Where does Baker live—the man that thej" call Levee Baker— 
Percy Baker ?—A. Percy Baker lives in Bossier. 

Q. How far is that from New Orleans ?—A. I am only speaking from 
recollection. 1 think the mileage allowed was for something like 700 or 
800 miles. 

Q. Do you know where he stays habitually; whether that is his 
home, or whether he is there now !—A. He was in the legislature from 
that parish ; that is, in 1873 he was a member of the house, and after¬ 
wards he was a member of the senate from that section of the country. 
I don’t know the number of parishes composing the senatorial district. 

Q. Do you know whether he has been in New Orleans lately?—A. I 
have not seen Mr. Percy Baker since the downfall of the Packard gov¬ 
ernment, that I can remember. 

Q. Do you know whether or not he staid in the State-house the night 
before the Senatorial election ?—A. Well, I cannot say positively; but 
generally during the first fortnight of the assembling of the legislature 
the members slept in the legislature. 

Q. In the State-house?—A. In the State-house. Slept in the State- 
house generally. The party feeling was very strong in the city, and 
many of us did not care to go about, venturing out. I went out gener¬ 
ally, but 1 have slept in the State-house during the first three weeks of 
the assembling of the legislature. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Which political party has control of the State government in Lou¬ 
isiana at j)resent?—A. Undoubtedly the Democratic party. 

Q. Which party generally has control of the parishes in the State ?— 
A. Do you speak of now ? 

Q. Now, yes.—A. The Democratic party. 

Q. Do you know whether- 

The Chairman. What has that to do with this question? 

Senator Cameron. No matter what it has to do with it. I do not 
consider mj self under any obligations to answer the chairman. 

Mr. Merrick. I suppose this is a part of the case in chief. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you know whether or not any of these men who were members 
of the so-called Nicholls legislature in 1877 are now holding offices under 
the Nicholls State government?—A. I have taken but very little inter¬ 
est in the Nicholls State government. After the downfall of the Pack¬ 
ard government, I did my duty there for two sessions; voted for or 
against bills, as occasion might demand, and took no further interest. 
I cannot say. 

Q. Can you tell how many of those who were members of the Packard 
legislature are now employed in the custom-house in any capacity?—A. 
How many of the Packard legislature? 

Q. Yes; as near as you can state the number.—A. I suppose about a 
score of them. I wish to say I have been recently, or some time ago, 
stationed down at quarantine station about seventy miles below New 
Orleans, and I am not very well acquainted with the recent appoint¬ 
ments made by Mr. Badger; but, at the time I went down there, 1 don’t 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 493 

e.xpect there was that many appointed. There may hav^e been others 
appointed since. That I cannot say. 

Q. You may state whether the Republicans enjoy any portion of the 
State patronafte, so far as you know. 

Mr. Merrick. He said it was Democratic. 

Senator Cameron. That was so generally. 

A. 1 think there were a few, just after the inauguration of the Nich- 
oils government, or after the defection of some of our members going 
over to the Nicholls government there were a few that obtained appoint¬ 
ments. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do they or do they not still hold them \ —A. No; two of them 
died since. There was one in the city of New Orleans, and they have 
both died. 

Q. At present, do you know of any who have been employed in any 
of the State offices ?—A. i cannot remember of any. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

(^. There is a pretty fair distribution in the imlice force of New Or¬ 
leans between the colored and the white people, is there not ?—A. I 
think that I have seen about five or six colored men on the police ; al¬ 
though in New Orleans it is very difficult to say who is colored and who 
is white there. You often take a white man for a nigger and a nigger 
for a white man. It is somewhat mixed up. 

By Senator Houston : 

Q. They are sunburnt. White men get sunburnt, I suppose?—A. It 
is social contact, I sup])ose. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. The custom house is the only place of refuge for the peo|)le that 
were overthrown by the Nicholls government, is it not?—A. Yes, sir; 
that is all we have left just now. 

Q. Is it natural to put in prominent men ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. And those of the legislature are generally the most prominent and 
influential men?—A. Generally they are; yes, sir. 

Q. The State officers are in there, are they not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Packard- A. In the post office you have Mr. Dc Long, su¬ 

perintendent of education, and Mr. Antoine, lieutenant-governor. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. Do you know Mr. Ward, who was stabbed down there the other 
day?—A." Yes, sir; I know him. 

Q. Who stabbed him ?—A. It is only by hearsay I can speak. 

(}. Who did it. according to what you know ?—A. The paper says it 
was a man by the name of J. Ross Stewart; I was down on quaran¬ 
tine at the time it happened. 

Q. He is in the custom-house ?—A. Mr. Ross is an employ^ of the 
custom-house. 

Q. Stewart ?—A. J. Ross Stewart; we generally call him Ross down 
there. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Is William Ward a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir ; he is a black man. 

Q. Where was he at the time of the Colfax riots ?—A. I think ho had 
been up in Grant Parish. 

Mr. Merrick. Wait a moment ; I object to the question. 


494 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. I only want to identify the man. 

Mr. Merrick. I don't want any pretext of identification ; he is iden¬ 
tified by a stab from one of your officers. 

Q. (By 'Senator Kellogg.) Stewart has been generally in sympathy 
with the Nicholls government. 

Mr. Merrick. Wait a moment; Kicholls men are not in the custom¬ 
house. 

Senator Kellogg. I dordt know ; there are some. 

The Chairman. What is the question ? 

Mr. Merrick. The question was, where Ward was. 

Senator Kellogg. I am askin'g in reference to Mr. Ward; what char¬ 
acter of man he is. 

Mr. Merrick. I object to it. 

Mr. Shellabarger. You have delivered hearsay; that is, what this 
man has learned from the newspapers about a certain attack upon 
Ward. 

The Chairman. I submit it to the counsel on both sides; Mr. Ward 
has not been here; what in the world has his character to do with the 
case % 

Senator Kellogg. I did not ask it; Mr. Merrick took the witness 
after I was through, and asked about Mr. Ward’s being stabbed. Now, I 
want to show that Wm. Ward was charged by the white people with in¬ 
citing the Colfax massacre until 1876; and then, in 1876, they hired 
him to go over to the Democratic party, and he is about the only Demo¬ 
cratic negro in the State. 

Mr. Merrick. Then I will show by Mr. Ward that he was induced by 
Governor Kellogg to incite that riot for the benefit of the Eepublican 
party, as I am informed. 

Senator Kellogg. As you are informed f That will do. 

Mr: Mekrick. Let it come in ou that ground. 

The Chairman. This committee is entitled to some respect from the 
counsel on the respective sides; and thej" are entitled not to have ques¬ 
tions put here which have not a bearing upon the case. Are you done 
with the witness I Do you press your question '? 

Senator Kellogg. That is all. 

CLOSE OF EXAMINATION. 

Senator Houston. Have the witnesses that have been subpoenaed 
been examined ? 

The Chairman. I think all the witnesses that have been subpoenaed 
have been examined. 

Senator Cameron. 1 think not. 

Mr. Shellabargek. There is one—Mr. Jones. 

Mr. Merrick. I am disposed not to examine any others. 

. Mr. Shellabarger. Mr. Blackstone was also subpoenaed by Mr. 
Spofford, and he has not been examined. 

Mr. Merrick. He was discharged long ago. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I was answering the question of the Senator. 

The Chairman. Is there any other man on either side to be exam¬ 
ined I 

Mr Shellabarger. No, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. There is a question which 1 would like to ask of one 
of the witnesses on the other side, and which I am not prepared to ask 
at this moment, for 1 have not the paper with me. He has been exam¬ 
ined and cross-examined, and since the cross examination has come to 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


495 


me in reference to a matter about wbicli I think it is proper that I should 
interrogate him; but I do not want to do so until I get a pajier which, 
if it comes at all, will come to-morrow morning. It ought to have been 
here this morning, and 1 shall not ask him until I get the paper. 

Mr. SnELLABARGEH. That leaves us in the position of not knowing 
what to do with our witnesses ; because we do not know what that is, 
and we may want to meet that testimony before we adjourn. 

Mr. Merrick. It is one of your own witnesses and not one of mine. 

The Chairman. I understand Mr. Merrick to say that he wishes to 
further cross-examine a witness subpoenaed by Mr. Kellogg. 

Mr. Shellabarger. And to present a paper. 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Now, if we knew what the subject-matter of 
that paper and that testimony was to be we could then tell whether we 
would want to retain any of our witnesses here or not. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 am informed, and I will state in all frankness to the 
committee what I mean, that Mr. Brooks has made an affidavit, w hich 
is in existence and wffiich I was to have had in my hands this morning, 
and which w’as to have come to me by mail. It is in reference to the 
fact w hether he made that affidavit or not, and whether the paper that 
I expect bears his signature or not that I want to interrogate him. 
That is all. If the paper comes to me to-morrow morning I shall be pre¬ 
pared to ask the question. 

The Chairman. You ])ropose to limit your inquiries in the further 
examination of Mr. Brooks then to the matter contained in his affi¬ 
davit ^ 

Mr. Merrick. In that affidavit, wiiich I am informed he has made. 
I do not know it. I am informed that he has; and have been assured, 
upon such authority as I regard as entirely reliable, that it is on its 
way by mail, and that it ought to have reached me this morning in 
regular course. If it comes to-morrow morning I propose to interrogate 
him upon it here. If it does not come I certainly will not ask the com¬ 
mittee to delay any longer for the purpose. That is tlie only w itness 
that I want to examine. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shellabarger, will that interfere with the dis¬ 
charge of the rest of your witnesses? 

Mr. Shellabarger. I think that all our witnesses may be discharged 
except Mr. Brooks, if my brother, as I understand it, confines himself 
to Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. iVrERRiCK. That is all. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Then we will let them all be discharged except 
him. 

Senator Kellogg. Is there any other evidence ? 

Mr. Merrick. No, sir. I stated this morning that I had intended to 
examine Mr. Cavanac and Mr. Murray in contradiction of the statements 
made ; but when the counsel on the other side said they would go into 
further testimony upon the same subject I concluded, wdth a vdew to 
economy, which the chairman is always pressing upon us with so much 
patriotic earnestness—economy of time and economy of money to 
postpone that until we go to New Orleans. 

Senator Houston. Then the witnesses are all discharged ercept Mr. 

Brooks ? . r . 1 1 

The Chairman. The witnesses on both sides of this case, subpoenaed 
to appear here, are now discharged, with the exception of JNfr. K. J. 


496 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Brooks, and Mr. Brooks is required to appear here to-morrow morning 
at half past ten o’clock. 

On motion, the committee adjourned until ten o’clock to morrow. 


AVashington, Saturday, June 14,1879. 

Present, the members of the committee, and the respective parties, 
with their counsel. 

FURTHER EXAMINATION OF R. J. BROOKS. 

Richard J. Brooks (colored), a witness for the sitting member, re¬ 
called by the memorialist. 

Examined by Mr. Merrick : 

Question. Do you know Mr. John L. or John S. Laresche, notary pub¬ 
lic !—Answer. No, sir. 

Q. Living on Exchange alley, near Custom House street.—A. No, sir j 
I do not think I have ever heard that name before. 

Q. Did you make an affidavit iw reference to your participation in the 
election of Mr. Kellogg to the Senate ?—A. Never did. 

Q. You never made any!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you state in any affidavit that you made that you knew Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg used money to influence members of the legislature to 
vote for him for United States Senator!—A. Never did. 

Q. “ During the time I was a member, as aforesaid, I received $200 
from a i)arty designated by Governor Kellogg for my vote.”—A. No, 
sir; I never made any such statement or affidavit. 

Mr. Merrick. The oiiginal paper, Mr. Chairman, has not arrived, as 
I expected. I have a copy, which I had yesterday to interrogate him 
from. Of course, it is of no avail. I said I would not delay the com¬ 
mittee or ask the committee to delay on that account, but would reserve 
the matter for further examination in New Orleans. The information 
that I have is from a lawyer in New Orleans, Mr. Walker, that the paper 
was mailed to me. 

The Witness. I should like to put a question. I should like to ask 
at the instance of whom did I make this affidavit. 

Mr. Merrick. I am sure I do not know. You know more about it 
than 1 do. You will have an opportunity to say all you know about it 
in New Orleans when we get down there. I will exhibit the paper to 
you. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q, Were you one of the witnesses before the legislative committee re¬ 
garding this matter !—A. I was. 

Q. Were you regularly sworn !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Questioned!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did not the committee hold public sessions !—A. O, yes; right in 
the speaker’s room. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you sign any paper in that committee !—A. In that committee 
I signed my testimony. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Were you sworn !—A. Yes, 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


497 


ADJOUEXMEXT. 

Seoator Kellogg. The only remaining witness, I believe, we have not 
produced on the stand referred to by Mr. Murray in his testimony is 
Pierre Magloire, from Avoyelles Parish. He is the only member of the 
legislature referred to in Mr. Murray^s testimony that we have not had 
here. He traveled one hundred and eighty-odd miles to get to Kew 
Orleans, hoping to get here in time ; but after what occurred here the 
day before yesterday, when I inquired of the chairman if he could be 
examined here, as we had no summons—in view of the fact that the chair¬ 
man thought he could not be, I telegraphed not to send him. 

The Chairman. The examination in this city at this time is closed. 

32 s K 






A! 





•r 


f. 






i 









I 
















TESTIMONY BEFORE AND PROCEEDINGS OF 

A. SUB COMMITTEE 


OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS, 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

IN THE 

MATTER OF THE MEMORIAL OF HENRY M. SPOFFORD 

RELATIVE TO 


THE SEAT IN THE SENATE HELD BY WM. PITT KELLOGG. 


























TESTIMONY BEFORE AND PROCEEDINGS 


OF THE 

SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELEC¬ 
TIONS, UNITED STATES SENATE, 

IX THE 

MATTER OF THE MEMORIAL OF HENRY M. SPOFFORD RELATIVE TO THE SEAT IX 
THE SENATE HELD I5Y WM. PITT KELLOGG. 


Xew Orleans, 
Monday^ November 17, 1870. 

The sub committee of the Committee oii Privileges and Electioiisof the 
United States Senate, pursuant to the authority of a resolution of May 
0, 1S79, met this day in parlor “C” of the Saint Charles Hotel, in the 
city of New Orleans, La., to hear further testimony in the matter of the 
memorial of Henry- M. Spofibrd relative to the seat in the Senate held 
by Wm. Pitt Kellogg. 

Present, the members of the sub-committee, viz: Senator Benjamin 
H. Hill, of Georgia, chairman ; Senators Z. B. Vance, of North Caro¬ 
lina, and Angus Cameron, of Wisconsin. Also, Henry M. Spotford, the 
memorialist, with his counsel, C. L. Walker, esip, and the sitting mem¬ 
ber, Senator Wm. Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill (chairman). Gentlemen, I see no reason why the com¬ 
mittee should not come to order. It is not necessary to call the roll as 
we are few in number and all present. The clerk will, however, enter 
the names of all present, the parties, and whether they appear by counsel 
or in iierson. 

You will also enter that Jas. B. Eandall has been aiipointed clerk of 
this sub-committee, Sam. W. Small, stenographer, and C. M. Wilcox, 
sergeant-at-arms. 

Mr. Sergeant-at-arms, the committee have unanimously- agreed that 
the sessions of this committee shall be open and public, but not to every¬ 
body. We cannot allow this room to be crowded so as to interfere with 
the discharge of our duties. The parties, their counsel, reporters of 
the press, and such other gentlemen as either member of the committee 
may invite, will be allowed to come in. YTni will see to it that the room 
is not so crowded as to interfere with the business of the committee. 

1 desire to say to the ])arties interested that the committee have con¬ 
cluded to keep the control of the examination of witnesses within them¬ 
selves. Of course there will betimes when the parties will desire to put 
fpiestions themselves, and they will be alloweil to do so, subject to the 
discretion of the committee. 

We have come here, gentlemen (addressing Senator Kellogg and :\Ir. 
Spotford), to give both of the contestants a fair and ecpial chance. We 
desire to get the testimony and do not desire to be unnecessarily de- 
taiiied, but to get through as soon as we can, consistently with a fair and 
full examination of the case. ' 


502 


SPOFFOKD YS. KELLOGG. 


The meetings of the committee, until otherwise ordered, will begin 
at 10 o’clock each morning. I suppose that will be about right, Senator 
Cameron ? I suppose we might say the meetings will begin at 10 o’clock 
each day ? 

Senator Ca3IERON. That is agreeable to me. I am willing to meet at 
any hour. 

Senator Hill. We are prepared to work and work earnestly, and I 
will say to the gentlemen they need not be afraid of giving us too much 
work. We want to give ample time to get all the witnesses here, and 
would be glad if the gentlemen and their counsel will make out a list 
of their witnesses as soon as possible, so that we may appoint deputy 
sergeants at-arms and have the witnesses brought as soon as we can. 
We would like, in the order of the witnesses, that we could hear first 
positive testimony. It would be unnecessary to summon witnesses now 
who would be kept here until late and consume the time and money of 
the government. Consistent with that, the other rules in matters of 
this sort will be observed. 

Now I would inquire of the parties—I suppose Judge Spolford, first— 
will you have any witnesses to-day ? 

Mr. Spofford. Mr. Chairman, Mr. (C. L.) Walker will represent me 
before the committee. 

Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, we will be prepared to introduce two 
or three witnesses to-day on our side. They are not here just now, 
however. Do the committee propose to sit in the afternoon ? 

Senator Hill. 1 suppose so, if we have got any work to do. 

Senator Yance proimsed that the committee hold its daily sessions 
from 10 a. m. to 4 p. m. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Cameron). What do you say ! 

Senator Cameron. I am content. 

Senator Yance. That gives us six hours of work, and also suits the 
customs of the people here. 

Senator Hill. That will suit me very well. We can take a recess 
when we have no witnesses at hand. 

(To Mr. Walker.) You had better get your witnesses here. 

Mr. Walker. At what time will the committee meet this afternoon? 

Senator Hill. At 2 o’clock. 

Senator Kellogg. As to any witnesses on my part, Mr. Chairman, 
the committee well knowAthat my evidence will be almost wholly in 
rebuttal, as is set forth in my communication on page 46. If Judge 
Spofibrd will furnish me a list of his witnesses and the points he expects 
to prove I could arrange easily enough to get the witnesses I need, but 
I cannot tell now what witnesses or what kind of evidence I want. 
Until I hear his evidence 1 cannot tell who 1 want to introduce, as all 
my evidence will be in the nature of rebuttal, unless we go into the last 
clause of the resolution, and 1 suppose that is not necessary to be con¬ 
sidered at this time. I am willing, however, to get on as rapidly as we 
can. 

Senator Hill. Of course the committee cannot make any suggestions 
to counsel on either side, but would be glad of anything they can do to 
expedite the case. We are aware. Senator Kellogg, of the nature of 
your testimony. 

Senator Kellogg.. I made the remarks I did, Mr. Chairman, only 
that the committee might not pass from that point without understand¬ 
ing my position and the nature of my testimony. 

Senator Hill. Senator Yance moves that we take a recess until 2 
o’clock. 








SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


503 


Senator Cameron. That suits me. 

Senator Vance. 1 suggest also that both sides file this afternoon lists 
of their witnesses. 

Senator Kellogg. I cannot do so until I hear the testimony of the 
other side. - 

Mr. \Yalker. Then it would be of no advantage to the Senator to 
know the names of the witnesses until he hears the evidence, and it 
will be time enough for him to know them when they are introduced. 

Senator Kellogg. You do not understand me, Mr. Walker. I say 
I cannot tell the character of the evidence I shall want to submit and 
all the witnesses until I hear your witnesses and what they swear to. 

Senator Hill. The committee will be in recess until 2 o’clock. 


The sub-committee reassembled at 2 j). m., with the members, parties, 
and their counsel all present. 

Senator Hill. Gentlemen, the hour of ? o’clock having arrived, the 
committee will please come to order. Mr. Walker, have you any wit¬ 
ness you can examine this afternoon ? 

Mr. Walker. One, sir; Mr. Henry Houser, who is in charge of the 
sergeant-at arms, and I suppose can be producedjiere very soon. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, bring in Henry Houser. 

EXAMINATION OF HENRY HOUSER. 

Henry Houser, a witness called by the memorialist, sworn and ex-. 
amined. 

By Senator Hill: 

Question. What is your name ?—Answer. Henry Houser. 

Q. Where do you reside?—A. I reside No. 88 Robertson street. 

Q. In this city?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided in this city ?—A. Since 18G3. 

Q. Since 1863, you say ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you in this city all the time between-?—A. I have been 

away, off and on, sometimes. 

Q. You have been an occasional resident since 1863 to 1868 ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you in the city during the months of November and Decem¬ 
ber 1876 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How were you employed at that time ?—A. I was a member of the 
Metropolitan Police force of this city. 

Q. What particular duties did you discharge as a Metropolitan police¬ 
man at that time?—A. I was detailed for duty at Governor Kellogg’s 
residence. 

(}. Were you the regular watchman there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were yoa there night and day, or at night only, or how ?—A. I 
was there at night. 

Q. You were night watchman at Governor Kellogg’s house?—A. 
A>s, sir. 

Q. Was that during the count of the election returns for that year— 
the canvass of the votes?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Houser, did you see any persons at that time who were in the 
habit of coming to Governor Kellogg’s house at night?—A. Yes, sir; I 
saw a great many. 



504 


SPOFFORD Vfe. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you see any persons having connection with the canvassing 
of the vote, members of the legislature, and other officers f—A. The 
house was visited mostly by State officers; mostly by them, off and on. 

Q. Who were they ?—A. There were senators and representatives j 
mostly all classes, more or less. 

Q. How did they enter the house? But, first, 1 will ask you who, con¬ 
nected with the canvass and counting of the vote, visited the house; 
any person you know who was connected with the counting—Mr. Blanch¬ 
ard, Jewett, Wells, or any of those?—A. They all visited the house. 

Q. How olten ?—A. They came there off and on, more or less, during 
a week. 

Q. During what week?—A. Well, they came there all that fall, more 
or less, while I was there. 

Q. At night?—A. Yes, sir ; I seen them there often at night. 

Q. Did you let them into the house ?—A. Sometimes I did, sir. 

Q. Which way did you let them in—the back or the front way ?—A. 
The front way generally. 

Q. Did you let them in the back way sometimes?—A. Mr.Blanchard 
and Mr. Jewett came in the back way. 

Q. And did they have anything with them, generally, when they came 
there?—A. Not as I remember in particular. I believe Mr. Blanchard 
had a roll of papers—something rolled up in paper. 

Q. What were they talking about with Governor Kellogg?—A. Well, 
I didn’t hear their conversations. 

Q. Did you hear Governor Kellogg say anything to them about the 
legislature, and what they must do about it?—A. 1 heard them talking 
of it off and on. 

Q. State what you heard them say and all that you heard.—A. I have 
heard and seen so much, and have been taken so sudden in this affair, 
that I must reconsider what I did hear. 

Q. State what you heard as near as you can remember it. Did you 
hear Governor Kellogg say anything about how the election had gone, 
whether Democratic or Eepublicau ?—A. I heard a conversation at one 
time, when Governor Kellogg conceded that the house of representa¬ 
tives had gone Democratic. 

Q. What did he say must be done about it?—A. He did not say any¬ 
thing on that occasion. I was only five or ten minutes, more or less, in 
the room when 1 was called in. 

Q. You heard him say that the house of representatives had gone 
Democratic. Now, what did he say must be done ? Did he say anything 
about changing it, and how ?—A. No; he did not say, but 1 heard it 
mentioned that some of the parishes would be or should be thrown out. 

Q. For what purpose were they to be thrown out ?—A. To make it 
appear Eepublicau, I guess. 

Q. Do you know whether that was said between Governor Kellogg 
and these gentlemen?—A. Yes, sir; I heard the conversation often pre¬ 
vious to the time the count of the election was promulgated. 

Q. Just tell anything you know, that you recollect, that you heard ; 
just tell the plain truth ; that is all we want.—A. As I stated before, 1 
have been taken so sudden in this case—just subpoenaed half an hour 
ago—that it takes me time to reflect upon certain things. 

Q. What office did Mr. Blanchard hold at that time ?—A. I cannot 
state what office he did hold; he came there, and did some clerking or 
other. ^ 

Q. Came there how ?—A. He done some clerking there at nights. 



SrOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


505 


Q. Where did these interviews take place in Governor Kellojrg’s 
house—what room ?—A. Governor Kellogg had a private office upstairs. 

(^. Were these men in that private office ?—A. He received all his 
friends in this upstairs office. 

Q. Where did he receive Blanchard and Jewett ?—A. They were in 
another room adjoining. 

Q. In Governor Kellogg’s bouse?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were writing, then, in another room, not his office?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

(J. Who was in there with them ?—x\. They were alone most of the 
time, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Do you mean at the house, or at my office ?—A. At the house. 

Senator Hill. Stop, Governor. 

Senator Kellogg. I just wanted to understand the witness, ]Mr. 
Chairman. 

Senator Hill. We will conduct the examination properly. 

Senator Cameron. Well, now, if you are going to be so particular as 
all that, I shall object to your leading this witness. 

Senator Hill. I am not leading the witness. Senator Cameron, and 
your objection is out of place. 

Senator Cameron. I submit that you are leading him. 

Senator Kellogg. You are putting w^ords into his mouth. 

Senator Hill. O, very well; I will not lead him ; but I say I have 
asked him no question that the answer was not “ Yes,” or “ Ko.” And 
that is the test. (To the w itnessr) What work were they doing there 
in that room at night ?—A. From the beginning when Blanchard and 
Jewett came in ? Blanchard said to me they would come and work on 
the election returns upstairs. 

Q. That they would work on the returns ?—A. That is wffiat Blanch¬ 
ard told me in Governor Kellogg’s stable. 

Q. How' often would they come there?—A. More or less for probably 
a week or tw^o, at night. 

Q. At wdiat time of night, generally ?—A. About 7 o’clock or 8 o’clock. 

Q. How long would they stay ?—xV. Sometimes till 11 o’clock, some¬ 
times 10 o’clock and 12 o’clock. 

Q. Did anybody else come with them ?—A. Xo; they came together 
in a cab. 

Q. Did you see Mr. Anderson (Thos. C.) come there at any time?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was a member of the returning board, w’asu’t he ?—xV. Yes, 
sir; he w as there very often. 

Q. Was Wells there, too ?—A. Xo, sir ; I only seen him on one or two 
occasions there at night-time. He may have been there in the day-time, 
but I don’t know’ anything that transpired in the day time. 

Q. Were any other members of the returning board there, w hom you 
saw ?—A. No, sir ; not that 1 saw. 

Q. Do you know’ what kind of i)apers thosi* were that they were work¬ 
ing upon ?—xV. They were those long printed forms, so long (indicating 
with his hands) and so wide, about. 

Q. Did you hear them say what kind of pai)ers they were ?—A. The 
general talk was about the election and election returns. 

Q. About election returns?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear Mr. Kellogg say anything else about the legislature 
and what must be done with it; how it must be managed? Did you 



506 


SPOFFORD Yii. KELLOGG. 


hear him say anything upon that subject ? Did you hear anything said 
about being bound to do so and so; and if so, what was that*?—A. I 
have heard it mentioned in conversation about some parishes should be 
thrown out. 

Q. What did they want to throw them out for ? What reason did 
they give?—iV. Weil, sir, I presume it was to turn the house llepub- 
lican. 

Senator Cameron. You are not asked to presume anything about it. 

Senator Hill. (To the witness.) Yes; you can tell what your under¬ 
standing was from them at the time. 

A. I understood that thie State should be carried Kepublican by the 
election of 1876. 

Q. And that that was the object of throwing out these parishes?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What are the locations of those rooms ? Tell us how the room was 
situated that they met in.—A. There were two rooms adjoining one 
another up stairs on the second floor. The house was two and a half 
stories. 

Q. ITow often did Blanchard come there?—A.'He came in the back 
way for a week or two, off and on. That was before the election returns 
were promulgated. 

Q. Did he come every night?—A. Mostly every night. 

Q. Did you discharge any other duties besides those of policeman at 
Oovernur Kellogg’s house?—A. I made myself generally useful about 
the house. I was subject to his oredrs. I was his messenger, aud any 
place he sent me I performed the errand. 

Senator Hill. Senator Cameron or Senator Yance, either, can ask any 
question they wish. 

Senator Vance. I have no question for the witness. 

By Senator CAMERON: 

Q. What is your present occupation?—A. At present I am a ware¬ 
houseman. 

Q. Are you carrying on any business of any kind yourself?—A. No, 
sir; I am only working as a laborer. 

Q. For whom are you working ?—A. Maginnis’s Sons. 

Q. How long have you been in that occupation ?—A. One year, about, 
sir, 

Q. When were you appointed a member of the Metropolitan police 
force?—A. In 1867, after I left,the Army. 

Q. How long did you continue in it ?—A. Until the downfall of the 
Packard government. 

Q. When were you assigned to duty at Governor Kellogg’s house ?— 
A. Well, it was, 1 think, in 1872—the beginning of 1872; yes, I think 
about the beginning of 1872, to the best of my knowledge. 

Q. How long did you continue there ?—A."No ; I was mistaken. It 
was afterwards I went there. 1 was three years on duty, more or less, 
with Governor Kellogg. 

Q. 1 asked you how long did you continue there ?—A. Until Mr. Pack¬ 
ard was inaugurated governor. 

Q. When was that?—A. In 1876. 

Q. What time in 1876?—A. I think it was the 9th of January. 

Q. Where did you theu go?—A. I went to the State-house after¬ 
wards. 

Q. AVhat were your duties at the State house ?—A. Police officer. 

Q. How long did you remain there?—A. I remained there until we 
had to evacuate. 








SPOFFOUD Vrf. KELLOGG. 507 

Q. How 1 oii<j: (li<l you remain, I ask you ?—A. T presume a mouth or 
so, more or less. 

(,>. \\ hat do you mean by “more or less”? You have used that term 
very often in the course of this examination, and I want to know what 
you mean by it ?—A. 1 do not know exactly how Ion" it was. I believe 
1 went to the State-house the 1st of February, about, and remained 
there until March, when Nicholls became to be "overnor. 

Q. You were asked if members of the returninj^ board visited Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg’s house while you were stationed there. \Yho were the 
members of the returning board?—A. Mr. Anderson. 

Q. Who else ?—A. He was the only one who visited Governor Kel¬ 
logg’s house. 

Q. I don’t ask you who visited (lovernor Kellogg’s house; I ask you 
who were the members of the returning board. Now, can you tell 
me?—A. Yes, sir. There was 'Siv. Anderson, Mr. Kenner, Mr. Wells, 
and Mr. Cassanave. 

Q. When did you first see Mr. Anderson at Governor Kellogg’s; fix 
the day now?—A. I could not do that positively. 

Fix it as near as you can.—A. Well, xVnderson-;- 

(}. No ; don’t go on in that way. Fix the day as near as you can that 
you saw Anderson there. That is the question 1 ask.—A. Well, I should 
say about two or three months previous to the inauguration of Governor 
Packard. 

Senator HilIv. What was the question ? 

Senator Cameron (to Senator Hill). When he first saw Anderson at 
Kellogg\s. 

The Witness. I may have seen him before that. 

Senator Cameron (to the witness). That is the reason I ask you when 
it was. A'ou say “two or three months previous to the inauguration 
of Governor Packard ” ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who were there besides Anderson and yourself?—A. I could not 
state that. 

(,). I am now speaking of the first time you saw him there. Can’t you 
tell who were there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. First I will ask you what did xVnderson do when he was there? — 
A. He came in as a visitor, and went upstairs to Governor Kellogg’s 
<;ftice; sometimes he was in his private room. 

i}. I am stieaking now of the first time.—A. I could not tell you what 
lie did then. 

Q. What did he say when he was tliM'e the first time ?—A. I don’t 
know, sir. 

Q. When did you see him there the second time ?—A. He has been 
there- 

Q. No, no; T say the second time?—A. I seen him there frequently. 

Q. How long after the first time?—xV. I can’t state that. 

Q. State it as near as you can ?—A. He came a week or two after, and 
probably the next day. 

Q. Y^oa do not un lerstand me, AFr. Witness. I say, when did you see 
him there the second time ? Confine yourself to that.—xV. I may have 
seen him a week or so or two or three days after the first time. 

Q. Which was it, a week or two or two or three days ?—A. I cannot 
state positively. 

Q. State as near as you can.—xV. Pecause the time I state- 

(,). Don’t go into any explanations ; ^fix the time.—xV. 1 could not tix 
.any time. 




5G8 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Who were there when he called the second time ?—A. I could not 
tell you. 

Q. What did he say or do?—A. I could not tell you. 

Q. When did 3 on see him there the third time ?—A. He was a con¬ 
stant visitor there for some time, and I caiPt remember each time he 
came. 

Q. When did you see him there the third time ? That is my question. 
Can you tix any time ?—A. I can’t hx any time at all, sir. 

Q. Who were there when he called the third time ? Give the names 
of those who were present.—A. Well, there were so many came there, 
and always have been there- 

Q. Wait one moment. Give the names of those who were there, and 
no matter about general statements.—A. I could not tell you. 

Q. What did he do or say then ?—A. I could not tell you. 

Q. How many times did he call there in all ? Fix the number.—A. 
Well, twentj'-five, fifty, or so on, more or less. 

Q. ‘‘Well, twenty-five, fifty, or so on, more or less.” Is that all you 
can say about it?—A. I was often sent for him m.vself. 

Q. Give the number of times he was there.—A. Twenty-five times, 
more or less. 

Q. And that is your answer?—A. Yes, sir; that is, that he came to 
the house. 

Q. When did those visits commence, and when did they end ?—A. 
The visits ended after Governor Packard was inaugurated. 

Q. When did the^' begin ?—A. They had no particular time ia begin¬ 
ning, because- 

Q. Don’t go into any explanation. When did they begin ? If you 
can’t tell, say so.—A. They began previous to the election of 1876. 

Q. How long previous ?—A. Probably a month and two or three 
weeks, or two mouths. 

Q. “Probably a month and two or three weeks, or two months”; and 
that is as near as you can get at the time?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who were present at any time when Mr. Anderson called at Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg’s?—A. I could not state particularly who was present. 

Q. What did Anderson do or say at any time when he called?—A. I 
could not state positively. Sometimes he was talking about the elec¬ 
tion. 

Q. To whom w^s he talking about the election ?—A. There was gen¬ 
erally- , 

Q. Give the name, Mr. Witness, of some man that he talked with 
about the election of 1876, if you can ; it not, say so.— A. He was often 
talking with Governor Kellogg. 

Q. State anything you heard him say to Governor Kellogg.—A. I 
could not remember anything. 

Q. Do you remember his talking to anybody else about the election 
of 1876, when he called there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you remember anything that Governor Kellogg said to Ander¬ 
son about the election of 1876 during any ot those visits?—A. No, sir; 
the only thing I remember is they were talking about the house of rep¬ 
resentatives, and that it had gone Democratic. That is all I remem¬ 
ber. 

Q. Who were talking about that?—A. I heard Governor Kellogg 
make that expression. 

Q. To Anderson ?—A. I could not say whether it was to him or no. 

Q. 1 only asked you about the conversations between Anderson and 
Kellogg; you understood that?—A. A"es, sir. 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


509 


Q. Yon need not answer, then, anything else than what I ask you, 

hen did Blanchard and Jewett call the first time, as near as you can 
fix it?—A. Probably, maybe a week after the election; maybe later, 
or probably a day or two sooner. 

Q. That is as near as you can fix the time ?—A. Blanchard had been 
there previous to tfie election. 

(^ When did you first see Blanchard there?—A. I have seen him 
there probably a month before the election of 187G. 

Q. Did you let him in the back door tTien ?—A. IN’o, sir. 

Q. When did you next see him there?—A. 1 seen him, probal)ly, a 
day or two later, or a night or two later. 

Q. Which was it; a day or two, or a night or two?—A. A night or 
two. 

Q. Did you ever see him there in the daytime?—A. No, sir. 

Q. At what time of the night did you go on duty ?—A. At six or 
seven o’clock, generally. 

Q. IIow long did you remain on duty?—A. Until morning; six or 
seven o’clock. 

Q. State who were present at Kellogg’s house at any time when 
Blanchard called there ?—A. Well, Governor Kellogg was present, and 
that is about the only one that I could distinctly say. 

Q. Did you hear any conversation between Blanchard and'Kellogg? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. When did Jewett—but you have stated when he called there first. 
State any persons who were present at any time when Jewett called at 
Governor Kellogg’s house ?—A. I could not state aii}^ one positively, 
except Governor Kellogg, in company with Blanchard, who came with 
Jewett. Some times Blanchard came alone. 

Q. Then you cannot give the names of any one who was present when 
Jewett called, except Governor Kellogg?—A. There were sometimes 
five or six there. 

Q. tasked you to give the names; can you do that?—A. General 
Anderson was there more or less every night, and Governor Packard 
was there very often. 

Q. Can you swear that they were present when Jewett and Blanch¬ 
ard were there ?—A. Not positively. 

Q. What would Jewett and Blanchard do when they were at Kellogg’s 
house?—A. They were writing, to the best of my knowledge, on elec¬ 
tion returns; working on election returns. 

Q. When did they commence that ?—A. A few days after the election 
of 1870. 

Q. lIow long after the election of 1870 ?—A. JMaybe a week or two, 
or more or less. 

Q. That is as near as you can get at the time, is it ?—A. Y"es, sir; to 
the best of my knowledge now at present. 

Q. Would you know an election return if you were to see it ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I believe so. 

Q. Have you ever examined any ?—A. No, sir; but I have seen them. 

(^). And you think if you were to meet one on the road you would 
know it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long were ^ on in the room where Blanchard and Jewett were 
writing?—A. 1 was never in the room. 

Q. Never at ah'?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Where were you stationed ; in the house or outside ?—A. Inside, 
sir. 

Q. Where was your usual place in the house?—A. Downstairs, more 


510 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 




\ 


*1 


or less; either in the stable, unless T was called upstairs and bad some¬ 
thing to do, or keeping door, more or less, letting parties in and out^ 
and carrying messages. 

Q. Did you at any time see Kellogg in the room where Jewett and 
Blanchard were writing, with them ?—A. I could not state any time 
positivel^L I have seen Blanchard in Governor Kellogg’s room often. 

Q. Yes; but can you state that you have seen Kellogg in this side | 
room where they were wTiting ?—A. Ko, sir. \ 

Q. Did you ever see them writing there at all ?—A. Blanchard ? } 

Q. Yes.—A. Yes, sir. i 

Q. When?—A. After the election of 187G. , 

Q. Give the time as near as you can.—A. Well, probably it was a 
week and two or three days or Uvo weeks afterwards. 

* Q. How^ many times were they writing in there?—A. I domt know 
that. One or two occasions wdien I was called upstairs I passed by the . 
w indow and saw them in there writing. 

Q. You passed by the window and saw them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You never saw them in any other way than that when w’riting in ' 
that room?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you stop and look at them, and see what they were doing?— 

A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Where were you when you saw Jew ett writing in there ?—A. Jew¬ 
ett was with Blanchard. 

Q. I asked you where you were when you saw Jewett writing in that ; 
room.—A. I was outside on the gallery passing by the window. , 

Q. How many times did you see him writing in there ?—A. I never ^ 
made it my business to w atch any of them. i 

Q. I didn’t ask you anything about that; I asked you how many times 
you saw him w riting in there ?—A. I saw him on one occasion. 

Q. When was that?—A. It was some time after the election of 187G. / 

Q. How long after ?—A. I could not state positively. e 

Q. Well, as near as you can fix the time?—A. Ten days or two weeks,. 
probably. 

Q. Might it not have been a month afterwards?—A. I could not state ; 
positivel^L They generally came together, him and Blanchard. ' 

• Q. That you have stated several times. I am trying to find the time 
when you saw^ them writing.—A. I could not state that. 

Q. Do you know what he was writing ?—A. I know from what Mr. 
Blanchard told me they were wmrking on election returns. 

Q. Is that all you know?—A. Yes, sir. j 

Q. You never examined the papers yourself to see?—A. No, sir. ' | 

Q. Did you ever see any of the writing they did?—A. No, sir; only ’ i 

I saw them through the window writing. ■ 

Q. How far were you from them ?—A. As near as to this gentleman 
here (indicating the stenographer next to him.) 

Q. Did you stop and read any of the waiting?—A. No, sir; I could 
not. 

Q. All you know is that Blanchard told you they were working on the 
election returns?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that is all you know ?—A. Yes, sir. j, I 

Q. You say you heard Governor Kellogg state at one time, in one of ! il 
these conversations at his house, that the house of representatives had ! 
gone Democratic?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When, now, did he say that ?—A. It was shortlv after the election 
of 187G. ‘ ' ! 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 511 

Q. How loll" after tlie election of 187G, as near as yon can fix it?— 
A. l*i obal)ly a week or so. 

Q. horn did he say that to?—A. I cannot say positively*; but I think 
it was in a general conversation. 

Q. Who were present at that conversation ?—A. 1 conid not remember 
the names, but there were four or five present. * 

Q. Can’t yon remember the name of any one of them ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Hid you, at the time, know who they were?—A. 1 know that some 
of them were members of the house of the legislature. 

Q. Did you at the time know their names, the name of any one of 
them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are sure you did not?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Think now. Did you know tlie names of any of those to whom 
you say Governor Kellogg made that statement ?—A. 1 believe that 
General Anderson was present. 

Q. Are you certain of that?—A. Y"es, sir; I am certain of that. 

Q. Y^ou are certain of that?—A. Y"es, sir, 

(^. State the time that that conversation occurred.—A. It was at night, 
but I could not say the date or the night. It was after the election of 
187G—shortly after that. 

Q. AV^hat else was said at that time between any of the [larties who 
were then present ?—A. 1 cannot state that, because- 

Q. Ymu needn’t give any reason why, if you cannot state it.—xV. I do 
not know, sir. 

Q. Then that is all you remember of that conversation?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you remember any other conversation between Governor 
Kellogg and any other person present at his house within three months 
after the election of 187G ?—A. Xo, sir. lie conversed with several 
parties, but I never took any interest in it to listen, as I was frequently^ 
in the room waiting for him to hand me some message, and when it was 
ready 1 left. 

Q. You recollect, then, that he said the house had gone Demoratic, 
and that ho said that on one occasion ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that he said it to General Anderson ?—A. To the best of my 
knowledge now, he was present. 

. Senator Cameron. Air. Chairman, Governor Kellogg wishes to ask 
him a question or two with regard to the location of the rooms in his 
house. 

Senator Hill. All right; I have no objections. 

Dy Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Air. Houser, yon spoke of two rooms u])stairs; was one of them 
occupied as an ollice by me?—A. YYs, sir; that was your own private 
room upstairs, which was used as your office. 

Q. AVhat was the room in the rear of it ?—xV. That was the room that 
I saw Air. Blanchard in. ^ 

Q. AVhat was that room ?—x\. I believe it was a bed-room. 

(^>. AVhat furniture was there in that room, do you remember ?—xV. 
To the best of my knowledge, I have seen a bedstead in there and other 
furniture. 

Q. AVhat else ? State it all.—xV. There was a desk, and a wash- 
stand, and a kind of bureau. 

Q. AVas there a desk in that room ?—A. There was a desk standing 
towards the window facing the gallery. 

D. Facing the gallery ? State where it was exactly, and whether, in 
fact, there was a desk or table in that room ?—xV. There was a desk, to 
the best of my knowledge. 



512 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


Q. Where was it located'?—A. It was standing near the window, fac¬ 
ing the gallery. 

Q. “ Standing near the window, facing the gallery.” You say there 
was a desk, a bed, and a washstand; was there a bureau in the room ? 
—A. There was at one time. I have never examined what was in the 
room. 

Q. You saw it every day, did you not ?—A. Yes, sirj 1 believ^e I saw 
it on one or two occasions. 

Q. OanT you remember whether there was a bureau in there ?—A. 
When I was in there I seen a bureau in there, but 1 can’t tell what was 
in it w hen Mr. Blanchard was in there. 

Q. Was Mr. Jewett in there?—A. Yes, sir; I seen both of them in 
there. 

Q. Yon have seen both of them in there writing?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At a desk ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Be distinct now, in your recollection, Mr. Houser. What was the 
room immediately in front of that bed-room ?—A. This way from it ? 

Q. Yes, sir; this way?—A. That was your room. 

Q. Yes. Now, wasn’t that all there w'as of that suite of rooms ?—A. 
Yes, sir, those two; I think you had to go on the gallery to get to the 
others on Basin street. 

Q. Then there was a gallery that ran along the side of the house and 
down into the yard to the stable ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wasn’t all the writing that was done there done in my room where 
there was a desk and a table?—A. I cannot state that. 

Q. Now, I ask you to state w^hether there was a desk in that room— 
ever.—A. If it was not a desk it w^as a table. I know they were sitting 
before it writing on it. 

Q. You are sure they were sitting there writing?—A. Yes, sir; I 
know it. 

Q. You saw^ Mr. Jewett?—A. Yes, sir; and Mr. Blanchard in parti¬ 
cular. 

Q. Is Mr. Blanchard alive ?—A. No, sir ; I believe he is dead., 

Q. Mr. Jewett is alive ?—A. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Q. Now, sir, I want you to say whether you saw both of them in 
there.—A. Yes, sir; both of them. 

Q. And you saw them writing ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I wanted to fix that. Now, where does that house front ?—A. On 
Rampart street. 

Q. What is at the rear of it ?—A. Basin street. 

Q. Does the house and the stable front on it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So the house and stable run to Basin street ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AYhere did I come usually, to the front or rear of the house ?—A. 
To the rear. 

Q. Did not people come to the rear quite as much as to the front ?—A. 
Very often, sir. 

Q. Didn’t people generally, clerks and others, come there to the rear 
and come upstairs to my office?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wasn’t Blanchard a clerk in my office?—A. Yes, sir; I think that 
he was. 

Q. Didn’t he use to come there frequently with commissions and other 
things for me to sign ?—A. Yes, sir ; I believe he did. 

Senator Hill. Senator, I hope you will not abuse the iirivilege the 
committee has accorded you. 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; I will not. I was using the privilege as 
it was allowed me in Washington by the general committee. 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


513 


) Senator Hill. Senator Cameron said you wished to ask the witness 
about the position of the rooqis, and permission was granted you to do 
so. Now you are going into a general cross-examination. 

Senator Kellogg. But, Mr. Chairman, here is a serious accusation 
brought against me in the testimony of this witness, and I wanted to 
show by him that Mr. Blanchard was a clerk in my office, bringing 
papers for mo to sign in the legitimate discharge of my duties. 

Senator Cameron. The inference, Mr. Cbairman, from the testimony 
that this man came in at the rear of the liouse was that there was some¬ 
thing wTong going on. 

Senator Hill. Those questions, Senator, I think were proper, and I 
do not object to them. 1 only wanted to remind Senator Kellogg of the 
rule of the committee. 

By Senator Kellogg (resuming): 

Q. What parishes did you hear referred to as necessary to be thrown 
out ?—A. Those i)arishes where there was intimidation in. 

Q. Will you name those parishes ?—A. I could not state positively. 
West Feliciana was one, I think, where Anderson was supervisor of 
election. 

Q. Can you name any other parish ?—A. No, sir j if I think over it I 
exi)ect I could, but 1 don’t remember them now. 

Senator Kellogg. Well, 1 believe that is all I care to ask. T am 
much obliged, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Mr. Houser, 1 wish to ask you a few questions suggested by the 
examination of the other gentle r en. You say that Blanchard told you 
what he was doing I —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did he say they were doing?—A. He said they were work¬ 
ing on the election returns. 

Q. Did he tell you what they were doing to them ?—A. No, sir ; ho 
said they would come in and out that way for several nights. 

Q. Did he give you any caution with regard to the matter ?—A. He 
told me not to say an^’thing about it. 

Q. Blanchard told you they would come in and out that back way for 
several nights, and that they vvere working on the election returns, and 
for you not to say anything about it?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Y^ou were asked if Anderson ever came there. State if Governor 
Kellogg ever sent you to Anderson’s ?—A. On several occasions he sent 
me to call General Anderson. 

Q. Did he give you any reason for sending you !—A. No, sir; he 
merely stated for General Anderson to call at his house. 

Q. Did he ever ask you to put on any clothes so nobody could recog¬ 
nize you or not?—A. He sent me on one night to watch who was going 
in and out of Anderson’s house, and to state to him who the parties 
were.^ 

Q. How did he tell you to dress on that occasion ?—A. He told me 
to put on an overcoat; that was all. 

Q. Why? Why did he want you to put on an overcoat?—A. I do 
not know, sir. 

Q. Did Ik give you any reason why ho wanted you to watch Ander¬ 
son’s house ?—A. No, sir. He merely said to go to No. 4o Bampart 
street and watch who was going in and out. 

Q. That was Anderson’s house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Did you go there and watch ?—A. Y^'es, sir. 

33 s K 


514 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How long did you remain on the watch ?—A. Probably half an 
hour. 

Q. Where did you watch at ?—A. I stood on the street-car track be¬ 
hind a tree. 

Q. Hid you see anybody go in ?—A. I did not see anybody go in, but 
I saw two or three come out. 

Q. Did you know who they were?—A. No, sir. They seemed to me 
to be parties from the country. 

Q. I forgot to ask you one question. Was Governor Kellogg at that 
time a candidate for any office ? He was then governor ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he expecting to be elected to any other office ?—A. I do not 
know. I heard others say so. 

Q. You heard it generally from general rumor ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Houser, I will say to you before you go that, as 
you say you have been taken by surprise in this matter, the committee 
want nothing but what is exactly correct. We want to know the truth, 
and all of it. When you go home and think it all over, if you have 
said anything that is wrong you can correct it, and if you wish to add 
anything to it you can do so. We want your testimony correct. You 
may go, sir. 

Senator Cameron. Stop. I wish to ask the witness one or two more 
questions. (To the witness.) When were you supbceuaed to come 
here?—A. About ten minutes before two o’clock, sir. 

Q. State with whom you have conversed about your testimony.— 
A. Nobody, sir. I was brought up here to the committee-room by the 
sergeant-atarms. 

Q. Who did you converse with before you came here ?—A. I was in 
Mr. Walker’s office. 

Q. I didn’t ask you in whose office you werej I asked you with whom 
you conversed.—A. With Mr. Walker. 

Q. In regard to what testimony you would give here?—A. No, sir. I 
was informed by him and the sergeant at-arms that I was subpoenaed 
before the Congressional committee. 

Q. Who took you there ?—A. The sergeant-at-arms. 

Q. The sergeant-at-arms took you to Mr. Walker’s office ?—A. I was 
downstairs, and he said to me to come up there. 

Q. Where did he serve the subpoena on you ?—A. Upstairs, sir. 

Q. He first got you into Walker’s office and then served the subpoena 
on you ?—A. No, sir; no, sir. 

Q. Where, then, did he subpoena you ?—A. In Mr. Walker’s office. 

Q. How did you happen to go into Mr. Walker’s office ?—A. I was 
sent for. 

Q. Who sent for you ? (The witness appeared to hesitate.) Yon can 
remember who ; it was only an hour ago ?—A. Mr. Walker sent for me. 

.Q. Ah, Mr. Walker sent for you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whom did he send for you ?—A. He sent a cab down for me at 
the place where I am working. 

Q. He brought you up in a cab ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you first see the sergeant-at arms ?—A. Downstairs, 
on the banquette, in front of Mr. Walker’s office, on Common street. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with him ?—A. No, sir; I had a 
drink with him. 

Q. Oh, you had a drink with him; but did you have any conversa¬ 
tion with him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How did you know he was the sergeant-at-arms ?—A. I had heard 
of it. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


515 


(^. Where was he then ?—A. lie told me that down on the street— 
that he was serp^eant-at-arms of this committee and had a notice for me. 

Q. When was that f—A. A few minutes before two o’clock. 

Q. And bo asked you to go up into Mr. Walker’s office ?—A. No, sir; 
he did not. 

Q. Then he followed you up there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And when he got up there ho served the subpoena on you ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. Walker. (To Senator Cameron.) That is correct, Senator; I sent 
for the witness to come to my office. 

Senator Cameron. No matter,Mr. Walker; that is not essential, nor 
is it necessary for you to explain your action. (To the witness.) When 
had you talked with Mr. Walker before about your testimony in this 
case ?—A. I never talked with him about it. 

Q. Have you been an applicant for a position in the custom-house or 
any other government office ?—A. I have never been an applicant for 
an office, but 1 have asked them on several occasions to give me em- 
idoyment. 

Q. Did you write a letter to Governor Kellogg, or to the collector of 
the port, in which you stated that unless you were furnished with an 
ofBceyou would come before this committee and testify?—A. I never 
wrote the letter. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did you never write me a letter ?—A. I did not. You got a letter 
from me, but 1 did not write it. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Who wrote it for you ?—A. A friend of mine wrote it. 

Q. What is his name ?—A. Otto Noah. 

Q. Did he write it with your knowledge or consent?—A. I cannot 
state that positively ; I cannot read or write myself. 

Q. Did you know he was going to write the letter ?—A. He told me 
that he was going to write one. 

Q. Did he tell you what the substance of the letter would be ?—A. 1 
do not remember whether he did or no. 

Q. When did he tell you that be was going to write you a letter ?— 
A. Posssibly a year or more ago. 

Q. What object did be have, or wbat was your object in having him 
write it ?—A. 1 bad no object myself. 

Q. Wasn’t it to have an office?—A. I never looked for an office, sir. 

Q. Well, some employment in tbe custom-bouse, then ?—A. 1 had no 
object in view, more than to get employment. 

Senator Cameron. That is all. 

Senator Hill. That is all irrelevant and new matter, but I do not 
blame you. Mr. Witness, you can go for tbe present. 


EXAMINATION OF LOUIS F. GARIC. 

Louis F. Garic, a witness called by tbe memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

(Question. Wbat is your name ?—Answer. Garic. 

Q. Give your full name to tbe stenographer.—A. Yes, sir—Louis F. 
Q. Do you reside in this cit3^, Mr. Garic?—A. I do, sir. 



516 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How long Lave you resided here ?—A. Forty-two years, sir. 
was born in the parish of St. Bernard, just below here. 

Q. Were you here in the months of November and December, 1870 ? 
—A. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Q Were you acquainted with Mr. Deslonde—P. G. Deslonde—the 
secretary of state ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear him say anything about the returns of the elec¬ 
tion of 1870, and the result of that election j and if so, what ?—A. What 
election was that'? 

Q. The election for members of the legislature and State officers, and 
for Presidential electors. He was an officer of the State, wasiFt he?— 
A. He was secretary of state; yes, sir. 

Q. What did he ever say to you about that election ? Just tell all he 
said, as near as you can remember it.—A. We were talking about the 
Senatorship and Governor Kellogg, and he told me several times that 
the legislature that elected Kellogg never had a quorum. He said many 
other things, but he told me that, I remember well. He told me so 
twenty times or more, and said if he was not a poor man—he is a colored 
man—he said he would make a clean breast of it. I advised him to do 
so, and tell the whole thing; and I even wrote about it to General Gor¬ 
don and told him to tell the committee about it. 

Q. He said if he was not so poor he would make a clean breast of it ? 
—A. Yes, sir ; he said if he did the Kepublicaus would leave him alone, 
and the Democrats would not take care of himj and I suppose thaFs 
so. 

Q. You think think the Eepublicans would leave him alone ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I do. 

Senator Cameron. Mr. Chairman, when this witness was called 1 did 
not know what it was he was to testify to. 

Senator Hill. Neither did 1. 

Senator Cameron. And I object to the testimony. We are in the 
unfortunate position of acting as judges and as counsel in this matter, 
rather. 

Senator Hill. I was trying. Senator, to get out the facts without re¬ 
gard to what they were particularly, so they referred to this case. 

Senator Cameron. The objection I make is that the Senate has al¬ 
ready decided that the legislature that elected Governor Kellogg was a 
legal legislature. 

Senator Hill. And you object to that testimony about the quorum, 
because you hold that that question is res adjudicata f 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. And I, without replying further, say that the very 
ground on which we reopened this case was that the committee, in its 
previous investigation, had refused to receive this very testimony. 

Senator Yance. (To Senator Hill.) Have you the resolution there 
under which we are acting? 

Senator Kellogg. I object to it, Mr. Chairman, on another ground, 
and on that I would like to have a ruling of the committee, and that is 
it is heresay testimony. 

Senator Cameron. It certainly w ould not be admitted in a court of 
justice. 

Senator Hill. Here is the resolution under which we are proceed¬ 
ing. 

Senator Yance. Eead it, if you please. 

Senator Hill. The resolution is this: ^•‘Resolved, That the Committee 
on Privileges and Elections* to which was jreferred the memorial of 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


517 


Ilenry :\r. Spoftord, praying: permission to produce evidence reliiting to 
the right of lion. William Titt Kellogg to the seat in the Senate held 
by him from the State of Louisiana, and in support of the claim of said 
petitioner thereto, be, and said committee is hweby, instructed to in¬ 
quire into the matters alleged in said petition j and for that purpose 
said committee is authorized and empowered to send for persons and 
papers, administer oaths, and do all such other acts as are necessary 
and proper for a full and fair investigation in the premises,’’ and so on. 
1 think, myself, that resolution covers the whole question ; and besides, 
the testimony taken in Washington itself goes into this very question 
we are on. 

Senator Cameron. I am aware of that, and you know the position 1 
take now is the same as that taken then by Senator Kellogg. 

Senator Uill. You want to go on the record, I suppose, as objecting 
to the testimony f 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir. 

Senator KellogGt. We hold that the case was disposed of by the 
Senate on its merits. 

Senator Hill. That action. Senator Kellogg, is on the record for 
whatever it is worth. 

Senator Kellogg. I would like the objection I make noted, that this 
is hearsay testimony and not the declaration of myself or any member 
of the legislature which elected me. 

Senator Hill. It is the declaration of a State officer who was charged 
with certain duties in connection with the election and returns. 

Senator Vance. The reporter will get it all down, and your objection 
will appear. Senator Kellogg. 

Senator Cameron. (To the witness.) Mr. Garic, state when and 
where- 

Senator Hill. Stop, Senator Cameron; this objection has not been 
disposed of yet. (To Senator Vance.) What do you say. Senator 
Y^ance 1 

Senator Vance. I think the same objection was made in Washington, 
but the Senate passed this resolution anyhow. 

Senator Hill. Tlie stenographer will note in the record that the 
objection is overruled. Kow, Senator Cameron, you may take the wit¬ 
ness. 

By Senator Cameron : 

(Question. State when and where—at what place—you had this con¬ 
versation with Deslonde.—Answer. It was in Januaiy or Febuary last. 
He was employed then, and is, I think, now in the post-office. He got 
very small pay for his services, and Mr. Hunsacker and his brother 
used to discount his pay for him in advance. He would come over there 
to get three or four dhllars at a time, and sometimes jMr. Hunsacker 
wasn’t well disposed to accommodate him, and would not give him the 
three or four dollars that he wanted; and then he would tell us these 
little stories of how badly he had been treated. He said he had been 
secretary of state for the Republicans, and while he had plenty before 
the war he had nothing now. And I remember he said he had lost 
nine thousand dollars that Mr. Kellogg was to have paid him for signing 
some things. 1 don’t know now what. 

Q. ^By Senator Kellogg) Bonds, was it?—A. Yes, sir; bonds was 
what he said. He told me those things several times, and 1 suppose 
what he told me about the quorum was right. 

Senator Cameron. You have no right to give your opinion as to 
whether what he told you was right or wrong, sir. 


518 


SFOFFORD VS, KELLOGG 


The AYitness. No, sir; and I take it back, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) When have you had your last conversa¬ 
tion with Deslonde about this matter?—A. I could not tell exactly. 
Probably three or four months ago. It is since Mr. McMillan has been 
postmaster, and some time afterwards. 

Q. You say that he felt sore, or that he had been badly treated ?—A. 
He told me that was sore about his treatment; that he had been secre¬ 
tary of state and had had plenty of money, and that the carpet-baggers 
had dropped him oft' because he was a Louisianian. 

Q. What did he state to you in the last conversation you had with 
him ?—A. That is all, sir. Mr. Deslonde is not a very brilliant man, 
and he was repeating the same thing to me all the time; so much so 
that Mr. LeGardeur and Mr. Belsong used to leave the office to keep 
from listening to him. 

Q. To keep from hearing that old song over and ov^er again ?—A. 
Y'es, sir. Mr. Deslonde speaks very broken French and very poor 
English. 

Q. Did you and him speak in French ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you try to make any arrangement with Mr. Deslonde by which 
he would testify before this committee ?—A. No, sir,* 1 never mentioned 
anything of that kind to him. 

Q. When did you write to General Gordon about this matter?—A. A 
few days after Mr. Deslonde told me that. 

Q. In 1877?—A. O, some time after that. I mentioned it to Mr. Le 
Gardeur and Mr. Belsong, and they said to me not to do itj but I did. 
I wrote to him privately and told him to subpoena Mr. Deslonde before 
the committee. 

Q. Did you try to arrange an interview between Mr. Deslonde and 
some other man with regard to testifying before this committee?—A. I 
never did, sir. 

Q. Did you advise him to make a clean breast of it ?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. When did you give him that advice ?—A. Two or three times after 
he told me what he did. 

Q. I am trying to get at the time.—A. I suppose twice or three times. 
I told him I would tell Mr. Spofford if I were in his place. 

Q. Was that just after the election of Governor Kellogg to the Sen¬ 
ate ?—A. No, sir; it was some time this year, I believe. 

Q. Were you aware that Judge Spofford went to Washington and 
made a contest over this matter some two years ago?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had Deslonde told you all this before then?—A. No, sirj it was 
only four or live mouths ago he told me. 

Q. Now fix the time, as near as you can, when he told you this first. 
—A. I cannot fix the month positively ; but it was probably in February 
or March. 

Q. Of what year?—A. Of 1879; this year. I could not remember 
the exact date; but I had a little certificate or memorandum of it in my 
pocket, and I put it in the drawer at the office. I went around for it to¬ 
day, blit some one had destroyed the papers that were in there. 

Q. When did you tell him to write to Spofford ?—A. At that time, sir. 
I never saw Judge Spofford myself, sir, until to-day. 

By Senator Yance : 

Q. Y"ou say Deslonde is now in the post office?—A. He was until re¬ 
cently. I do not know whether he is there now or not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do you know whether he holds any position under the govern- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


519 


Blent ?—A. lie was at that time. He said he got sixty dollars a mouth, 
and then forty and forty-eight, and then fifty dollars. He did not like 
it, because, he said, his salary was not fixed by Mr. McMillan. He used 
to come and see Mr. Huihsacker to get money, and was trying to get 
money when he told me this. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. He is pretty much of an old growler anyhow?—A. Mr. Deslonde? 

Q. Yes.—A. He was at that time. He had been secretary of state 
and then was getting only forty-eight dollars a month, which was very 
low wages. 

Senator Cameron. That is all. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did he tell you what would be the result if ho were to tell all he 
knew ?—A. He said the Republicans would turn him out and the Demo¬ 
crats wouldn’t take care of him. 

Q. Did he say what would be the result to Governor Kellogg ?—A. 
He said Mr. Kellogg would be put out of his position; that if he (Des¬ 
londe) made a clean breast of it he could prove it by others besides 
himself. About those bonds he spoke of, of course I know nothing. 
He said Governor Kellogg forced him to sign them and promised to 
pay him nine or ten thousand dollars for it, and then did not do it. 

Senator Hill. That will do. You maj^ go. 

Qn motion, the sub-committee thereupon adjourned to meet again 
Tuesday morning, November 18th, at 10 o’clock. 


New Orleans, Tuesday^ November 18, 1879. 

Present: All the members of the sub-committee; also Mr. C. L. Walker, 
counsel for the memorialist; Henry M. Sirofford, and the sitting mem¬ 
ber (Senator Wm. Pitt Kellogg). 

Senator Hill. The hour of 10 o’clock has arrived and the committee 
will come to order. Mr. Walker what witness will you call this morning! 

Mr. Walker. We will call first Mr. Peter Williams. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER WILLIAMS. 

Peter Williams, a witness called by the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill: 

Question. What is your full name.—Answer. Peter. 

Q. Peter Williams?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where do you reside?—A. Number 138 Felicity street. 

Q. Ill this city ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you lived in this city ?—xV. Ever since 1852j since 
April, I think, 1853. 

Q. What ward of the city do you live in?—A. I live now, at the 
present time, in the 10th ward. 

Q. What ward did you live in in 187G ?—xi. I lived in 1876 in the 1st 
ward. 

Q. Were you familiar with the registration in New Orleans in 1876? 
—A. I was the acting registrar, or rather chief clerk and acting regis¬ 
trar of State voters in 1876. 



520 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Who were the supervisors of registration in 187G?—A. From the 
beginning up to the day before the election, Mr. Moore was. Mr. W. 
J. Moore. 

Q. Who else*?—A. He resigned twenty-four hours previous to the 
day of election, and one of his clerks was appointed to succeed him. 

Q. One of his clerks'?—A. Yes, sirj a man named Gondolti; he was 
sworn in and became the registrar. 

Q. Was Moore a candidate for any position at that time ?—xY. He 
was running for the legislature from the 7th ward. 

Q. Up to that time he was acting as supervisor of registration ?—A. 
Yes, sir; and was also a candidate. 

Q. And about twenty-four hours before the day of the election you 
say he resigned ?—A. Yes, sir; he resigned and had his clerk appointed 
supervisory there was a clause in the registration law which made him 
ineligible. Any man acting as supervisor, it made him ineligible as a 
candidate, and in order to overcome that difficulty he resigned. 

Senator Cameron. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the witness state 
the facts without making an argument. 

Senator Hill. I do not know that witness has made an argument as 
yet. 

Senator Cameron. He stated what Mr. Moore did, and went on to 
give his opinion of Mr. Moore’s reason for so doing. 

Senator Hill. I think the fact is all that is stated. 

Senator Cameron. The fact, I agree with you, he has a perfect right 
to state; let him testify to that without giving his opinion of what pro¬ 
duced the fact. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Who was the other supervisor?—A. There was only one super¬ 
visor and two clerks. 

Q. Who were the clerks ?—A. One was named Gardeur; it was a 
French creole name; his brother was running for the legislature at the 
time. 

Q. Whose brother?—A. Gardeur’s brother; he was on the Republi¬ 
can ticket with Mr. Moore and a man named Blackstone, a colored man. 

Q. He was running for the legislature, you say ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then he was not connected with the registration?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who do you say was the other candidate?—A. Blackstone; 1 think 
that is the name. I know he was a colored man. 

Q. How many members were returned from that ward ?—A. Three. 
Mr. Moore, Mr. Gardeur, and Blackstone. 

Q. Who were declared elected ?—A. By the returning board ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Moore, Gardeur, and Blackstone. 

Q. What has become of Mr. Moore?— 2 A. Mr. Moore is in the city 
working in the custom-house. 

Q. Since when has Mr. Moore been employed in the custom-house?— 
A. He has been there some time, I think. 

Q. Do you know how long?—A. I know he has been removed once^ 
and then been reinstated again. 

Q. He has been removed and reinstated ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Williams, I will get you to state to the committee if you have 
had at any time any conversation with Mr. Moore in relation to the 
election of Mr. Kellogg to the Senate; and, if so, what Mr. Moore said 
to you. 

Senator Cameron. I object to that, Mr. Chairman, as being mere 
hearsay testimony. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


521 


Senator Hill. Senator, Mr. Moore was a member of tbe legislature, 
and bis testimony is competent, if for no other reason, certainly upon 
tbe ground that it is a declaration of a co-conspiracy. It is not confined 
to tbe strict rule governing hearsay testimony, and I shall bold that it 
is competent. How do you vote. Senator Vance ? 

Senator Vance. I think it is competent testimony. 

Senator Hill. The objection is overruled. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q, Mr. Williams, go on now and answer the question that I have asked 
you.—A. Well, sir, Mr. Moore and ni 3 \self talked over freipiently all 
these matters, from time to time. The first time was after Mr. Moore 
was removed from the custom-house. I was in the rotunda of the cus¬ 
tom-house, and he was very much exercised over his treatment by the 
people there. He approached me and said to me, “ Mr. Williams, we 
have been very badly treated by these scoundrels here in this custom¬ 
house and in tlie Republican party.” 1 said to him, “ What is the matter 
now?” And he said to me he had been removed, and that I had been, 
and that the party should have taken care of us. 1 said, that was 
the way with jioliticians generally; that was the way they usually did. 
He proposed to me to enter into a combination, and he said to me, “You 
know very well, Williams, that Kellogg wasn’t elected to the iSeiiate, 
and you know how the seventh ward went, and that members returned 
from there were not elected.” He said that there wasn’t a quorum of 
men of the men that they claimed were elected in the legislature when 
Kellogg was elected to the {Senate, and that the clerk of the house an¬ 
swered to the names of some of the members when they were called to 
vote. I said, “Perhaps that’s so”; but I said I was not ready to go 
into anything of that kind; that there was too much mud being thrown 
as it was, and 1 didn’t care to go into it. He-made an appointment to 
come to his house, and 1 did not go there; he made another appointment, 
and I went and met him and Mr. Boothby and Mr. Hutton at the custom¬ 
house the following Tuesday. I came to the custom-house according to 
appointment, but previous to that—I am traveling a little too fast—he 
told me he had consulted a lawyer, and said he thought the evidence he 
could give was valuable to the J3emocratic party. He said that the 
position of Senator to them was worth a heap of money, aiid said he 
had consulted a lawyer and put him in communication with Judge 
Spollbrd at once, and he had an idea that we could make ten thousand 
dollars apiece out of it. 1 said, “All right,” and it was then that I 
agreed to meet him and those other parties I have already mentioned, 
at the custom-house, f came there according to agreement, and waited 
two or three hours, and didn’t see these gentlemen; finally I took a 
street car, as I knew where he lived, and I went to his house. 

Whose house?—A. Mr. ^Moore’s house. 1 thought it strange his 
making an appointment when he didn’t keep it. I went to his house, 
and found him painting his house. 1 said to him, “ How are you ?” 
He said, “How are you, Williams?” and then I re])ioach(d him for 
making an ai)pointment and not keeping it. He showed a good deal of 
indilference about it, and told me he had changed his mind about it. 
He said he was provided for, and he had concluded that a position in 
the custom-house was better than any bargain of that kind. I said, “ It 
was your proiiosition, and I didn’t make it, and 1 jiropose to see 
the fight out on my own responsibility,” and 1 left Mr. Moore, and put 
myself in communication with one or two friends of mine, and told 
them the circumstances, and that is the last 1 heard of it, until 1 heard 


522 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


trom Mr. Walker that he wanted to see me, and I told him that if I was 
called upon to testify I should state all the facts that I knew. 

Q. Have you had any conversation recently with Mr. Moore on the 
subject?—A. Well, yes, sir; recently I have. 

Q. State what he said to you on that occasion.—A. He made an ap¬ 
pointment with me. He did not really make it himself, but Mr. Hutton 
came to my house, and 1 didn’t happen to be in at the time, and he left 
word with my wife that he would like to see me on the corner of the 
street where the custom-house is—Decatur street, I think—and I came 
there at 12 o’clock, and we had just met when Mr. Moore happened to 
make his appearance, and he came up and shook hands and talked very 
friendly over the matter. Hutton said he had an appointment with me. 
I said, “ I suppose I know what is the object of |this meeting', and there 
is no use for any secrecy ; let’s hear it; ” and Mr. Moore said he wanted 
to know what I was going to do, and told me that all three of us ought 
to be together, and wanted to know if there was any money in the mat¬ 
ter. I said there wasn’t a dollar that I could see; so far as Judge 
Spofford was concerned, I didn’t see any. He laughed, and I showed him 
the case as I understood it. He said, “ You are mistaken ; ” and he said 
“We can make money out of it, if you want to.” I said that money was 
very acceptable, but “I don’t see how we can do it.” He proposed for us 
to see a lawyer; this was on Saturday; he said he would consult his lawyer 
and put him in communication with Mr. Walker, and in the mean time 
told me to go and see Mr. Walker; he called there to see me; that is, I 
understood that from Mr. Walker afterwards, the following day; this 
was Sunday ; Mr. Hutton and he made an appointment to meet me on St. 
Charles and Calliope streets, at Ames Church ; both of them being mem¬ 
bers of the choir, and as both of them lived up town, it was a good i)lace 
to meet, and it would not give me the trouble of coming down town ; and 
we met and talked, and I said my mind was made up ; then Mr. 
Moore told me that a position for me in the custom house, was sure ; 
he says, “The position is sure, and I think you are acting very foolish.” 
I said, “ I assure you there is no position in the custom-house that 
they can give me.” He said, “ You are mistaken.” I said, “No, sir.” 
He wanted to keep talking and broaching about Congress and the po¬ 
sition in the custom-house, and was pursuing about the necessity of 
all three of us being together, and I said, “ My mind is made up; you 
can do as you please, but I am going to give my testimony, and that set¬ 
tles it.” He said, “I tell you what you do; do you go and talk to your wife 
and have her ideas, and come and meet me to morrow morning, and tell 
me what you’ll do.” He was working in the gaugers’ depar tment. I 
said, “There is no harm in meeting you,” and I went according to i)romise. 
Hutton happened to be there ; I waited a while, and finally he made his 
appearance, and he wanted to know what I had to say. I said I had 
nothing to say except that my mind was made up ; and he began to ap¬ 
proach me again about the position in the custom house; and I said 
I didn’t want any position in the custom-house; that my mind was 
made up, and there was no position there that I would take from those 
parties. He kept on telling me that I was taking no chances in the 
matter, that my position would be secure; and I told him if he swore on 
oath that it was secure, 1 wouldn’t accept it; and things went on for 
awhile, and he then asked me (of course the conversation that took 
place between me and him was confidential)—he said he hoped I wouldn’t 
divulge it, and I said no, except in a case of necessity, unless it was 
necessary to make my evidence complete on the point I wanted to 
prove, and otherwise what occurred between us would not be evidenced; 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 523 

and then he told mo if I told it he would deny every word of it, and I 
said, ‘‘ That^s your privilege, to deny it if you want to.” 

Q. Did that end the conversation ?—A. That ended the conversation 
yesterday. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. Uow l^ng ago has it been, do you say ?—A. Yesterday morning, 
sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did he say anything about what would be the value of your tes¬ 
timony or his (Moore’s) testimony ?—Well, yes, sir; on Saturday 
he did. 

Q. Saturday last ?—A. Last Saturday he spoke of what the value of 
a Senator was to the Democrats j that it was worth one hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars to them. 

Q. A hundred thousand dollars?—A. Yes, sir; and that he thought 
ten thousand dollars apiece for him and Hutton and myself would be 
small compensation for the testimony we would give. 

By Senator Yance : 

Q. Ten thousand dollars apiece, or for all three?—A. Yes, sir ; ten 
thousand dollars apiece. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What I want to know is this : Did Mr. Moore, in any of these con¬ 
versations about the election in the seventh ward, tell you how it went 
there ?—A. He often acknowledged that it was a Democratic ward, but 
that he was bound to carry it as a Kepublican ward. 

Did he say that the election had gone Democratic? 

Senator Cameron. 1 object to that 5 wait one moment. 

Senator Hill. Stop, Mr. Witness. What is the objection, Senator ? 

Senator Cameron. That is a leading question ; and, in addition to 
that, the official returns show the result of the election, and that result 
cannot be proven by parole. 

Senator Vance. If that proposition is correct, I think we might as 
well quit this investigation right here. 

]\Ir. Cameron. 1 agree with you; we might. 

Senator Yance. And go back and report to the Senate that they did 
a foolish thing when they sent ns down here. 

Senator Cameron. I agree with you ; they did. 

Senator Hill. There certainly is no necessity for investigation if we 
are to stand by the result they made up. 

Senator Cameron. I saw no use for this investigation in the first 
place. 

Senator Hill. Senator, the point is this: It has been stated that 
these gentlemen, Mr. (xardeur and Blackstone, were elected to the legis¬ 
lature from the seventh ward. It has been claimed upon the other side 
that they were not so elected. Here is a witness who swears to the dec¬ 
laration of one of the parties who was returned as elected, and, what¬ 
ever that declaration may be, it is his own admission as to tlie true facts 
of the case, and he is bound by it. I certainly know of no rule of law 
which would exclude that admission. 

Senator Cameron. I understand that you overrule the objection, and 
1 do not care to have the reasons for it. 

Senator Hill. I supposed that you understood we would overrule 
that objection. 


524 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. You say the result was that Mr. Gardeur and Blackstone were re¬ 
turned as elected?—A. That was the result. 

Q. What did you say about their being elected?—A. Moore told me 
that they were not elected ; that there were some certificates or papers 
issued from the registrar’s office. 

Q. How? What kind of papers?—A. They were blanks from 1874 ; 
they were surplus registration papers that were not issued in 1874. He 
brought them back to the office and left them there ; and in the election 
of 187G Mr. Blanchard, wffio was connected with Governor Kellogg’s 
office, he came to the office one day and told me to give them to Mr. 
Moore, and to call his attention to these 1874 certificates, and he carried 
them off to see if he could use them in the election of that year. 

Q. That was in the election of 1876?—A. Yes, sir ; they were blank 
certificates left over from 1874, but could not be used without getting 
the signature of the supervisor who served in 1874. 

Q. Who was he ?—A. Mr. Hutton. 

Q. Is he the same man who met you at the custom-house?—A. A"es, 
sir. 

Q. What is his full name ?—A. N. B. Hutton. 

Q. Is he white or colored ?—A. He is a white man. 

Q. Go on now.—A. When Mr. Moore came I said to him, ‘‘ There is a 
lot of certificates from 1874, and it is Mr. Blanchard’s wish that you 
use them if you can,” and he said, ‘‘ Yes, it’s a very good idea.” I can’t 
remember, though, whether he took the whole batch ; but, however, he 
took them with him, and he stated tome that he was not sure that this man 
Hutton would sign them ; there was a sort of jealousy between them, 
and he would not like to approach him, but that he would see Mr. 
Booth by, and he had great influence, and he would get him to inter¬ 
cede with Hutton to sign them; so I furnished him those certificates, 
and he acknowledged that he used them, and on the strength of them 
carried the seventh ward. 

Q. How many do you say there were of these certificates ?— A, I 
really cannot say as to the number, but I judge from the appearance of 
the package there were about three or four hundred. 

Q. Were you familiar with registration papers at that time ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You could then judge of about the number that were in the i)ack- 
age?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You did not count them?—A. Ko, sir; but from the bulk of the 
papers I should judge there were about three or four hundred. 

Q. AVell, now, what 1 want to understand—these blank certificates 
of registration were made out for 1874, when Mr. Hutton was su[)er- 
visor, as I understand it—now, what had Mr. Hutton to do to enable 
Mr. Moore, the supervisor in 1876, to use these certificates ? Did he 
have to do anything more than to sign them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That was all that he wanted ? Mr. Moore could then till them 
out and issue them to whom he pleased ; he could sign and turn them 
over to Moore, and Moore could then fill them out and issue to wffiom 
he pleased ?—A. Precisely. 

Q. And Mr. Moore told you they were used?—A. Yes, sir; Mr. Hut¬ 
ton acknowledged the same thing to me. 

Q. Mr. Hutton did ?—A. Yes, sir, he did; that is, he acknowledged 
the signing of them. 

Q. Would there have been^ any motive in signing them in 1876 ex¬ 
cept to use them in that election ?—A. O, no; none at all. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


525 


Q. Did you ever hoar any other parties say anythin" about filliii" in 
these blanks?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. You never heard anything about it from anybody else ?—A. i^o, 
sir. 

Q. All of your information, then, is from Mr. Moore and Mr. Hutton ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

benator Hill. Senator Vance, do you desire to ask the witness any 
questions ? 

Senator Vance. Xo, sir; I believe not. 

Senator Hill. Senator Cameron, do you ? 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir; I do. 

By Senator Cameron : '• 

Q. When did you first become connected with the board of registra¬ 
tion in the seventh ward ?—A. Well, I was connected with the board of 
registration for the whole city, not any particular ward, since 1874. I 
was appointed in October, 1874, as assistant clerk. 

Q. By whom were you appointed ?—A. Mr. Wright, who was then the 
city registrar. 

Q. What official position, either as clerk or otherwise, did you hold 
under the State government prior to that time ?—A. None before that 
time. I was connected with the Metropolitan police. 

Q. How long were you connected with the Metropolitan police?— 
A. I think about two or three years ; I cannot state the exact time. 

Q. When, as near as you can state the time, did you first become 
connected with it ?—A. 1 think in 1872, if I mistake not. I cannot be 
positive. 

Q. By whom were you appointed ?—A. I was appointed on the police 
by the Metropolitan board that existed at the time, and of which Mr. 
Whitaker was a member. 

Q. AVas the board composed of a majority of Democrats or Republi¬ 
cans ?—A. Of Republicans, I think. 

Q. To which political party did you then belong ?—A. To the Repub¬ 
lican party. 

Q. From which party did you receive the appointment as clerk of 
the board of registration ?—A. The Republican part}'. 

Q. What other positions have you held which you received through or 
from the Republican party, or any of its officers ?—A. AVell, 1 have been 
recently connected with the custom-house—about a year or a little 
over. • 

Q. AVhen were you a])pointed to a position in the custom-house?— 
A. I was appointed on the 15th September, 1877. 

Q. How long had you been out of official emplo 3 unent at that time, or 
had you been out at all ?—A. I had. I was an adherent of Governor 
Packard, and staid with him until the government collapsed. 1 didn’t 
do anything until I was appointed—until that position, afterwards. 

Q. You were doing nothing then ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. By whom were you appointed to that position in the custom- 
house ?—A. By General Tom. Anderson, sir. 

Q. How long did you hold it?—-A. From September, 1877, until Alay 
13—May last. 

Q. The 13th Alay, 1879 ?—A. Yes, sir; ’79, sir. 

Q. What position in the custom-house did you hold up to that time ?— 
A. I was a night inspector, sir. Ni 

Q. AVhat compensation did you receive in that position?—A. I got 
tiFo dollars a day a portion of the time, and I forget how many months 


526 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I was paid two dollars and a half a day. I think there w^as a special 
act of Congress which increased the pay to two dollars and a half. 

Q. By whom were you discharged ?—A. By the present collector of 
the port. 

Q. For what reason did he discharge you ?—A. I dou^t know, sir ; 
that is a matter best known to him. 

Q. Was there any reason communicated to you at the time ?—A. FTo, 
sir; there was not. 

Q. Do you think that 3 ’ou were rightly discharged, or that he was 
justified in discharging you; or do you think that you were badly 
treated when he did discharge you ?—A. I think so. 

Q. Think what ?—A. That I wa^ badly treated. I think I was not 
treated properly at all. 

Q. When did you first have a conversation with Mr. Moore with ref¬ 
erence to the election of Governor Kellogg to the Senate and the result 
of the election in the seventh ward ?—A. Well, sir, the first time we 
spoke about the election- 

Q. One moment. When did you first have the conversation with Mr. 
Moore with reference to the election of Governor Kellogg to the Senate 
and the result of the election in the seventh ward ? That is the question 
that I ask you. If you cannot tell when it was, say so.—A. 1 cannot 
state positively the time. 

Q. State it as near as you can.—A. I know when Mr. Moore pro¬ 
posed to make the fight. 

Q. What time was that?—A. We’v^ehad several conversations—very 
frequently. I can’t state the time positively. 

Q. Then state the time as near as you can.—A. The first conversa¬ 
tion that Governor Kellogg’s election was mentioned in was our inter¬ 
view last July, at the custom-house ; it was then that he acknowledged 
that which I said. 

Q. I am not asking you what he acknowledged; I am asking you the 
time, ^ou understand the question; now answer it,—A. Yes, sir; I 
understand you. 

Q. Gan you tell the time ?—A. That’s as near as I can tell it. 

Q. Well, who were present besides yourself and Mr. Moore ?—A. No¬ 
body, sir, but him and me. 

Q. Where did that conversation occur ?—A. In the rotunda of the 
custom-house. 

Q. What time of day was it?—A. Well, sir, perhaps between twelve 
and one o’clock. • 

Q. What were you there for at the time ?—A. I was down there to 
see a friend. 

Q. Was Mr. Moore the friend you were down there to see ?—A. No, 
sir; I just met him casually. 

Q. I believe you said Mr. Moore had been discharged from the custom¬ 
house then ?—A. Ye.s sir. 

Q. He and you, then, were both discharged employes?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And both of you felt that you had been badly treated, because you 
were discharged ?—A. Yes, sir; I feel so I had. 

Q. 1 ask you how you then felt ?—A. The same as I do now. 

Q. Did Mr. Moore feel that way too ?—A. Yes, sir; I should judge so 
from the way he acted. 

Q. Now state the conv^ation again that you had with him at that 
time.—A. Mr. Moore repTOached me, and remarked that we had been 
very badly treated; that we had been great fools for not looking out for 
ourselves; and I said, “ That’s so, but we can’t help it.” He said, “Yes, 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


527 


we can,” and wenton to say to me, “ Ton know very well bow the seventh 
ward was worked.” Andl said, “ Yes, I do ”; and"^ then he told me that 
Governor Kellogg was not elected to the Senate. 

Q. Give the words he used as near as you can.—A. He said, ‘‘ Will¬ 
iams, you know that myself and my colleagues were not elected in the 
seventh ward, and there was not a quorum there in the legislature when 
Governor Kellogg was elected to the United States Senate ; they had 
substitutes in place of members and some of the clerks of the house an¬ 
swered to the names of some of the others.” 

Q. Well, go on.—A. And then he made this appointment with me to 
meet him. 

Q. O, no ; I am not asking you about that. I am asking you about 
the conversation you had at that time.—A. Well, sir, it was confined to 
those few words. 

Q. It consisted then only of those few words?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Didn’t he say anything else in that conversation ?—A. I believe 
he said that by co-operating together we could make some money, by 
giving this information to the Democrats. lie said he thought we would 
make thirty thousand dollars, ten thousand dollars aiuece ; that was for 
me and him and Hutton, and that he would consult his lawyer about it. 
Q. From whom was this money to come ?—A. From the Democrats. 
Q. They were to pay that amount in exchange for the testimony 
which you three could give ?—A. Yes, sir j that is what he expected to 
get for the information.^ 

Q. Yes, I understand j’ou about that; was that all the conversation 
you had with him at the time with reference to these matters ?—A. 
That is all that I remember. 

Q. What was done with reference to a future appointment or meeting 
between you !—xV. It was then that he made the appointment that I 
have spoken of. 

Q. What did he say about it; give the conversation ?—A. He said 
that he would go home and consult Boothby and Hutton, and meet me 
at the custom-house between one and two o’clock on the following Tues¬ 
day. 

Q. And you agreed to that ?—A. Yes, sir; I agreed to Tuesday. 

Q. To meet him at that time?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did you understand the object to be for the meeting?— A. 
The object was to enter into an agreement or talk the matter over, and 
decide on what course of action we would pursue in the matter or in 
the premises. 

Q. Had he then told you he thought money could be made out of it ? 
—A. Yes, sir; he told me that. 

Q. And he told you that before he proposed the meeting on Tues¬ 
day ?—A. He did. 

Q. Did you then separate?—A. Yes, sir; we separated then and 
there. 

Q. What occurred next ?—x\. Then, according to agreement, I came 
to the custom-house at the appointed time, and was there, and waited 
two or three hours for him, and he did not come. I went all around the 
building and inquired for him, but he had not shown up there that day, 
and had not called that I could hear of. I thought that I would go and 
see him, and I took the street cars and went down there to his house, 
and found him painting of it, and I reproached him for making an ap¬ 
pointment and not keeping it, but he showed indifference about the mat¬ 
ter; but finally he came out and said that he was provided for, and he 
would let the thing rest. 


528 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Give the conversation 5^011 had with him at that time.—A. Then I 
told him that was all right. I said, “ If you considered the matter be- 
tore speaking to me, why have you changed your mind ! ” And then I 
told him that if he had changed his mind, I was going to make the fight 
on my own responsibility. 

Q. Well, what next?—A. He said to me, “Williams, you had better 
go to work and write to Senator Kellogg. My letter had a good effect, 
and I have been a])poiuted by Kellogg to a position.” Then he advised 
me to write to Kellogg, but I said I didn’t think it would have any 
effect, and that 1 knew my way, and had thought the matter over. 

Q. Don’t pass over that interview without giving the whole conver¬ 
sation between you and Moore at that time.—A. I have given it, sir. 

Q. How long did you remain there at his house ?—A. A quarter of 
an hour, or perhaps a half hour. 

Q. And you have stated all that occurred in that interview ?—A. Yes, 
sir; the last thing that he said to me, he advised me to write to Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg, and then I left the house. 1 didn’t feel that it would do 
any good. 

Q. It is no matter, Mr. Williams, about your feelings ; we are not in¬ 
quiring about them.—A. Well, sir, on my way home X made up my 
mind that I would write to Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Did you write to him ?—A. I did, but I got no answer from him. 

Q. What did you state to him in that letter ?—A. What I am stating 
here, sir; that I was unjustly dealt with, and that if he recognized his 
influence he could have me reinstated. I wrote him a very polite letter, 
and stated that I was not personally known to him, but 1 thought my 
name was familiar to him. 

Q. Didn’t you state in that letter, in substance, that unless you re¬ 
ceived a position in the custom-house, or somewhere else, that you would 
go before the committee appointed to investigate his case and testify ?— 
A. Kever, sir; I never mentioned it. I have given you the whole i)ur- 
13 ort of the letter, as near as I can. 

Q. When did you next see Mr. Moore ?—A. I didn’t see him again 
until last Saturday. 

Q. Where did you see him last Saturday ?—A. On the corner of the 
street, close by the custom-house. 

Q. Well, sir, go on and state the conversation that you had with him 
at that time.—A. He proposed, then, or rather wanted to know what 
I proposed doing in this matter, and I said my mind was made up, and 
if I was summoned before the committee to give testimony and state 
the facts as I knew them, I would do so. 

Q. What else ?—A. No, I left out a point there. It seems he was up 
to see Mr. Walker the day previous- 

Q. No, no, Mr. Witness, I don’t want that now. I am trying to get 
at the conversation between you and Moore last Saturday.—A. Well, 
that is it. He said he was up to see Mr. Walker the day previous, 
and left word with him that he wanted to see me, and he introduced 
the subject of this testimony, and wanted to know whether there 
was any money in it, and I said “ Not a dollar that I know of.” He 
seemed to be doubtful, and said, “ You are mistaken.” I said, “ Per¬ 
haps I am, but as far as I can see, I cannot see a dollar in it.” And 
then he commenced to talk about the value of a Senator to the Dem¬ 
ocratic party, and said it was worth a hundred thousand dollars to 
them, and that before he would give away his information to the Demo¬ 
cratic party, before they had paid him, he would swear the mo®n was 
made of green cheese. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


529 


Q. rie said wbat ?—A. That he would swear the moon was made of 
green cheese before he would have given it away to the Democrats 
until they paid him. 

Q. Who \^as present at that interview besides yourself?—A. Mr. 
Hutton was present. 

Q. That, you say, was an interview in this city, at the corner of the 
street, by the custom house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was anybody else present?—A. No, sir; only the three of us. 

Q. Was there anything else said between you I —A. Yes, sir ; he pro¬ 
posed then the necessity of all three of us being together in this matter. 
Well, I told him it would be better if all three of us could testify to¬ 
gether, but 1 did not see how it could be done; that he had deter¬ 
mined to testify one way, and I had made up my mind as to the course 
I was going to pursue in the matter, and then he communicated to me 
my position in the custom-house, if I wanted to take it, and said all 
three of ns w'ould be taken care of in the custom-house; that is, him, 
me, and Hutton ; that the positions were all there for us. That is the 
first time it was offered to me, and he indicated that it was there for 
me. I told him I was not expecting it; that there was no position there 
that I would accept at all. That was all that passed between us then, 
but he has approached me recently. He is a pretty good reasouer 
when he tries to convince a man. 

Q. State what he said to you, and we will see whether he is a good 
reasouer or not.—A. Well he talked about the bad faith of the Demo¬ 
cratic i)arty, you know. 

Q. No, 1 do not know. I know the bad faith of the Democratic party, 
of course, but what I want to know is what he said.—A. Well, he was 
trying to teach me that 1 was i)uisuing a wrong course; that I was giv¬ 
ing away the Republican party, and that I did not accept anything for 
it. I told him that 1 was making it because it was true, and because I 
thought the Rei)ublican party was composed of bad material. 

Q. O, yes, I understand that. Now what part did Mr. Hutton take 
in that conversation ?—A. Well, sir, he was reticent. 

Q. What did he say, if anything at all?—A. He rather agreed with 
Mr. Moore that he was not going to give his information to the Demo¬ 
crats without being paid for it. He said he had a famil,y, and he ex¬ 
pected something from the Rei)ul)licans, but nothing from the Demo¬ 
crats. 

Q. Is that all that he said ?—A. Yes, sir; I think it is. 

Q. And you have stated all the conversation that occurred?—A. Yes, 
sir; I think 1 have, as near as 1 can remember. 

Q. To whom did you first communicate the fact that you were willing 
to come before this committee and testify?—A. To Judge Whitaker, 
sir; he is a great friend of mine; that is, sir, 1 consulted him. I did 
not think the testimony would ap^ily, and I consulted with him on the 
point before 1 made up my mind to testify. 

Q. With whom did you next consult?—A. Mr. Whitaker then referred 
me to Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Yes; I sui)pose so. Now when did you first talk with Mr. Cava- 
nac?—A. Very shortly after my interview with Mr. Moore. 

Q. That was some time in July, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Where did you have that interview with Mr. Cavanac ?—A. Well, 
sir, [ believe it w'as in Mr. Cavanac’s office. 

Q. Co on and state the conversation you had with him.—A. I told Mr. 
Cavanac what 1 have told here. 1 gave him this point with reference 

J1 s K 


530 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


to the 7 th ward business and told of the conversation between Moore 
and myself. 

Q. Yes ; well, what advice did Mr. Cavanac give you f—A. He said lie 
would consult with Judge 8 pofford and see if the testimoify was of any 
importance 5 and if it was they would perhaps call upon me to testify. 

Q. When did you next see Oavanac with regard to the matter f— 
A. I have not talked to him with regard to the matter afterwards, 
though I have met him frequently. 

Q. With whom did you next consult with regard to the matter —A. 
!Nobod 3 ', sir. But Mr. Walker sent for me. 

Q. When did you consult with Tom Murray about it!—A. Tom Mur¬ 
ray met me on Canal street and said to me that Mr. Walker wanted to 
see me. I didn’t know that he was the attorney for Judge Spofford at 
the time, and I called upon him in accordance with the appointment I 
had made with Murray. 

Q. You did make an appointment with Murray!—A. Yes, sir; I said 
I would call. 

Q. Didn’t he tell you when he made that appointment what he wanted 
with you!—A. No, sir; he said that Mr. Clem. Walker wanted to see 
me, and gave me the number of his office where I should call, and I said 
that I would call and see him as he desired. 

Q. Didn’t he state to you in that conversation what it was for that 
you were to call at Mr. Walker’s office!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, didn’t you know what it was for !—A. Well, sir, on reflect¬ 
ing over the matter I thought may be what it was ; I thought that Mr. 
Cavanac was the man in charge of the case, and the first intimation I 
had to the contrary was meeting Mr. Walker in his office. 

Q When did you first meet him in his office!—A. I do not know the 
day. 

Q. Give me the time if you can, as near as you can.—A. I didn’t take 
down a memorandum ot the time, and so I can’t tell,you, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the day! If you do not, pass on to some other 
Xmint in the conversation.—A. No, sir; I cannot remember the day. 

Q. Was it in August!—A. O, no; it was about two weeks ago. 
Wasn’t it! [Speaking to Mr. Walker, counsel for Mr. Spofford.] 

Senator Hill. Mr. Witness, Mr. Walker is not under examination ; 
you must not refer to him by asking him questions. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) You say it was about two weeks ago. How 
often have you been into his office and about there since!—A. Once or 
twice a day. 

Q. You say once or twice a day!—A. Yes, sir; I have been in there 
several times last week. 

Q. What was your object in going there!—A. My object in going 
there was to talk with Mr. Walker. 

Q. To talk about your testimony in this case!—A. No, sir; but to 
give him points in the case. 

Q. Then you were a sort of assistant counsel in the case, were you !_ 

A. No,sir; but after the conversation with Mr. Moore I would give him 
the points about it. 

Q. Was it necessary for you to go there every day !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then why did you go!—A. Well, sir, I have‘known Mr. Walker 
since about—lem’me see- 

Q. Well now, Mr. Witness, that is unnecessary; were there not other 
gentlemen you knew or have known since then !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But you did not go to see them every day !—A. No. sir. 









SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 531 ’ 

Q. Tlien what was tho reason that yon went to see Mr. Walker?—A. 

I (h) not know, sir. I didn’t say I had any general object. 

Q. Well, what ])articnlar object did yon have ?—A. Well, sir, f would 
just call in from time to time to see him. 

(,>. For what pnrpose ?—xV. Well, I wonld hear a great many little 
points on the street. 

i}. lh)ints in regard to what?—xV. In regard to this very subject we 
are talking about now. 

(). Then yon were out on the street ])icking np points and going there 
and communicating them to him. Is that the truth ?—A. Well, not ex¬ 
actly. 

Q. Well, state what the truth is.—xV. Well, the truth is that I went 
to see Mr. Walker—I wonld drop in and ont—I was canvassing the 
situation and picking nj) what I conld find ont, and I wonld go in there 
and sit down and rest. Sometimes it was necessary to write a note, and 
I would find paper there convenient. At other times we wonld be con¬ 
versing and talking about one thing and another; sometimes about this 
matter, and at other times about something else. 

Q. How often did you talk about this matter, as you call it?—A. I 
would go in there sometimes and, perhaps, not mention the subject at all. 

Q. Yes, I know ; but 1 asked you how many times yon conversed with 
him about this jnatter, as well as yon remember?—xV. Perhaps a half a 
dozen times. 

Q. Give the names of any other person yon have consulted with re¬ 
gard to this matter.—xV. I do not know of anybody else. 

Q. From whom did yon pick np the points that yon comrnnnicated to 
]Mr. Walker?— A. From a man named Gnitterez, a man wdio seemed to 
be interested in Mr. Walker’s case. 

Q. Jlid yon pick np ])oints from anyboiiy else and commnnicate them 
to him ?—xV. No, sii*; I did not. 

Q, Then yon i)icked np points from only one man ?—A. Only from 
Gnitterez, sir. 

(^. Did yon pick np ])ointsin the(;aseon more than one occasion from 
Gnitterez?—xV. Yes, sir; 1 believe 1 did twice. 

Q. Did he seem to be engaged in the same business that yon were 
in ? that is, was he pi(d\ing np j)oints on the street the same as yon 
were?—xV. I was not <mgage<l in pie.king np points on the street. 

G. Yon stated that yon wert*; but if yon want to coirect it, I have 
no objectio!!.—A. \"es, sir; I desire it correc.ted. 

Senator Hill. I did not understand him. Senator, to say that, but if 
he did, and it is not true, he can correct it if he desires. 

The WiTiNKSS. I meant to say, that if 1 ditl pick np points on the 
street, I wonld tell Mr. Walker about it, bnt that was not my business: 
for instance, 1 often met Giutterez, and he said to me, if yon are going 
uj) to Mr. Walker’s, or by Mr. Walker’s,’drop in and tell him so and 
so, and 1 went by St. Ghiirles and Chirondelet street going home, and I 
wonld make it my business to drop in there and tell Mr. Walker these 
things. 

P.y Senator Cameron: 

Q. Then yon only went twice for that purpose ?—xV. How is that, sir ? 

Q. Y^on say yon only got points from Gnitterez on two occasions, and 
if he told yon to go liy xMr. Walker’s otlice, and tell him those things, 
then yon only went there twice for that [)nrpose ?—A. Yes, sir; yes, sir, 
I was; that is so. 

Q. Well, when did yon go there the first time ?—A. Well, that’s been 
some time ago. 


532 


SPOFFOBD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Can you not state the time!—A. No, sir; I can’t say positively 

Q. Give it as near as you can !—A. I cannot say, sir. 

Q. Don’t you know the month !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, when did you go the second time!—A. Well, I think may¬ 
be yesterday, or Friday, I do not remember which. 

Q. AVhen were you subpoenaed as a witness in this case!—A. Yester¬ 
day, sir. 

Q. Where were >ou at when you were subpoenaed!—A. The Ser- 
geant-at-Arms met me out on Common street, between Camp and Saint 
Charles. 

Q, Did he subpoena you there and then!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When were you last at Mr. Walker’s office!—A. You mean what 
time I was there last! 

Q. Yes, I mean when were you at Mr. Walker’s office the last time, 
before you came here to testify !—A. Well, sir; I was there this morn¬ 
ing. 

Q. Were you there yesterday !—A. Yes, sir; I was. 

Q. How many times were you there yesterday !—A. I was there a 
few times. 

Q. Bow many times were you there to-day!—A. Twice. 

Q. How many times were ou there day before yesterday—Sunday !— 
A. Sunday ! leaded there Sunday, and the door was locked, I believe 
I was only there once that day. 

Q. Who went in there with you yesterday !—A. Nobody. I think I 
was alone. 

Q. Who went with you this morning!—A. Nobody. 1 went in alone 
this morning. 

Q. When did you last see Tom Murray in Mr. Walker’s office.!—A. 
About 9 o’clock, I think. 

Q. Nine o’clock when; nine o’clock this morning!—A. Yes, sir; 1 
was in there when he came in. 

Q. You saw him in there this morning!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you see him in there last before this morning !—A. 
Yesterday. ’ 

Q. How many times did you see him in there yesterday !—A. Only 
once, I think. 

Q. Do you know whether it was once or more than once!—A. I saw 
him once, I am positive, but whether more than once I do not know; I 
didn’t pay particular attention to him. 

Q. Did you state to Mr. Walker this morning, in the presence of 
Murray, what would be the substance of the testimony that you would 
give to the committee to-day!—A. No, sir; I did not, and anybody who 
says so- 

Q. Never mind, Mr. Witness, did you state anything iu regard to it! 
that’s all I ask you.—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Well now, tell me how many times have you seen Murray there ! 
—A. Why, I have seen him there frequently. 

Q. That is, as you dropped in and out you saw him there!—A. Yes, 
sir; that’s what 1 mean. 

Q. What business did you think he was engaged in ! 

Senator Hill. Senator, I do not think that is a proper question you 
are asking the witness, to say what he thinks as to the business that 
Murray was engaged in. Of course you understand that it is not com¬ 
petent for the witness to tell that, still I have no objection to it. Go ou 
Mr. Witness. 

The Witness. I understood he was engaged in' this business; from 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 533 

the fact that he has beeu eugaged in it ever since he went to the legis¬ 
lature. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Has he been employetl in it during the suininer ?—A. Ido not know 
that he has been employed in anything but employed in giving evidence. 
I supposed that he was there, wlien 1 saw him there, as a friend of Mr. 
AValker’s. 

Q. You supposed he was there as a friend of Mr. Walker, is that what 
you say ?—A. lie was a witness in the case, I know that. 

Q. What occupation lias Murray been in this summer ?—A. He said 
that he was doing nothing; he tofd me that he was starving for the 
want of something to do. 

Q. What has your occupation been ?—A. I was employed by the 
board of health. I took a position of laborer at a dollar a day. 

Q. What else have yon been engaged in ?—A. I have been canvass¬ 
ing for “The Pictorial History of the WorUP^ fora mouth, and making 
very poor success of it too. 

Q. Now, in regard to those blank certificates of registration—when 
did you first have any conversation with any person with regard to 
them ?—A. Do you mean lately? 

Q. No, I mean in the beginning; do you commence from the beginning? 
—A. I was in the registration office; I was appointed in there, I believ’e, 
an the last Monday in August, I think the 20th or 30th. Mr. Blanch¬ 
ard, who was in the governor’s office, he had access to the registration 
office, and he came in there and saw those certificates, and he called my 
attention to them and said, “The first time that Moore came to the office 
to call his attention to these certificates, and let him bring them down 
to the office and we will see if we can use them.” 

Q. Was Moore at that time a. supervisor of registration?—A, Yes, 
sir; he was; supervisor of the 7th ward. 

Q. Is Mr. Blanchard living or dead ?—A. He is dead, I believe; he 
died with yellow fever year before last. 

Q. What else was done about those certificates ?—A. When Moore 
came in I did as Blanchard directed, and called his attention to them, 
and he took charge of them and carried them off. 

Q. Were they signed or not, do you remember ?—A. No, sir; they 
were blank registration papers, fixed up to be issued in 1874, and which 
were not used. 

Q. They were mere blanks not filled out ?—A. Y"es, sir; that’s what 
they were. 

Q.'Could not anybody who chose to take one of these i)apers and 
have any number of them printed ?—A. No, sir; they were gotten up 
in New York especially for the year 1874, and could not be imitated 
here. 

Q. Y'ou stated that you did not know how many of them there were 
in the package ?—A. No, sir; I could not really tell; I suppose there were 
about three liundred or four hundred of them. 

Q. Did you, or did you not, ever count them ?—A. No, sir, I did not. 

Q. Were they done up in packages, or in only one package ?—A. They 
were done up hi packages, and from the looks of them 1 should judge 
there were three or four hundred. 

Q. That you have stated, I believe. When did you have any conver¬ 
sation with Moore, in regard to those certificates, after the time that 
you called his attention to them and delivered them to him ?—A. Well, 
a short time after he came to the office and I spoke to him about them, 
and he simply told me that “ it was all right.” 


534 


SPOFFORI) VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Well, what else?—A. And then after the election was over, he 
said he was returned to the house. 

Q. Well, now 1 go back to iny original question. What conversation 
did you have with him in regard to that election and those certiticates ? 
—A. Well, sir, I answer you; he thanked me, and said I was a great 
assistance to him in that election, in furnishing him with those blank 
certificates. 

Q. Now, do you know as a fact, from you own knowledge, whether 
one of these certificates were used in that election ?—A. To my own per¬ 
sonal knowledge I do not. 

Q. Have you ever had any other conversation with him (Moore), with 
reference to those certificates, and whether or not they were used in that 
election ?—A. Mr. Moore acknowledged to me on one or more occasions 
that he used them, and that he secured the signature of this Mr. Hut¬ 
ton to them. 

Q. When did he tell you that first ?—A. Well, sir, I think it was 
shortly after the election of 1876. 

■Q. What did he say to you in that conversation ?—A. He said that 
those certificates carried the seventh ward, or rather that he had car¬ 
ried the seventh ward through the means of those certificates. 

Q. Is that all he said to you about it ?—A. Yes, sir; that is all. 

Q. Well, when did he next talk to you about those certificates?—A. 
We had a meeting—I was at his house several times, and he had ac¬ 
knowledged it to me there. I do not recollect the date ; I never paid 
any attention, in fact, to it, for I never thought that the matter would 
be called in question. 

Q. When did you first have any conversation with Hutton in regard 
to those certificates ?—A. The first time was after this interview with 
Moore, and it seems he was discharged from the building, too, and he 
made the remark to me that he had talked to Boothby; and I had 
written a letter to Secretary Sherman, protesting against the custom¬ 
house being made a refuge for peijurers and thieves. He said I had 
wrote a very important letter to him; then 1 met Hutton, and he had 
heard of my writing this. I kept a copy of it, and told him about it, 
and he made an appointment to meet me on the corner of the street— 
Canal street, and the custom house—and said that Boothby was feeling 
ver; 5 ^ sore about it. 

Q. Was he out of humor about it too?—A. Yes, sir; he was holding 
a small position at the time, and wanted them to do just by him. 

Q. He wanted a better position, did he?—A. Yes, sir; so 1 met him 
and Boothby, and 1 showed him this letter. Boothby walked off and 
said he had no time to stay, but it would be time enough when the com¬ 
mittee came here. Hutton and I then talked the matter over, and Hut¬ 
ton said that he had been very badly treated, but he didn’t see anything 
to be done now and he would wait a while. That was'the only conver¬ 
sation I had with him, until this appointment on Canal street, when him 
and I and Moore came together. 

Q. You have related what was stated then, I believe. Do you, of your 
own personal knowledge, know' anything of the question, wmether there 
was a quorum present when Mr. Kellogg was elected Senator or not?— 
A. No; not directly; I have heard a good deal, but of my own knowl¬ 
edge I know nothing. 

Q. Did you ever see the statement of the results of the election of 
1876, made up by a committee of the Democratic conservative execu¬ 
tive committee, and that was published some time in December, 1876 ? 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 535 

—A. I have not, sir; I may have read it in the papers, but I do not 
remember it. 

Senator Vance. Is that Burke’s statement that you refer to ? 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir; it is the official Democratic promulga¬ 
tion of the election in the seventh ward. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you remember what the vote of the seventh ward as returned 
and declared was?—A. 1 remember, because I have the figures in my 
possession, as declared by the returning board; I have it in my posses¬ 
sion. 

Senator Hill. Let him put it down. You asked him for the figures, 

I believe. Senator. 

Senator Cameron. No ; I asked him if he knew what they were. I 
did not ask him tor the figures. 

Q. To the Witness. Do you remember what the Democratic committee 
promulgated as the result in that ward ? 

A. No, sir; I was entirely guided by the Bepublican figures in that 
ward. 

(By Senator CAMERON.) 

Q. Have you been a resident of New Orleans since the reconstruc¬ 
tion ?—A. I have lived here since 1852. 

Q. Was the seventh ward from the reconstruction up to 1876 a 
Eepublican or a Democratic ward ?—A. Well, I believe it was, or 
rather the registration showed, and the census of 1875 showed, that the 
seventh ward was a Republican w ard; but then you know j\lr. Moore 
took the census of the ward in 1875, and we had several complaints 
made about his not taking a proper enumeration of the ward, and he 
was notified from the office that he was taking a political census of the 
ward, and he acknowledged it, and that he was looking to the future, 
and that he was going to have it a Republican ward. 

Q. How was it prior to 1875, as to whether it was a Democratic or a 
Republican ward?—A. Really, I could not tell you; I was connected 
with the registration, and my experience comes from that in 1871. 

Senator Cameron (to Chairman). Governor Kellogg desires to ask the 
witness one question, or rather one or two questions about some things 
with which he is more familiar than 1 am. 

Senator Hill. Very well. Senator. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Who was registrar of v'oters at the time you refer to, 1876 ?—A* 
Governor Hahn. 

Q. Governor Hahn ; were you a clerk of his ?—A. Chief clerk, sir. 

Q. In the office; now, you received your orders from him, didn’t you? 

_A. 1 received my orders from ISIr. Blanchard the greater portion of 

the time. 

Q. In regard to those registration papers?—A. Yes, sir; Governor 
Hahn was very seldom in the office, and I received my orders generally 
from him. 

Q. From who, Governor Hahn or Mr. Blanchard ?—A. Mr. Blanchard. 

Q. Who was present at the time Mr. Blanchard came to you about 
those blank registration papers ?—A. Nobody but myself; Mr. Blanch¬ 
ard would come in there and make requests. I could not call them or¬ 
ders, but I understood what it meant. 

Q. Was Mr. Blanchard ever registrar of voters for the city ?—A. I 
think he was, sir; in 1872. 


536 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Ill 1872 5 yes. He was conversant, then, with the details of the 
business —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was a very capable man, was he not'?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And referred to very frequently as authority, was he not?—A. Yes, 
sir; often. 

Q. I would like to ask you if the seventh ward, at every election since 
reconstruction, has not been a large Kepublican ward ?—A. That I can¬ 
not answer, governor j I can only speak from the time of my connection 
with the office. 

Q. At every election, has not it given a Eepublican majority?—A. I 
think it has since 1874. 

Senator Cameron (to Chairman). That is all, Senator. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Who were in the legislature from that ward in 1874?—A. That I 
cannot answer. 

Q. Do you know how the registration of that ward stands now as be¬ 
tween the colored and white people ? Is it not largely a white ward ?— 
A. At present the registration of the white people seems to be largely 
in the majority. 

Q. What political party were you an appointee of while connected 
with the registration ?—A. I was a Eepublican and appointed by the 
Eepublicans. 

Q. Are you a Eepublican yet?—A. Yes, sirj lam. I cannot indorse 
the Eepublicanism of Louisiana, though. 

Q. Did you say, in answer to Senator Cameron, that Mr. Moore took 
the census of that ward in 1875 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And what w^as it he said about making it Eepublican and looking 
to the future?—A. Yes, sir. He enumerated a majority of colored peo¬ 
ple in that ward, and he acknowledged to me that he took a political census 
of that ward because he was looking to the future; that it was a Demo¬ 
cratic ward by rights, but he said ^^it won’t do for them to think so, I 
am going to have it Eepublican.” 

Q. That is what I understood you to say.—A. Yes, sir ; that is what 
I said. 

Q. Well, I am requested to ask you whether since 1872 any ward in 
the city has been Eepublican; has not the entire State been Democratic? 

,—A. Well, hardly. The fact is, that one party claimed the third ward 
to be Eepublican ; the Democrats claimed ^t to be Democratic. 

Q. You say the Democrats claimed it to be Democratic ?-(-A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has there been any Eepublican representative from that ward 
since 1872 ?—A. I think not. 

Q. How has it been with the fifth and sixth wards, on each side of the 
seventh ?—A. They have been Democratic and given Democratic ma¬ 
jorities. 

Q. Which has the greater population of those districts?—A. I think 
they are about the same. » 

Q. And they have always been Democratic?—A. Always. 

Q. Those are the fifth and sixth wards, you say ?—A. Yes, sir. How, 
in 1876 there was a box thrown out in the seventh ward. They said it 
was not brought in in time. There were about 491 votes cast there, I 
think, at that box Ho. 3, and the law required that the commissioner of 
elections shall make returns in'twenty-four hours. The supervisor of 
the ward was unable to get through with the count in the specified time, 
and the box was thrown out and never enumerated at all. 


SFOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


537 


Q. What was that poll known as—what number?—A. As poll Xo. 3, 
if I recollect properly. 

Q. Do you know of any protest against that poll when it was thrown 
out ?—A. I never heard of any. 

Q. You do not know what the result was at that poll?—A. There were, 
as 1 understood it, 491 votes polled there, and about 131 of them were 
llepublican votes, which would give the Democrats a majority of 360 
votes. 

^ Q. That w'ould be 300 Democratic majority in a poll of 490 votes?—A. 
Yes, sir; it would be 360, I believ^e; that is about right; the records 
will show that. 

Q. Where were these registration books carried in 1876?—A. These 
registration books,in 1876, after the closeof the registration, were carried 
to the custom-house. 

Q. Was that the proper place to carry them ?—A. No, sir. The State 
registrar’s office was the proper place to deposit them. 

Q. But you say they were carried to the custom-house ?—A. Yes, sir, 

Q. Do you know by whose order these books were carried to the 
custom house?—A. Y^es, sir; they were carried there by the order of 
Mr. Blanchard. He signed my name to a dispatch to order these super¬ 
visors to report to the custom-house with their books. 

Q. Mr. Blanchard, as 1 understand you, was a clerk to Governor 
Kellogg ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. And you say he signed your name to a dispatch ; was it by your 
consent?—A. Yes, sir; he signed my name b}^ my consent, but not for 
that purpose. He w’as in the habit of calling at the office to see how the 
registration progressed. Governor Kellogg’s office was connected with 
the police station by a telegraphic wire, and he would come and get me 
to write a telegram sometimes to send to the supervisors to report how 
the registration was progressing, and that was sent to several stations, 
and they would send a messenger to the several registration offices and 
thus keep him posted. iMr. Blanchard was a crippled man, and he 
proposed to me that I would give him authority, to save him from 
coming upstairs to the office, to sign my name to these dispatches, and 
I told him certainly, and I went dow n and said to the operator that if 
he, Mr. Blanchard, desired to send a dispatch in my name he had 
authority to do so; and that is the w^ay he came to send this dispatch 
to the supervisors ordering them to bring their books to the custom¬ 
house. In the morning when 1 came to the office I expected to find the 
books there, but I did not, and 1 went down there to the custom house 
and found the books there, and found them erasing names from them. 

Q. Who were erasing the names?—A. The supervisors and their 
clerks. 

Q. That was at the custom-house ?—A. At the custom-house, sir. 

Q. And Mr. Blanchard at the time was employed in the executive 
office ?—A. Y^es, sir; and the telegraph operators had a room there iii 
the executive dei)artmeut of the building. 

Q. You say you did not authorize your name to be used for this pur¬ 
pose as you have explained it was used ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it was used for this purpose without your knowledge and 
consent?—A. Y"es, sir; it was without my knowledge until the follow¬ 
ing morning. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask the witness a 
question. 

Senator Hill. If the question can be asked by Senator Cameron, I 
would prefer that he would ask it. 


4 


538 


SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. I would like it entered in the record that I 
requested permission to ask this witness a question which is perfectly 
legitimate-and pertinent to the issue. In a case of this kind I certainly 
think the rule ouf^ht not to be so strictly adhered to. 

Senator Kill. Senator Kellogg, the committee desire to treat you 
with perfect fairness, and give you an equal chance with the other party, 
and we are willing to ask all that you desire. I desire to extend the 
same rule to you that I do to the others, and for that reason I would 
prefer that all questions that can be asked of the witness by Senator 
Cameron shall be asked by him. Mr. Walker, who represents Judge 
Spoftbrd, has not been allowed to interfere with the examination, and we 
do not desire that you should do so unnecessarily. 

Senator Kellogg. I understand, Mr. Chairman, but I was permitted 
by the general committee in Washington to ask questions of the witness 
when I desired to do so. 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir; I know that, and abuses grew out of it 
which we desire to avoid here. That is the very reason that I object to 
your asking questions when Senator Cameron can ask them quite as 
well as yourself. 

Senator Kellogg. I desire to ask Senator Cameron if in the Ingalls 
case Senator Ingalls was not permitted to ask questions of the witnesses 
whenever he so desired. 

Senator Hill. That will make no difference here. Senator Kellogg. 
We do not care to be governed by that case. We care nothing for pre¬ 
cedents nor will we discuss them. 

Senator Yance. I think he had counsel to represent him. 

Senator Cameron. And the counsel asked the questions, I believe. 

Senator Hill. The rule has been established and we will not depart 
from it. Senator Cameron, you recognize the necessity for adhering to 
the rule. 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. But if you request that Governor Kellogg be per¬ 
mitted to ask these questions we will not object to it. 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir; I would like that he be permitted to 
ask the questions. 

Senator Hill. Then, Senator Kellogg, ask the questions. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Where was the registrar’s office in the State-house ?—A. On the 
third door of the building. 

Q. Where was the Governor’s office—A. On the second door. 

Q. Where was the telegraph office, which you say was connected with 
the executive department ?—A. It was situated in one of the ante-rooms, 
I think. 

Q. Kear to my room A. You had a suite of rooms, I think, and it 
was in one of them. 

Q. Y'asnot that the only communication that the telegraph instrument 
and wire at the State-house had with all parts of the city ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I think it was connected with the different stations. 

Q. Was there any other connection except what was in that room ?— 
A. Kot that I know of. 

Q. Did not all the officers in the building have access to that office 
and send dispatches from that wire through the operator ?—A. That I 
do not know. 

Q. Do you not know that those in your office did ^—A, Yes, sir. 

Q. And without any regard to the governor or without auv connec¬ 
tion with his office#—A. YYs, sir; that I acknowledge. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


539 


Senator Kellogg. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hill. Well, Mr. Witness, yon are discharged. Whom will 
you call next, Mr. Walker. 

Mr. Walker. Mr. Monier. 

TESTIMONY OF H. D. MONIEli. 

II. D. ^Monier, a witness called for the memorialists, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Mr. Monier excuse me if I do not pronounce your name 
right, for I do not understand your French names down here. Did you 
hold an otlicial position in connection with the election in 187G?—An¬ 
swer. I did, sir. 

Q. In the seventh ward of this city —A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. At what poll ?—A. At the poll situated at the corner of Rampart 
and Cluseret. 

Q. What was the number of that i)oll ?—A. I think it was number 
three. 

Q. What was the character of the election at that poll ?—A. It was 
very peaceable an<l quiet. 

Q. Was there anybody there that day prevented from voting?—A. 
None, sir, that I saw. 

Q. There was no buridozingy)r intimidation practiced there that day? 
—A. No, sir; none at all. 

Q. About what time did you get through counting that poll?—A. 
Well, sir, about quarter of five or five o’clock the day of election. 

Q. What time did you get through voting?—A. That evening at six 
o’clock ; we were reiiuired to close the polls at six o’clock. 

Q. Was the vote from that iioll No. 3 counted in the returns for that 
ward ?—A. No, sir; they weie not because they were rejected from that 
poll by the returning board. 

Q. Was there any protest hied against the vote at that poll?—A. 
None at all that 1 ever heard of. 

Q. Was the return in form and made in the regular way?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And no protest accompanied the returns?—A. None at all, sir. 

And yet it was thrown out ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the vote at that poll, if you can remember it f—A. I 
cannot tell exactly. There were nearly 500 votes cast—400 and some¬ 
thing; we had a majority—that is, the Democrats had a majority of 170, 
or in that neighborhood, I believ'e, though I cannot recollect distinctly. 

Q. That you say was their majority, or in the neighborhood of it ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then the Republican vote must have been somewhere near IGO ?— 
A. About that, sir. 

Q. Was there no affidavit or protest of any kind filed against that 
poll ? 

The Witness. Do you mean during the day ? 

Senator Hill. I mean against the poll on account of intimidation or 
fraud. 

A. No, sir; during the day there were challenges on both sides and 
they were accepted on both sides, but everything went on very quietly 
during the voting and the counting and all. 

Q. What reason did the board allege for throwing out that poll?—A. 


540 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I can only tell that from hearsay; I did not accompany the box to the 
registrar’s office. 

Senator Cameron. I believe yon did not state, Mr. Witness, what 
official position you held at that poll ? 

The Witness. United States supervisor. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. How many supervisors were there at the poll?—A. Two, sir. 

Q. One was a Democrat and one a Republican ; what were you ?—A. 
I was the Democrat. There was no trouble among the supervisors or 
judges, and they all signed the tally-sheet, &c. 

Q. Do you know whether the return was made to the clerk of the 
sui)erior court of the vote in that poll ?—A. I could not tell you ; I did 
not go with the commissioners. Immediately after the election I filed 
my papers with the Clerk of the United States court. 

Senator Hill. Have you any other questions for the witness. Senator 
Cameron. 

Senator Cameron. That is all, sir. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Walker tells me that he has no other witness, here 
now, but thinks he will have some at one o’clock. Suppose, then, we 
take a recess to one o’clock. * 

Senator Cameron. We are here in the house and whenever he is 
ready he can call us. 

Senator Hill. Very .well; the committee will take a recess until one 
or two o’clock, or whenever Mr. Walker is ready. 


The subcommittee reassembled pursuant to its order taking a recess, 
and the proceedings were resumed as follows: 

Senator Hill. Mr. Walker, have you a witness present? 

Mr. Walker. I have inquired, Mr. Chairman, of the sergeant-at-arms, 
and I find that five of the witnesses who were summoned to be here this 
morning have not reported. I have one witness whom I would like to 
call, Mr. J. F. Stokes. 

Mr. J. F. Stokes, appeared and said: “ Senators, I am very unwell 
to day and have been taking morphine all night, and do not feel in a 
condition to undergo an examination this afternoon, and I would like 
very much, if it will* not inconvenience you, to wait a while before I go 
upon the stand. 

Senator Hill. How long would you like to wait, sir ? 

Mr. Stokes. I am under the influence of morphine now and I could 
not testify to-day. 

Senator Cameron. I think, Mr. Chairman, we ought to excuse the 
gentleman. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Stokes, you are excused, but you will report as 
soon as you feel in a condition to testify. 

TESTIMONY OF E. A. BURKE. 

E. A. Burke, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined : 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Burke?—Answer. 235 Camp 
street. 

Q. Were you residing in New Orleans in 1876?—A. Yes, sir. 



SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 541 

Q. Did.yoii reside in this city dariiif^ September and November, 
1S7()?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Did you liave any i)osition or have any opj)ortnnities for getting 
informal ion with regard to the elections that year? and, if so, state what 
th(‘y were.—A. I was chairman of the registration and election com¬ 
mittee of the Democratic and Conservative ])arty acting for the State 
and city. I had the direct supervision of all eleciion details connected 
with the registration and election and detection and exposition of frauds 
and generally the derails of the registration and election committees, and 
the matters touching the interest of the J)emocratic )>arty. 

Q. Have yon any information touching the election in the seventh ward 
in that year? and, if so, detail it.—A. I caused a special canvass to be 
made of the registration of the seventh ward, and will be able to ijro- 
duce the evidence to this committee of the statements 1 shall make to 
it. 1 shall have to ask tirne Irom the committee to prodiute the docu¬ 
mentary evidence to sustain the statements. J discovered the frauds 
and had i)ossession of the atlidavits that substantiated them. They were 
aftidavits of two responsil)le citizens residing in the ward in whicli each 
case of fraud occurred. There were 247 colored ])ersons fraudulently 
and illegally registered in the ward. I duscovered and will ])roduce the 
record of between two and three hundred ; 1 would say about three hun¬ 
dred because it may run a little over or h*ss. There were about three 
hundred registration j)apers improperly issued in the ward under dupli¬ 
cate numbers; that is to say, the original registrations that had been 
regularly conducted were subsequently duplicated in tlie names of other 
l)ersons. They were not duplicates taken out by the persons who had 
originally registered and taken out their })apers, but the cases I s[)eak 
of are cases where the same numbers were used by i)ersons who liad 
originally and, i) 0 ssibly, j)roi)erly registered ; the dui)lication used other 
names to tlie same numbers that weie already set down on the books, 
and the'obvious ))urj)ose of that duplication would be- 

Senator Camkkon. 1 supi)Ose, iMr. Chairman, we are not here to hear 
an argument IVom JMr. Uurke on this subject. 1 do not think the obvious 
])urpose which he is i)roceeding to state is testimony. 

Senator Hill. What if it be a fact that he states ? 

Senator Cameron. 1 object to it. If it be a tact let him state the 
fact. 

Senator Yance. Yes, let him state the fact as he knows it. 

Senator Hill. 1 think it jierfectly legitimate for the witness testate 
what was obviously a fact, and to state it in the order in which he found 
it to be a fact. 

Senator (Umeron. It is a mere matter of opinion, in the way in 
which the witness was proceeding to state it. 

Senator Hilt.. Not so. It is as much a fact as the fact of my in¬ 
dorsing a -note would be evidence of my intention to make it nego¬ 
tiable. 

Senator Vance. Trovided your credit was good. 

Senator Hill. The fact is the indorsement of the note, whether it 
be good or not. 1 think the witness can state that the ])urpose of the 
])apers was such, and what would be the effect of it. What do you say, 
Senator Vamte ? 

Senator Vance. I understand the question to be, what would be 
the effect of issuing these jiajicrs in the manner stated upon the elec¬ 
tion, piovided they were used. Tliat is certainly a fact, it seems to me. 

The WiTNKSS. Tlie fact is, they would enable ])arties holding these 
duplicate iiajiers to vote them more readily, and without detection, if 



542 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


the numbers run serially, as is customary on registration books, from 
one (1) to a thousand (1,0()()), and so on, and if these improperly issued 
registration papers had been numbered serially on the book, following 
the legitimately issued papers, it would have disclosed a condition of 
the registration on its face that would have resulted in the detection 
and immediate exposure of the fraud. 

Q. The fact would be, then (for it is new to me), that issuing this true 
number to a fraudulent voter would enable him to vote without de¬ 
tection ?—A. Yes, sir; as he had a right to vote on his t)aper. 

Senator Hill. Go on, Major Burke. 

The Witness. The committee of which I waschairman commenced pro¬ 
ceedings against these parties, and would have proceeded against all of 
them, but after preparing 87 cases and tiling them in the superior criminal 
court, and placing them before the grand jury, we were advised that 
the assistant attorney-general, who was then chairman of the executive 
committee of the Eepublicau party, had instructed the jury that they 
could only find indictments in the case of parties residing in the house 
from which these parties purported to be registered, and some one in 
the house would come forward and make affidavit and give the needed 
testimony. That would have made and required, so much exertion, 
tracking these families up and dragging them to court, that we saw 
there was no use in prosecuting the matter further, and we never pushed 
the prosecutions. We made a complaint to the Federal supervisor of 
elections, and submitted the list of trauds to him and to the supervisor 
and the assistant supervisor of registration for the ward ])rior to the 
election, and demanded that the fraudulent names be erased from the 
books, and our demands were not complied with. 

Q. State the names of those parties.—A. Mr. Woolfley was the Fed¬ 
eral supervisor of elections, and Mr. Gondolfi was assistant supervisor 
of registration upon the day of election. Mr. Moore was supervisor of 
registration prior to the day of election. Demands were made on all 
three of these parties—upon Mr. Moore before his resignaion, upon 
Mr. Gondolfi, his clerk, who succeeded him as supervisor of registration, 
or rather apparently superseded him, becau'^e Mr. Moore continued to 
perform the duty, at least in my presence he performed the duty, of 
striking off the names of a large number of registered Democratic 
voters. 

Q. Did they purport to receive these demands?—A. Yes, sir; Mr. 
Gondolfi was there,,but Mr. Moore was-really supervisor, and lie per¬ 
formed the manual work of striking off the names. 1 will file with the 
committee all the affidavits that we have on hand of Democrats who 
were erased from the books and who were entitled to vole had they not 
been stricken from the registration books. There were to my recol¬ 
lection 106 duly, lawfully registered Democratic voters who offered their 
votes at the polling places in the seventh wmrd on the election day, 
with their affidavits made in accordance with the Gnite<l Stares Re¬ 
vised Statutes, with their tickets attached. They made affidavit that 
they were lawfully entitled to vote; that they had been registered as 
voters; and that the ticket attached was the ticket they intended to 
vote. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Are you now speaking from your personal knowledge ?—A. Yes, 
sir; entirely. ’ 

Q. Did you see these men ?—A. No, sir; I did not see all the men, 
but 1 saw those affidavits. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


543 


Senator Hill. 1 think, Senator, he said he only saw the aftidavits. 

Senator (Jameuon. 1 tliink lie ou^lit to tile, the adidavits, if he has 
them. 

Senator Hill. I think it perfectly proper for the witness to state the 
contents of the alTidavits, for he swears that he has them and will pro¬ 
duce them. 

Senator Cameron. I think differently. 

Senator Hill. 1 never objected, Senator, when you asked the wit¬ 
nesses about the contents of letters they had written, and all that. You 
first introduced that metlipd of investigation, and you must remember 
that the witness’s statements are of no effee.t as testimony unless he 
produces the attidavits. 

Senator Cameron. Then h*t him produce the affidavits. 

Senator Hill. It will do no harm for him to state the contents now. 

Senator Cameron. It will certainly do harm if it does no good. 

The AVitness (jiroducing the affidavit). That is a sample of them. 
That is one made out for the third ward, but it is the same as those in 
the seventh ward. It gives the name and the ticket that he would vote 
if he had not been refused. That is a sam])le of all of them. 

Senator Hill. Please file thataftidavit with the stenograiiher. 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

THIRD WARD DEMOCRATIC AND CONSERVATIVE TICKET. 

NATIONAL TICKET. 

For Presiilent, Saimiel J. Tilden. 

For Vice-Prea’t, Thomas A. Hendricks. 

For Premhntial electors 

At large, John McEnery, Robert C. Wicklitfe. 

First district, Louis St. Martin. 

Second district, F«dix P. Pocbe. 

Third district, Alcibiade DelUanc. 

Fourth district, W. A. Seay. 

Fifth district, R. G. Cobb. 

Sixth district. K. A. Cross. 


STATE TICKET. 

For governor, Francis T. Nicholls. 

For Rent, governor, lAinis A. Wiltz. 

For attorney-general, H. N. Ogden. 

For secretary of state, William A. Strong. 

For amlitor, Allen Jmnel. 

For superintendent of ])ublic education, Robert M. Lusher. 
For Congress, first district, Randall L. Gibson, of Orleans. 


CITY TICKET. 

For mayor, Edward Pilsbury. 

For administrators. 

Improvements, .lolin McCaffrey. 
Assessments, .John K. Rengstorlf. 
Police, R. E. Diamond. 
Commerce, Charles Cavanac. 
Waterworks, James D. Edwards. 
Finance, J. C. Denis. 
Accounts,.!. G. Brown. 





THIRD WARD, No. 


544 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


rAROCHIAL TICKET. 

• Forjudges. 

* First district court, Edmund Abell. 

Second district court, A. L. Tissot. 

Third district court, Frank A. Monroe. 

Fourth district court, W. T. Houston. 

Fifth district court, Walter H. Rogers. 

Sixth district court, Arthur Saucier. 

Superior district court, D. S. Bryon. 

Superior criminal court, W. R. Whitaker. 

For clerks. 

For district court, James O’Neill. 

, Second district court, John Herbert. 

Third district court, Ben Armbruster. 

Fourth district court, John Cuny. 

Fifth district court, Thos. Dutfy. 

Sixth district court, .J. V. Guillotte. 

Sup’r district court, C. Taylor Gauche. 

Supei’ior criminal court, Eugene May. 

* For criminal sheriff, J. D. Houston. 

For civil sheriff’, Thos. H. Handy 
For district attorney, John J. Finney. 

For coroner, Ist, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th districts. Dr. A. Chastant. 

LEGISLATURE. ' 

House of Representatives, J. D. Hill, John Fitzpatrick, George Foerster. 

Second justice of the peace,.Johu McCormick. 

Constable 2nd justice’s court, M. Russell. 

1st proposed amendment, for approval. 

2d proposed amendment, for approval. 

3d proposed amendment, against approval. 

4th proposed amendment, for approval. 

5th proposed amendment, for approval. 

Erase either the word for or against. 


(In red ink, upper right-hand corner:) 
Voted Nov. 2,1874. 

G. V. BEARES 


United States of America, 

State of Louisiana : 

In the third election precinct of the parish of Orleans. 

Be it remembered that on the 5 day of Sept., in the year 1874, personally 
I came before the assistant supervisor of registration for the third ward of the 
city of New Orleans, James McGuire, who, being duly sworn, doth depose and 
say as follows, to wit: 

My name is James McGuire. I was born Ireland, in the year 1829. My 
occupation is laborer, and I reside at No. — Willow, Julia & Cypress street, in 
the city of New Orleans. I am a citizen of Louisiana, and have been residing 

in this State ever since the-day of -, 1844. I am now claiming to 

be registered in the third election precinct of the parish of Orleans, in which 
I now reside. I have no other place of residence, and I did not remove to the 
said election precinct for the purpose of voting therein, but for the purpose of 
making it my place of residence in pursuance of my lawful calling. 

bis 

JAMES + McGUIRE. 

mark. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5 day of Sept., A. D. 1874. 

DANA ROSE, 

Assistant Supervisor of Registration, Third Ward, Parish of Orleans] 


No. —.THIRD WARD. 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


545 


Original No. 1049. 

Unhed States of Amekica, 

state of Louisiana : 

This is to certify that James Mc(inire, a native of Irehiml ami a citizen of Louisiana, 
was July registered upon bis personal application, by the undersigned, assistant sujter- 
visor of registration for the third election precinct of the parish of tOrleans, as a resi¬ 
dent of the election precinct of the third ward of the city of New Orleans on this 
day of .sejit., anno Domini l'^74. 

* . DANA ROSE, 

Axsistaui Supervisor of Uerjistrution for the ThirfJ U'ard, ( 'ity of Sew Orleans. 

Form No. 4. 

I’ersonall^v appeared .James McGuire, who, being duly sworn, dejioses and says that, 
on the 5tb day of September, 1^74, he w’ent to the office of Dana Rose, ass’t supervisor 
of registration in this parish, for the juirpose of registering as a voter, and was duly 
registered as No. 1049, which certiticate is hereto annexed and made a part of this 
affidavit. 

And affiant further deposes and says that on said .oth day of September, 1874, whjii 
he w'ent to said office, he was and now is twenty-one years of age ; was duly natural¬ 
ized in the United States;* is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and has been a resi 
dent of the State of Louisiana, parish of Orleans, third ward of the city of New Orleans, 

since the-day of-, and a resident of this parish and ward since the - - 

day of-, year 18.59, and that he is not disfranchised for any of the causes stated 

in article 99 of the constitution ; that at the election liehl at New Orleans on Novem¬ 
ber 7th, 187b, at which election a member of the Forty-tifth Congress was to be voted 
for,as well as electors for President and Vice-President of the United States; that 
affiant did there and then offer to vote, and would have voted if allowed so to do, the 
annexed ticket, straight and Democratic ticket, and that he did then and there ofter to 
make the necessary affidavit, answer all questions, and do and perform all things and 
acts requisite under the law, but that affiant was refused the privilege of voting by 
Edward Heath A C. F. Ladd A L. S. Lehman, commissioners at said poll. 

his 

JAME.S + McGUIRE. 

. mark. 

Sworn to A subscribed before me on this 7th of November, 1870. 

[seal.] JOHN L. MAURICE, 

'3rd Justice Peace, Parish of Orleans, La. 

* In the case of a naturaliz<*>d citizen, substitute for ‘‘ was born in the United States" 
was duly naturalized in the United States. 

By Senator Hill: 

il: J under.staiul yon to say there were a huiulred and six in the .sev¬ 
enth ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Anti do I understand yon that those votes were rejected ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. ^Yho liad authority to receive them at the time ?—A. The commis¬ 
sioners of election. The names of these voters had either been erased 
from the registration books or omitted from the i)olling-list.s. The as¬ 
sistant supervisors corrected the registration-books by erasing fhe names 
Irom them of parties about whom they may have certain evidence be¬ 
fore them. That is to say, the aflidavits of two responsible parties re¬ 
siding in the ward that the person registered is not a legally qualiried 
voter in that ward, and upon that the supervisors erased the name of 
such fiaudulently registered party or parties, and after erasing the names 
of the parties thus registered, or of parties who hml died or moved away, 
then printed polling-lists are made up and distributed to each polling 
l)lace. These names had been stricken and a large number of them 
omitted from the polling-lists, and when a man offered to vote the man¬ 
agers would refer to the lists, and if the name wa-^iot there they would 
refer him to the sniiervisor, and he would go back and examine the list 
and see if tlie name had been impropefly omitted, and if so, give him a 

35 s K 





546 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


certificate and let him go and vote. In the case of the seventh ward, 
Mr. Gondolfi absented himself and could not be found during the day 
to give these certificates, and the votes of these parties were refused, 
although their papers showed that they were regular, and their hold¬ 
ers entitled to vote. 

Q. Major Burke, do 3^011 know anything of the election in the 20th 
senatorial district*?—A. M 3 ^ attention was onl 3 'called to that a moment 
ago, and 1 have considerable information upon that point, but it will be 
necessary to refer to m 3 ^ |>apers in order to obtain it. It touches a num¬ 
ber of parties, and in order to make tbe evidence intelligible, it will be 
necessary to refer to a number of pai)ers, and I would therefore prefer 
to go on with m 3 ’ testimony to-morrow. There is quite a history con¬ 
nected with it. 

Q. If there is aiqvthing else on the subject of the seventh ward elec¬ 
tion that 3 ’ou think it necessar 3 ’ to state, please state it, because you 
are an intelligent gentleman, and know what to sa 3 ’.—A. I had some 
connection with the returns of poll ISo. 3 of the seventh w’ard. There 
was a large poll cast, to the best of my recollection 330 Democratic 
votes and a 160 or 161 Kepublicau votes. Generally the commissioners 
came to me to report that the assistant supervisor refused to make the 
return.' 

Q, Was that Mr. Moore ?—A. Ko, sir ; Mr. Gondolfi. lie refused to 
receive their returns, and they asked my advice about it. The commis¬ 
sioners of election filed with me a sworn copy of the returns, or rather 
duplicates of the returns, with an affidavit from all the commissioners, 
which I will file with the secretar 3 q that the election had been fair 
and peaceable, no disturbance whatever, no question between the 
commissioners as to the count or the votes, but that there were a great 
many scratched tickets, and the poll was a very large one, and under 
their system of counting they had been unable to complete the count 
within the 24 hours. I will state that that was not unusual, because there 
were 50 or 60 polling places in the parish of Orleans where the count 
was not finished in that time, and no objection was made to the re¬ 
turns by the board on that account; but I will state that Mr. Gondolfi 
had refused to receive these returns, because the count was net com¬ 
pleted within 24 hours. I advised the commissioners- 

Senator Cameron. Wait one moment. The advice you gave the 
commissioners is not evidence. I submit the fact that your advice is 
not competent evidence. 

Senator Hill. I differ with you. I think all the tacts with regard to 
the disposition of this poll No. 3, and the statements of the parties 
necessary to show the character of the transaction, make competent 
evidence in this case. His advice to the commissioners per se is not 
material to the issue, but it is a part of the facts going to show the dis¬ 
position of poll No. 3, and what occurred in connection with it. I hope 
you will give all the facts. I want to know all the facts. 

Senator Vance. What was said at the time and about it is certainly 
a fact. 

Senator Hill. What was said at the time and with reference to these 
matters is a part of the transaction. 

Senator Cameron. I object to this person, who was an unofficial 
person, stating what advice he gave as to the registration, or the voting, 
or the disposition of the votes, or what the commissioners should do in 
the premises. We might as well call in Tom, Dick, and Harry, and ask 
them what advice they gave these parties. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 547 

donator Hill. I urulerstaiul him that these commissioners, who were 
sworn otticers, came to him tor his advice in an emergency. 

StMiator Cameko’?^. They might have gone to other parties as well. 

Senator Hill. Bo they might. 

The Witness. I will state, Senators, that I was recognized as the 
anthority upon the Democratic side by correspondence with the State 
authorities and as the representative of a party who was entitled to 
rein-esentation in the polls, and the arrangements were taken by ns as 
the parties recognized and empowered to do so. 

Senator Hill. I take the ground that any party whom the commis¬ 
sioners desired to recognize and consult with had a right to. advise 
and suggest what they should do in order to discharge their duty and 
comply with the law. 

Senator Cameron. I do not care to argue the point. My objection 
will appear in the record. 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir, it will api)ear. We desire to known all about 
poll No. 3, and all that will throw light upon it. 

Senator Cameron. 1 want all that is competent testimony. 

Senator Hill. If it is not competent testimony it won’t throw light 
on it, and if it is, it will. 

The Witness. I advised the commissioners to go to the secretary of 
state and deliver copies of the returns to him, and take his receipt for 
them—that is to say, for the sworn co])ies of the returns, as made by 
them. [ further aclvised them to copy the returns, to be transmitted 
direct to the otticers of the returning board, and being of counsel before 
the returidng board I would know that the attention of the returning 
i)oard was called to the fact that these returns had been filed in the 
office of the secretary of state: tliat they were sent for and were 
before the returning board; and that governor Wells and Anderson, in 
open session, should be informed of all the facts. When the facts were 
stated, that it was a mere matter of the count not being comi)leted in 
twenty-four hours, I thought it would not affect the validity of the 
return, we went on-to count it as one of the returns ; furthermore, when 
we did call attention to them, they were not counted; these returns 
were before them but were not counted. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. What reasons were assigned by tlie returning board for not coiuit- 
ing those returns ?—A. They never gave any reasons, but were in open 
scvssion when the matter was called to their attention ; the objection to 
them w as treated as frivolous. 

By Senator IIill : 

Q. Do you mean the objection to the time wdien the returns were 

made ?_A. Yes, sir; I mean the objection that they were not returned 

in time; the returns w’ere signed by all the otticers, both Bepublicans 
and Democrats. 

(»). Was there no t)rotest sent in with the returns ?—A. No, sir ; there 
was no protest. Governor Wells said that when they came to the com¬ 
pilation of the returns that the vote of that w ard w'ould be counted. 

(J. If that vote had been counted, what wH)uld have been the result ? 
•—A. The question you asked me was what, Senator ? 

If poll No. 3 iiad been counted, what would have been the result • 
in the seventh wanl, as declared by the returning board, or, rather, 
taking all the other votes as returned by them ?—A. The vote as de¬ 
clared by the returning board in the members of the legislature, to the 
best of my recollection—but 1 can file the exact figures with the secre- 


548 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


tary—was about 1,513, or running along to 20, for the Democratic can¬ 
didates ; that is, as returned by the board, adding 331 to the Demo¬ 
cratic vote of 1,513, say, would make 1,844 j adding the 106- 

Q. Is it 106 or 160 ?—A. 106. 

Q. O, yes.—A. Adding 106 Democratic votes of voters who filed their 
affidavits with their tickets attached, and who were refused the right to 
vote, would make 1,950. Adding 160 Eepublican votes cast at poll No. 
3 to 1,780 that were returned by the returniugboard, would make 1,940, 
so that the vote would stand, without any reference to the 247 persons 
fraudulently registered, and who were proven to be so by the affiadavits 
of twm responsible citizens, as required by law, and without any refer¬ 
ence to the 300 fraudulently issued duplicate registration papers, there 
was a slight Democratic majority. There was, however, a slight Eepub- 
licau majority registered in the ward, growing out of these fraudulent 
registrations, and if it is not improper to make the statement, I would 
call the atteutiou ot the committee to the fact that the present regis¬ 
tration— 

Senator Hill. 1 was going to ask that question, and I hope you will 
go on and answer it. 

The Witness. The present registration in the ward shows a majority 
of about 600 Democratic, or white votes, registered; that is to say, if 
the 247 persons fraudulently registered, and the three hundred dupli¬ 
cate registration papers which were used, had been deducted in 1876, 
or stricken from the polls in 1876, the registration which stood then 
about as it does now, there wmuld not have been more than 100 or 150 
difference in the vote then and what it is now—that is to say, there 
been about 600 Democratic majority in that ward. 

By Senator Yance : 

Q. Major Burke, 1 do not believe you finished the statement you were 
going to make, in answer to Mr. Hill’s question. 

Senator Hill. You made the figures, but did not announce the re¬ 
sult. If the 106 votes of which you spoke had been counted, what 
would have been the result, who would have been elected in that ward ? 
—A. The three Democratic candidates to the legislature would have 
been elected. 

Senator Vance. I made it about 20 majority.—A. I think about 10, 
without reference to frauds in the registration.' 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Who were the Democratic candidates who were defeated, or rather 
declared defeated in that election ? 

Senator Kellogg. Declared by the Eepublican returning board, or 
Democratic board ? 

The Witness. We did not do it. Senator. 

Senator Kellogg. I think you did j you made a sworn statement of 
the result. 

The Witness. No, sir ; I think you will find it different. The candi¬ 
dates were J. M. Cressy, Henry Tremoulet, and Charles Eolle. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Major Burke, I want to ask a question for my own information j I 
do not know how you will answer, but I want to know the fact. In the 
final settlement between the two factions, or rather after it was settled 
by Nicholls taking charge of the government, who was declared to be 
the elected candidates from that ward ?—A. Mr. Tremoulet Mr Cres^^v 
and Mr. Eolle. ^ 










SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


549 


Senator Kellogg. It would be competent, I think, Mr. Chairman, to 
allow Mr. lUirke to say when they took their seats in the Democratic 
legislature. 

Senator Hill. 1 have no objection. 

Senator Kellogg. It was on the 1st of January, wasirt it, that they 
were admitted and assunfed to be members of the legislature? 

Senator Hill. Tlum you mean the Kicholls legislature admitted them, 
and they assumed to be members at once ? 

The AVitness. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. In point of fact, then, at the time Kellogg was elected 
there were three members of the seventh ward in the Nicholls legislature, 
and three members from that ward in the Packard legislature, as it was 
called ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ^lajor Burke, I interrupted your remarks to put in that cpiestion 
for my own satisfaction ; if you have anything further to say, please go 
on and state it.—A. I do not know whether the statement was taken 
down or not, but I repeat it, for the reason that all of these facts which 
I have stated before the committee, which refers to the election of these 
members of the legislature, were submitted to the Kicholls legislature 
with the statement of the vote, as shown on the face of the pai)ers the 
statement of the vote was contained on the face of the pai)ers copied 
from the original. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Do you mean the supervisors returns ?—A. The return of the com- 
n)issioners, as the law requires. 

Senator Hill, (to Senator Kellogg). Senator, you will have the cross- 
examination of this witness, and please do not interrupt him. 

The Witness. (Tpon that point I will state that our laws make the 
lawful returns the returns made by the commissioners. 

l>y Senator Hill : 

Cb You have also stated that the su[)ervisor refused the returns from 
l)oll No. —A. The supervisor’s return is a mere compilation of the re¬ 
sult he casts up. 

Q. That is, he casts up and counts the votes according to the returns 
made by the commissioners of election, and the commissioners at the 
various polling places, and signs the returns; is that it?—A. There 
was no law which recpiired the returning board to count the returns 
made by tlie supervisors ; it required that they should count the returns 
as made by the commissioners ; the law will show for itself. 

Q. Go on, if there is anything else to state.—A. I believe that is all 
that occurs now to me. 

Q. Well now as to the 2()th senatorial district ?—A. T would wish to 
refer to the papers in that case, so as to get the figures, for without them 
my testimony would be of little service to the committee. 

Q. Well, what was the fact, Alnjor Burke, of this duplicate issue of 
certificates to dift'erent men, the issue of the same number. How was 
it possible that the fraudulent number could be used ? —A. Under the 
law, particularly in 187(1, the registered voter could vote at any polling 
l)lace within the limits of his ward ; that is to say, if there should be 
seven jiolling places in the seventh ward, and the assistant supervisor 
chose to issue seven registration papers or certificates to one man, and 
all of the same number, all seven of these might be voted upon, pro¬ 
vided the person voted at ditferent jilaces, and could do so without the 
fear of detecJion, unless after the election the registiation books were 
compared with the polling lists. 


550 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Then nobody could know of the frauds being perpetrated before 
that comparison was made, except the supervisor who issued the 1 ) 11 - 
i:>ers ?—A. I am not aware of how anybody could know of it, ex¬ 
cept through him. He had the books in bis })ossession tliat it would be 
necessary to look to. Those were two points of disadvantuge under 
which the Democratic party labored, under tlm laws existing then. 
One was the issue of duplicate papers, and the other was the duplicat¬ 
ing of the votes of the same person in different wards. 

(Senator A^ance. I suppose that the registration was like it was 
in North Carolina; that when the registration books were opened, a 
clerk stood by, and whenever a man’s name was called, his name was 
looked for, and when he voted, it was checked off'.—A. No, sir; it was 
checked off' here on the polling list. 

Senator Vance. And the only possible way of cheating there with us 
is when a person moves away or dies, and another man comes and 
votes for him. 

The Witness. That is what the boys here call “ stiffing.” 

Senator Cameron. Do you know where those registration papers 
aie now, and whether they could be examined to see whether the votes 
were polled frequently, in the manner you have stated !—A. I could not 
state positively. The^" were in possession of the old State authorities 
until we came into possession of the government. 

Q. AVhere have they been since?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Where under the law ought they to be ?—A. In the secretary of 
state’s ofiBce; or, perhaps, in the state registrar’s office. 

Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, where they are ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Have you ever examined them yourself, or directed any examina¬ 
tion to be made of them to know whether the facts are as you have 
stated here they might be?—A. No, sir; I have not; and another 
mode—as you seem to be inquiring into our method of voting—another 
method of committing frauds was by the person registering in other 
wards. 1 have a memorandum here of two individuals, the names of 
whom were John Mitchell, who was registered twice in the fifth ward, 
once in the sixth, once in the fourteenth, once in the sixteenth, once in 
the fourth, once in the eleventh, and once in the seventh wards. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) All in the same election I —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) And in different wards?—A. Yes, sir; 
and Charles Williams was another who registered the following times, 
in the following wards: Once in the sixth ; once in the eighth ; once in 
the fifth ; once in. the seventh ; once in the ninth ; once in the fourth, 
and once in the third wards. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Do you know where John Mitchell and Charles 
Williams are?—A. No, sir; I tried to chase them up; but they were 
registered before our men could reach them, and I have not been able 
to know since where they lived. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Cameron). Have you any <iuestion for Major 
Burke, Senator ? 

Senator Cameron. I am afraid I am as ignorant as my friend on the 
other side from North Carolina as to these elections down here. As 
Senator Kellogg is familiar with them I would prefer that he would be 
allowed to ask the questions. I would ])refer to reserve a few questions 
I wish to ask to another time if Major Burke is to continue on the stand. 

By Senator Kei.logg: 

Q. Major, you testified, I think, regarding the striking off' of some of 
the names in the custom-house from the registration-rolls. Will you 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


551 


please state wboii that was when yon personally saw some names strick¬ 
en otl A. It is my impressioii, but I dislike to make a statement of 
dates without recurriii" to data, that it was on the ni^iit before the elec¬ 
tion. The books were taken to the custom-house and the names stricken 
off there. 

Q. Do you recollect the provision of the law regarding the close of the 
registration ?—A. My recollection is that the registration closed ten 
days before the election. 

Q. \yas not the striking off of the names from the registration-rolls 
immediately succeeding the close of the registration ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. 1 asked for information, Major j 1 did not remember myself.—A. 
The books were carried to the police stations and certain work done 
there on them ; and the ditfereut supervisors throughout the city were 
notified to carry the books to the custom-house, and when they were 
notified to carry them there I also got notice of it. 

Q. What were your sources of information upon that subject?—A. I 
think I can find you the reports of the detective. 1 had one looking 
after this business, and I think I can show his reports and the orders to 
the supervisors. 

Q. Do you know why the books were taken to the custom-house ?—A. 
I can state what I thought. 

Q. No; 1 ask you the object. Was there not some instruction from 
the State registrar?—A. The State registrar refused to give any infor¬ 
mation, and one of bis clerks did. 

Q. Was it to take them there and compare them with Major Wolfley’s 
returns and get an idea in that way of a fraudulent registration ?—A. 1 
can give you my belief about that. 

Q. No, I do not want your belief. I was not aware, Major, that the 
books were taken to the custom-house and did not know of it until to¬ 
day.—A. The apprehension on our part grew out of the fact that we 
knew it was the intention to strike oft* a large number of names, perhaps 
ten or twelve thousand names. That was from one of our sources of in¬ 
formation, and when we learned that the books were to be taken to the 
custom-house we believed that was the object of it and that it was to 
use to a large extent what information they could get from the United 
States authority and to avail themselves of this sewing-machine dodge. 
It was ten or twelve o’clock before I found they were there and this work 
was going on. I went down there and found the room and entered my 
l^rotest against the work going on. I think Mr. AValker—no, it was 
another gentleman—was with me, and we protested against the work 
and some of us remained there while the work was going on. The im- 
])ression we had- 

Q. I do not ask for your impression. Major; I ask for the fact.—A. I 
did know of the lact at the time that they had prepared affidavits and 
issued the warrants to arrest against a large number of people. I knew 
of that the detective and from the record from South worth’s court 
and from a corps of clerks to notify the people to come forward and 
make voluntary appearances and keep from being prevented from voting 

Q. Did or not the election-law provide how the names should be 
stricken ?—A. It did ; it provided that a name should be stricken only 
on the aftidavit of two responsible persons, but they had no such infor¬ 
mation when the\" were striking oft'those names. 

Q. Did or not Die law provide that two persons should be appointed 
to note or ascertain if the persons lived in the ward they were registere«l 
in 1 —A. I never saw any such provision. 

Q. And that if they made oatli the officer could strike the name?—A. 



552 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


No, sir; if they bad the affidavit of two responsible persons living in the 
ward that a party who was registered did not reside there then they 
could strike it. 

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge of any number of citizens 
who were subsequently not allowed to vote whose names were stricken 
without the affidavits of two responsible citizens?—A. Ido know of 
many. 

Q. In the city ?—A. I can give you the names of five hundred. I sup¬ 
pose, I could give five thousand, but certainly five hundred, who were 
lawfully and legally entitled to vote—merchants, bankers, clergymen, 
and even a member of Congress, Mr. Ellis. 

Q. Was not he allowed to vote?—A. I was speaking of the evidence, 
and I say it was on such evidence that this man struck off the names 
of voters. The affidavits did not conform to the law that two responsi¬ 
ble parties should establish the fact that the party was not entitled to 
vote. These sewing-machine circulars that were carried around to the 
houses were simply returned, marked “ not found.” I can bring you at 
least 500 persons who will state what their servants told them: that a 
l^oliceman would come to the house'and ring, and when they would come 
to answer the bell would ask, “ is Mr. So-and-so at home.” Perhaps the 
man was downtown at his business. The servant would answer, “ No,” 
and these circulars would be returned, marked “ not found,” and on that 
sort of evidence his name would be erased. 

Q. You say that people state that their servants vsaid this ?—A. I say 
I will bring you people who will state these facts. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Those men you say were then reported as “not found” and their 
names stricken oft*!—A. “Not found,”sir; that was the indorsement 
on the book of these sewing-machine circulars and upon that these affi¬ 
davits were filled out. I will bring a policeman who filled them out. I 
knew all about it at the time. Under the supervision of the registrar, up 
in the fourth story of the SDate-house, and at night, the papers were 
brought down and placed in the back room of your office, Governor 
Kellogg. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did you see them brought down ?—A. No; I can bring you the 
witnesses. I thought you were asking for information and I thought I 
would give it to you. 

Seuat)r Kellogg. I want the information, but I object to this 
romancing. 

Senator Hill. I think. Senator, you had better let the witness state 
what he commenced on in response to your question. 

Senator Kellogg. I want the facts, Mr. Chairman, and nothing 
more. 

The Witness. Then ask the question and I will answer you directly. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Those affidavits or papers you had were referring to the third 
ward—those were cases, as I understood. you, where the name was 
stricken off and the party complaining appeared at the poll and offered 
to veto. Was that the case ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the seventh ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember whether an order was issued that day to let such 
parties vote?—A. That was ordered late in the afternoon. " 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


553 


Q. I am speaking now with reference to tbe seventh ward.—A. Yes, 
air; late in the afternoon, and it was understood the evening before that 
it was to be issued in the afternoon and Cxovernor Hahn said so. 

Q. Did you hear him say so?—A. I have an official report from Mr. 
Whittaker in writing to that effect. 

Senator Hill. Senator, 1 must say that this examination must be 
conducted in order. When you ask the witness a question let him 
answer it. 

Senator Kellogg. I will not interrupt him, Mr. Chairman, as long as 
he is answering my question. 

Senator Hill. Very well; when you ask him a (juestion let him an¬ 
swer it; in the midst of the answer do not cut it short by interjecting 
another question. Let the real facts come out. 

Senator Cameron. If the witnes.s’s answer is not responsive to the 
question he can stop him, I suppose. 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir, that is proper enough: but it is dift'erent 
from stopping him in the midst of an answer and interjecting another 
question. 

Senator Kellogg. Then I say, Mr. Chairman, if he does not know 
the fact about which he is testifying of his own knowledge I do not want 
a reply. 

The Witness. I know of my own knowledge that it was made known 
late in the afternoon of election day, and I know of my own knowledge 
that it w as to have been made know’ii in the morning. 1 suppose 1 can 
say, for it is a fact, that it was known to me. 

Q. How^ many wards are there in the city?—A. Seventeen, 1 believe. 

Q. How many polls?—A. Well, I would have to count them. 

Q. Are there over a hundred ?—A. Yes, sir ; I think there are. 

Q, Do you know that that order was not in the possession of the 
officers of election until late in the day at every one of those polls?—A. 
That is my information. 

Q. Don’t you know that it w’as published in every one of the after¬ 
noon papers ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is not the Times issued about one o'clock or half past one o'clock 
in the day ?—A. Yes, sir ; about that time. 

Q. And immediately scattered all over the city ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

(,). How many voting hours after that ?—A. About live hours. 

Q. Don’t you think that a 100 of these votes could have been voted 
in that time?—A. I do; but the difficulty was this, that these men had 
been there at the polls and demanded to be allowed to vote, had been 
refused, and had gone home or back to their work. These people did 
not stay about the polls, and seek to be allowed to vote at any time 
that it "pleased the officers. A man who was refused, say at ten o’clock 
in the morning, had probably goneoffito make his complaint, and if the 
information came to him suliseciiiently that he would be allow’ed to vote, 
it is doubtful w hether he then had time to do so. J suppose if he had 
received the information in time, he would have availed himself of the 
privilege; but that is one of the things we complain of—that notice 
given to voters of that kind w'as not sufficient. 

Q. You admit, I believe, though, that for five hours before the polls 
w'ere closed the fact was cried in an extra?—A. I think it was in the 
regular edition ; 1 do not think there w’as any extra issued that day. 

Jly Senator Hill : 

(,>. If the paper w^as i.ssued at half past one, it was only four and a 
half hours, I believe you said ?—A. Yes, sir. 


554 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. If it appears, Major Burke, that the supervisors had notice ten 
hours in advance, then there would have been time for a hundred and 
forty or a hundred and six of these votes to be cast ?—A. Yes, sir ; but 
they kept the information to themselves, if the^^ had it. 

Q. Do you know of two cases of that sort?—A. AYs, sir; I can give 
you a case in the seventh ward. 

Q. Give us one case of that sort.—A. I can and wiH give you enough 
of them. I will give the secretary in the morning the names of the 
parties. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Give it now, if you have one of them. 

The Witness. Yes, you expect me to recollect all these things and 
the names of the individuals in a mo ne it. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. You said you had a hundred and six afiSdavits?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where are they, if it is a proper question ? i 

Senator Cameron. O, yes, it is. 

The Witness. I have a number of trunks and boxes with papers 
connected with all these returns in them ; I will have to look for them 
and get them from among that mass of papers before 1 will be able to 
produce them to this committee. 

Senator Hill. It is sufficient to state that you have them in your 
possession. 

The Witness. For instance, the 87 cases that were filed in the supe¬ 
rior criminal court. Ido not recollect whether we withdrew them or 
whether we left the papers in the court. I will have to examine into 
that and see whether we did or not. If the papers are in the court, I 
will have to apply there for them. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) I wanted to know if you had them in your 
possession ?—A. Yes, sir; I did have them. 

Q. That reminds me regarding the information that you had about 
what the assistant attorney-general said in regard to these prosecu¬ 
tions. Do you know whether he gave any such instructions as you 
spoke of in writing ?—A. I would not undertake to say at this time that 
they were in writing. 

Q. You give your recollection, major, but you do not recollect, I sup¬ 
pose, specially whether it was in writing or where you got your infor¬ 
mation?—A. Ko, sir; I do not recollect just at the moment. 

Q. You said that you were advised that he had given such instructions 
and you stated that, I believe, very emphatically ?—A. Yes, sir ; I did. 
Do you want to know now' the source of my information ? 

Q. Yes, sir. It is rather unsatisfactory, you know, to say that you 
were advised so and so.—A. Well, sir, I tried to give it to you when 
you asked me the first time. 

Q. Well, never mind, major, I would like to ask you now a question 
or tw’o regarding the seventh ward. There w’as some testimony had 
touching the fifth, sixth and seventh wards; and I would like to have 
you examine that and see (banding witness a paper) wdiether it is a 
correct registration of those warrants, and correct as to the population. 
Take the fifth and seventh wards, for instance. 

The Witness (examining the paper). Well, governor, it would be 
rather a difficult matter for me to i)ass judgment upon those questions 
without particular examination. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


555 


Q. Here is one 1 tliink was testified to by yon before the House com¬ 
mittee ; perhaps it will require some accuracy in looking over the fig¬ 
ures.—A. 1 think my testimony was to the ettect that there were twenty- 
live thousand three hundred fraudulent voters registered, and, therefore, 
1 could not be expected to verify that registration now. 

Q. l am not asking that. 1 am asking what was the official registra¬ 
tion ; for instance, were you ac(iuainted with the registration in 1»72 in 
the 7th ward ?—A. Xo, sir; 1 have very little knowledge as to that 
year. 1 was a can<lidate at that time, but my knowledge goes more 
particulaiMy in the year 1874. 

Q. Do you know that the registration was taken that year by Demo¬ 
cratic supeiAisors ?—A. I did not so understand. 

. Q. Did not Governor Warmotli appoint all of them that year in the 
Democratic interest ?—A. 1 did not so understand, sir. 

Q. Will you advise yourself as to these three wards so as to know 
when you come on the stand again ?—A. 1 do not know where to go to 
get at the information. Could not again get it at the secretary of 
state’s oflice. 1 sui)pose 1 could; but 1 am very busy just now in con¬ 
ducting the State campaign, as you know, and 1 would not like to have 
the trouble of going after these things if you can get them in some 
other way as well. 

Q. 1 would like to refer you, however, to this data—that in 1872 the 
white registration in the sixth ward was 2,033, and o28 colored. In the 
fifth ward 2,.3ol white, 2,828 colored. In the seventh ward 2,500, 2,043 
colored. 

Senator Hill. That is not the way. Senator, to get in that testimony, 
•if you desire it in. 

Senator Kellogg. I take it back then, Mr. Chairman. 1 do not 
want this testimony to go in, except it goes legitimately. 

Senator Hill. You are examining the witness remember. 

Senator Keli.ogg. 1 suj)pose the object of the investigation was to 
get at the facts, and 1 thought that would be the shortest way. 

Senator Hill. Yes, we want to get at the facts, but we want to get 
at them in the regular manner. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Did you, in connection with Gauthreaux, 
Blown and Cavanac, swear on the 9th of November to the tollowing 
atlidavit (reading the attidavit) previously referred to and printed in a 
lormer volume of the testimony, being a certificate to the state of the 
returns made by the commissioners of election in the 7th ward of the 
city of New Orleans, parish of Orleans I —A. 1 have made the same 
statement before this committee. 

Q. In this statement, did you, under the head of the seventh ward, 
give to Jerry Blackstone 1,710 votes, and Gardeur 1,903 ? 

The Witness. 1,903 votes. 

Q. Yes, sir; and to W. J. Moore 1,901?—A. One thousand nine hun¬ 
dred and one is correct according to the returns of the commissioners 
of election. That accords strictly with the statement 1 made to the 
committee as to the vote; that it was sim[)ly the face of the commis¬ 
sioners’ returns. 

i}.’ The statement here is the atlidavit; the statement shows the vote 
cast at an election held in November G, 187G, in the State of Louisiana, 
but was given, as aiijiears, in the affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the same connection, did you not report Tremouli as receiving 
1,804 votes, Crecy 1,834, and Wall 1,828 votes? 

Senator Hill. Senator, 1 think he has answered to all that. 

Senator Kellogg. He has not responded to that question, I believe. 


^556 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The Witness. That is my statement, I think, substantially. It 
makes a dittereuce of about ten votes in favor of the Democratic candi¬ 
dates. 

Q. This is the promulgation of your committee, then, as to the mem¬ 
bers entitled to their seats?—A. No, sir. It is simply a statement 
sworn to by us as to what appeared upon the face of the commissioners’ 
returns. 

Q. And the evidence going to impeach that is evidence predicated 
on this testimony as to fraudulent votes ?—A. As I have stated to the 
committee, it is the evidence of frauds committed in the registration. 

Q. Generally?—A. No, sir; not generally, but specifically. 

Q. Specifically. That is, on these affidavits like those wliich you say 
you will produce in the face of the order which had been issued to the 
supervisors ? 

Senator Hill. Senator, I hope you will not abuse this privilege. 
A'ou are submitting an argument upon your own statement of assumed, 
facts. I will have to stop it, and I hope I will not have it to do it 
again. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) I will ask you, Major Burke, if the three 
Democratic members did not appear at Odd-Fellows’ Hall in January 
1877, and were not their names called by the clerk without any contest 
from any one ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Have you no knowledge on that subject?—A. My only knowledge 
is that we submitted the testimony we liad and made affidavit to the 
affidavit to the face of the returns. I suppose what you ask is a matter 
that any of the records of the times will show. 

Q. I understood you to state that they were admitted after the con¬ 
sideration of the evidence that you furnished ?—A. I thifik so. I recol¬ 
lect that I furnished the evidence, and I supposed it was on the strength 
of that they were admitted. 

Q, From the time that they did go in did not they continue to hold 
their seats in the Nicholls legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the other three, Blackstoue and his two colleagues, were in 
the Packard legislature ?—A. I presume so. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, when Major Burke testifies again 
1 may have some other questions to ask. 

Senator Hill. Certainly. We will excuse you now. Major Burke. 


TESTIMONY OF BERNAPvD WILLIAMS. 

A witness called for the memorialist, affirmed, being of Israelitish faith. 
By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Williams ?—Answer. Number 210 
Bienville street. 

Q. Then you reside in this city ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided in this city ?—A. Twenty-three years, 
sir. 

Q. Mr. Williams, were you in Washington City during the month of 
June last while the examination of the witnesses "in this case was going 
on ?—A. Yes, sir; I know you well. Senator; you was on the commit¬ 
tee up stairs in the Capitol; your name is Mr. Hill, of Georgia ; I know 
you well. 

Q. Who were you employed by while you were there ?—A. By Jim 
Lewis, in the custom-house. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


05T 


Q. In whose interest ! —A. Governor Kellogg. 

Q. M hat were you to do f—A. Well, Senator, I will tell you all about 
it: It was on a Fhiday, it was Decoration (h^v, and I was soldier iu the 
United States Army, and I am in the habit ot going to the cemetery on 
Decoration day; every Decoration day I go to the cemetery; aiid I was 
employed in 31 ay to watch any witnesses or anybody that comes to the 
State-house. Then I watched and reported daily to dim Lewis. It was^ 
one day one Levi, an ex metropolitan policeman, who lives next door to 
me, went to the State house, and I went and reported to Jim Lewis that 
Levi and another man went to the State-house, and anybody else that 
went to the State-house I went and reported. 1 was employed and paid 
lor it. 

Q. What were you emjdoyed to do with the witnesses in Washing¬ 
ton f—A. O, at Washington, you want to know, I thank you ; 1 come 
on the last of the month at Washington; I arrived at Sixth-street 
depot ; I had never been in Washington before that time, and 1 had 
directions to go to the American Hotel. 

Q. Who gave you that direction f—A. Jim Lewis, he give it me, and 
I went to the American Hotel, and I registered—3L Davis. 

Q. AYho told j’ou to register by that namef—A. Jim Lewis; he told 
all what to do, and he said not to register my name as Harney Williams, 
as I was a detective during the war under General Butler. 1 was his 
proper detective here in New Orleans, and when 1 came to Washington 
I registered mj" name by that name, 31. Davis, what Jim Lewis had told 
me. I had a letter to Governor Kellogg, and 1 got up in the morinng; 
it was about t) o’clock, and I never been in Washington before, and I 
inquired where I could find Governor Kellogg, and they told me to go to 
Willard’s; I believe that’s the gentleman’s name; to go to Mr. Wil¬ 
lard’s Hotel, and 1 went on the street-car and asked the conductor that 
he would put me out at 3Ir. Willard’s Hotel, and he did, and I went up 
to the gentleman what stays behind the counter and asked him “does 
Governor Kellogg stay here?” and he says—and I took out a card oU 
mine—and he says to me “I could not see him, as he gets up soon and 
goes away,” and I said, “where could I see him ?” and he said to “go to 
the Capitol,” and I said, “I don’t know where the Capitol is,” and then 
he brought one of the waiters to shoAv me and he told me to take that 
car and to tell the conductor to put me out there at the Capitol; and 
when I got there, 1 went and asked everybody where Governor Kellogg 
is, and they allowed me to go down w here you sit. Senator, w here all the 
Senator’s desks are, ami I waited because they said he w^as not there: 
aiid then they came and told me 1 must get out, and an old gentleman 
I had recognized there, he said, “Governor Kellogg didn’t come till 12 
o’clock,” and said, “if I wanted to wait Governor Kellogg would come 
in,” and I w aited and at 12 o’clock or after—1 am on oath and 1 will not 
say it w as just 12 o’clock—I waited and Governor Kellogg came, and 
this gentleman here (pointing to Senator Cameron), and 1 took out my 
])apers and give Governor Kellogg the letter; he read, the letter, and 
told me to come at Willard's Hotel, at 3 o’clock, w ithout any delay, and 
he would be sure there. Then at 3 o'clock I came, it wjis not exactly 3 
o’clock, 1 remember well, it was not exact 3 when 1 started ; and 1 sto|)ped 
at the American Hotel; 31r. 3Iurphy, I believe is the gentleman’s 
name who keeps the hotel, and he showed me what street-car I should 
go to take, and 1 came and found Governor Kellogg up stairs in his 
room and gave him the letter. There was several gentlemen ; there 
was William Beynolds, was one. Governor Kellogg, he said, “there is 
a friend and good Bepubliean that has come here.” That’s what I am, 


558 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I am a true Republican, gentlemens. He read the letter and he asked 
me, or told me, that I should go out on the depot daily, when he will 
get telegrams when the witnesses from New (Orleans come to Washing¬ 
ton for that other gentleman—f always forget his name. 

Q. wSi)offord ?—A. Yes, sir; Judge Spotfbrd, I believe. 

Q. You were to go daily to the depot ?—A. Yes, sir; and I went; I 
Uvsed to go at 9 o’clock and \2 o'clock so as to identify the parties, and 
see if any party come from Orleans, or if anybody come who was a wit¬ 
ness for 8potford. 

Q. What were you to do with the witnesses ?—A. I went daily to the 
depot to see when they would come. Previous to theday that the witness¬ 
es come, I was up stairs in Governor Kellogg's hotel, at Willard’s; there 
were three or four telegram was received, and Governor Kellogg, there 
is that gentleman (pointing to Senator Kellogg), received the first tele¬ 
gram, and I am on oath and I do not know when the first telegram was 
dated, he read it before me, and it was from Jim Lewis, custom-house 
naval officer, it was from him, and he was with the witnesses on the car, 
wherever they were. The next telegram stated that he was on the way 
with them. The third was, “The bargain is made.” The fourth tele¬ 
gram was, “Everything is O K,” and that I was playing—that’s what 
Jim Lewis stated in tlie telegram, that he was playing cards with the 
witnesses, and gave the name of a gentleman, Charlie Cavninac, that he 
had given it to liim in the neck. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. That was the last telegram, wasn’t it ?~A. That was the first tel¬ 
egram, governor. You recollect it better than 1 do. 

Senator Kellogg. No, I do not. 

Senator Hill. Order, gentlemen ; let us have order. 

Q. (To the witness.) What were you to do about the witnesses ?—A. 
You mean when the witnesses came to Washington? 

Q. Yes. Did anybody give you any orders about them ?—A. YYs, 
sir. I will state to you everything. 

Q. Well, go on and give it your own way. 

The Witness. The telegram said they were coming; that was the 
last day before they came, f do not recollect what day it was. 1 was 
not sent out that day, but William Reynolds was sent out, and a man 
who works in the Treasury—a man with a split nose—he works in the 
Treasury, and is a man with a big silver badge on. We bad all been 
watching at the depot, and I was attending inside the depot on Gth 
street. I would watch in there, and when everybody would come in 
there I would go off, and I went that day to GoVernor Kellogg’s and 
stated to him that I didn’t seen any witnesses coming. I had not seen 
Vm ; but there was William Reynolds, the man with the split nose, and 
he said to me, “You didn’t watch well; they are all here.” Then Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg sent me with that man with the split nose to the Phila¬ 
delphia House, where they were, and 1 went and looked at the witnesses 
so that I should know them. They were all there, but that man with 
the split nose didn’t went up where they were, because he say they know 
him too well, but that nobody would take suspicion on me, and I should 
go. After I seen him, I went back and told him they were all there. 

Q. Told who?—A. Governor Kellogg, that gentleman there sitting. 

I believe that is him. Then I was sent back to the Philadelphia House, 
and I took De Lacey and Blackstone and a small negro, a heavy built 
black'negro, and Johnson and two others, that I don’t remember their 
names. 


SFOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


559 


liy Senator Vance : 

Q. \ on reinetnber De Lacey, lilackstone, and Johnson ! —A. Yes, sir. 
De Lacey was at my lionse, and stated to me tliat (lovernor Kello"^ 
would not ^jive him anythinf;, and that he was out ot sympathy to it, 
and so was I, and I ‘•ot notliin" either. 

J>y Senator Hill: 

Q. What did you do with the witnesses ?—A. After 12 o’clock at 
night I took them through 7th street, right by the park, through F 
street by the Post-Oflice and Patent Office, and I taken them up to 
Governor Kellogg’s otlice in Willard's Hotel through the back way. 

Q. You say you went in through the back way ?—A. Yes, sir; that 
is what I was instructed by Governor Kellogg, that gentleman there; 
he told me to do so. I taken them upstairs, ami he said to them that 
they must go back on their affidavits what they have made in New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. Who was it that said that?—A. Yes, sir; Governor Kellogg said 
it. The negroes said they were afraid to do it, for they would get into 
trouble, and Governor Kellogg took a book, bigger than that there, 
[indicating a book on the table], a law book it looked like, and read out 
of it to them ; that it didn’t amount to nothing; that if they made the 
affidavits in New Orleans and went back on them up here, it didn’t 
amount to nothing. De Lacey and a old yellow negro said they were 
afraid that they would go to the penitentiary. 

Q. That is, if they were to go back on their affidavits?—A. Y'es, sir; 
and they said it was correct affidavits what they bad made. 

Q. Well, what did Governor Kellogg say and do? Tell everything 
that occurred.—A. I will tell everything, and I will tell nothing that 1 
don’t know; I will tell you the truth. The Governor Kellogg took out 
that book—I believe there were several gentlemen in the room at the 
time—and read the law; that it didn’t amountto nothing if they went back 
on their aflidavits, and he said if anything happened to them he would 
protect them in every way if anybody troubled them. The negroc's said 
they were afraid to go back on their affidavits. Governor Kellogg said 
that nothing could happen, and that if he were put out of the Senate 
no Republican in the State of Louisiana could live there. I can’t ex- 
l)Iain all that he said, but that if he was put out of the Senate there 
would be assassination in Louisiana. What he said 1 can’t explain in 
good English, but that every good Republican should save him in the 
Senate so that they could stay at home in Louisiana. 

Q. Well, go on —A. Then we had a couple of good drinks and good 
cigars; I would like to have one now; they were good cigars, gentle¬ 
men. 

Senator Cameron. Well, stop now, Mr. Witness; none of that noii- 
sence, if you i)lease. 

The Witness. YYs; 1 know you don’t want me to tell that, but we 
had drinking and smoking and they had been talking together some 
time, and came to a bargain ; each one was to have SoOO, and each one 
to have an otlice during Governor Kellogg’s time of otlice. Governor 
Kellogg took out an envelope and had in it the money which he paid 
each one of them, 8500 in United States Treasury notes; each bill was 
a hundred dollar note. 

You say each bill was a hundred dollar note ?—A. YY‘s, sir; and 
Governor Kellogg said to them, “ You are all good fellows, and I will 
keep you in during my life.” 

Q. And you say he gave each one of these negroes 8500 ?—A. Yes, 
sir; 8500 in cash. 


560 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. For what did he pay them that money?—A. To back on the 
affidavits they made here in New Orleans for Spotfordj to say that it 
was merely a joke, that they didn’t know nothing about it, and they 
were each and every one to have $o00—five one hundred dollar notes f 
and he told the negroes, when they came before you next morning, to 
say Mr. Spofford give them money to vote for him, so that in case of 
him being put out of the Senate himself, then Mr. Spofford couldn’t get 
his seat neither, and that was what he teach the negroes to say to j ou 
next day in the committee. 

Q. Did you say the money was paid to the negroes ?—A. Just like I 
say, eveiy word of it, sitting here. I was right close to him; the 
money was taken just this way [indicating the holding of money in 
the hand]; be had a big envelope like that, and each negro had $500* 
counted out like that—one, two, three, four, five; just counted over 
that way; and each one of them got 8500 in brand new one hundred 
dollar notes, so stiff' that they would not bend. 

Q. Then the bargain was that in consideration of that money they 
would all go back on the affidavits made in New Orleans ?—A. Yes, 
sir; and to have an office during his administration of three years 
longer in the Senate. So long as Kellogg was to be in the Senate they 
were to stay in the custom-house for 800 a month. 

Q. They were to have place in the custom-house ?—A. Y^es, sir, for 
$00 a month. The negroes said they w^ere afraid to come home if they 
went back on their affidavits, and Governor Kellogg said they could 
not be hurt, and that he would send a telegram dud they would be se¬ 
cured in bail and everything else, if they were arrested. 

Q. That is. Governor Kellogg was to protect them ?—A. Y"es, sir ^ 
they should not go to jail, he said; they each received $500 in cash ; he 
gave it to them right there. 

Q. And they were each to have an office ?—A. Yes, sir; so long as 
Governor Kellogg should stay in the Senate they were to have iL 
Gentlemen, I am afraid that what I am testifying here is going to lose 
to me my pension. Here is a letter from General Sypher about it, and 
1 was told to hide out and not come before the committee; that if I 
came before the committee and testify against Governor Kellogg and 
then I would lose my pension. 

Senator Hill. Go on, Mr. Williams, you shall not lose your pension- 
on that account. What time did you break up that morning at Senator 
Kellogg’s?—A. It was about daylight; Governor Kellogg said ’twas^ 
time to go to woik, and we all left and we went back to the hotel, and 
then the gentleman called Charlie Cavanac came to the Philadelphia 
House, and called the witnesses to go to the Capitol; when he called 
for them we all had a good laugh, and said, “to go and give it to that 
‘old rebel’ and make him believe that the moon shines in the daytime.” 
Governor Kellogg said for me to go there, too, and 1 believe that is the 
place he told me to come [Witness passing a paper to Senator Hill]. 

Senator Kellogg. Let me see that. Senator, if you please. 

Senator Vance. It is just the direction to the room of the Commit¬ 
tee on Privileges and Elections. 

The Witness. That was where I was ordered to come and watch the 
witnesses. 

Q. Who gave you that ?—A. Governor Kellogg ; he wrote it with his 
own hand. 

By Governor Kellogg : 

Q. That is merely a direction to the committee room, is it?—A. Yesy 
sir; but I have some more papers that I can furnish, though. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


561 


Seiiiitor Kellogg. ell, if you have, produce them ? 

The. Witness. 1 will bring them, Senator. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did you see (rovernor Kellogg any time after that f—A. Yes, sir; 
1 was there every day from the first day I gotten there.’ I was there 
every day until 1 left, after all of the gentlemen had been discharged. 

Q. Wliilein that interview up there, which begun at 12 o’clock at night, 
when these subjects were entered into, did the witnesses say that the 
statements in their affidavits were true or false ?—A. They"said they 
had made true affidavits, but Governor Kellogg made them go back on 
them; and whenever they said tliey were afraid they would go to the peni¬ 
tentiary, he read a law book that it amounted to nothing, and made 
them agree to go back on their affidavits. 

Q. Can you remember anybody else who was present except yourself 
ami negroes?—A. Xo, Senator; you know I am a stranger in Wash¬ 
ington. 

Senator Cameron. You stated that several times already. 

Senator Hill. Xever mind, Senator. 

Senator ( lAMERON. 1 will mind. 

Senator Hill. I hope, Senator, you will not interrupt him while 1 
am examining him. 

Senator Cameron. Well, the witnej?s has said a half-dozen times 
that he was a stranger in VVashington ; that statement was interesting 
enough for the first few times, but after he has stated it some fifteen or 
twenty times 1 took occasion to say, and I repeat it, that it is neither 
interesting or necessary to his testimony. 

Senator Hill. There is no use in showing any temper over this matter, 
lam i)roi)ounding the (juestions to the witness and if his answers do 
not annoy me 1 do not think that they should annoy you. 

Senator Cameron. 1 think that if they annoy any member of the 
committee, through their constant reiteration of these unnecessary facts, 
they ought to be interrupted. 

Senator Hill. If you wish to object to the legality of the statement, 
all right, but J do not wish my examination interrupted unneces¬ 
sarily. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I just asked you to state if there were any other persons there 
except yourself. Governor Kellogg, and the five negroes.—A. 1 recollect 
one very well, who was private secretary to Governor Kellogg, I believe. 
I have got his name; here it is. [Exhibiting a paper bearing a signa¬ 
ture.] 

Q. You say there were two other i)ersons there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. One of them you remember, and this is his name?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is his name II. Comiuest Clark?—A. Yes, sir; he used to be pri¬ 
vate secretary to Governor Kellogg in this city, and of course he has 
got a good office now in Washington. I wish I had so good an office 
myself. 

Well, was there anybody else in there ?—A. Yes ; there was two 
more. I can’t recollect their names positively. I am away from Wash¬ 
ington now six months. If 1 think of the names I will give you them right 
away. I am sick and have a sore leg, and they come and took me out of 
bed and brought me here. 

Q. Was there any drinking done there at those rooms that night ?— 
A. Yes, sir; I was going to tell that when that gentleman over there 
objected. 

3b s K 


562 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Was there any drinking done there? You may state it now.—A. 
Yes, sir; we had good cognac there. 

Q. What time did yon commence the drinking?—A. About one 
o’clock; before the bargain was made witli the negroes we commenced 
the drinking. 

Q. Did you have anything else in the way of refreshments ?—A. Yes, 
sir; we had good cigars and champagne standing in the corner at the 
desk. In my country we don’t drink champagne much, and I drank 
the cognac. We were all drinking together and talking, and said 
“ ever^^ rebel we were going to send to hell.” I said so myself, and the 
understanding was that every Republican was going to stick together 
in this matter. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg say anything to these negroes about stick¬ 
ing to their party ?—A. Didn’t I just tell you that he gave them $500, 
and said he would save them from all trouble and give them an office in 
the custom-house for the three years and a half that he would be in the 
Senate, and if they did get into any trouble he would furnish bail and 
lawyers for them, and said Spofford was an old rebel, and if he (Governor 
Kellogg) was put out every Republican in Louisiana would be hung? 
And I thought it was true, and 1 knew I would be hung myself. I am 
a Republican, and 1 didn’t want to be hung. I am an old man and got 
a family. 

Q. You had no conversation'with Governor Kellogg yesterday, did 
you ?—A. Yes, sir ; yesterday about eleven o’clock, when I came through 
Camp street, and I met him, and hesuid, “How are you, Mr. Williams?” 
and 1 said to him, “ You fool me once, didn’t you ? You wrote to Badger 
not to give me any work in the custom-house ;” and he said, “ No, 1 did 
not, and I hope you are not going back on me like the balance of the 
boys,” and for me to come to see him, as he said, at seven o’clock; and 
T came here to the Saint Charles Hotel, when there was Pinchback, and 
Morris Marks, and Campbell, and Badger, all with him, and 1 staid 
around, for 1 wanted to see Governor Kellogg very much. 

Q. Did you see him ?—A. I was brought upstairs, in number 12. 

Q. Did you see him there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did he want you to do?—A. He asked me if I was going 
back on him. I was up there in number 12; and then he said that he 
was too busy and couldn’t talk. 1 came back and sent up my card and 
went upstairs, and there were honorable gentlemen like Morris Marks, 
internal revenue collector, and Mr. Badger and Campbell; and then 
Governor Kellogg came outdoors with me, out of the room, in his shirt¬ 
sleeves, and said for me to come at 0 o’clock this morning; but I did 
not come, for I knew that anything he promised wasn’t good. 

Q. You did not come back?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Where did the sergeant-at-arms find you?—A. I went and hide 
myself, for I was promised that 1 would be well paid not to go before 
the committee. 1 hided myself in Saint Peter’s street. Then a party told 
me that after 3 o’clock the committee was no more in session, and I 
could go home; that gentleman there came and found me in my room, 
and he took me and brought me off. I said to him what had I done; he 
said nothing, but said you come with me in the name of the United 
States. He didn’t let me put my clothes on hardly, but he brought me 
here in a cab. 

Q. You say you were promised money to hide out?—A. Yes, sir; I 
tell you the truth. They said if 1 came to the committee I wasn’t going 
to have my pension, that Governor Kellogg would break it up. But, 
gentlemen, I am 57 years old, and have a family, and I cannot work, so 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 563 

I didn't want to lose my pension, and I ^o and hide myself and didn’t 
come. 

Q, Is that your pension as a United States soldier ?—A. Yes, sir; I 
was in company G of the headquarters’ troops, General Banks’s body¬ 
guard, and then was removed to Company K, First Xew Orleans Kegi- 
ment. 

Q. Well, now, Mr. Williams, yon say th’at the reason joii came from 
yonr hiding place on Saint Peter’s street wasyonr understanding that the 
committee had adjourned ?—A. Yes, sir; they told me to hide myself 
every day; and I would stay hided from 9 o’clock till 3; after that I 
wonld have no trouble, but not to go on the streets, wliere then you 
might catch me. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Mr. Williams, what do yon mean by that motion yon made to Mr. 
Walker just now ?—A. 1 made the motion to the otiicer there and not to 
Mr. Walker. I made the motion to the officer because I want to go to 
the water closet, and I am his prisoner and I want him to take me to 
the water closet. 

Cross-examination by Senator Cameron : 

• Q. Of what country are yon a native ?—A. I am a Polander. 

(^. When did yon come to this country?—A. I have come here now 
twenty three years. 

Q. What was your occupation before coming to this country ?—xV. I 
was a farmer. 

Q. What has your occupation been since you came to this country ?— 
A. I have been a ])eddler, and dealing with horses, buying cotton, and 
during the war, when General Butler was here, I was his private de¬ 
tective as I can show yon. 

(^). What has yonr occupation been since you ceased to be General 
Butler’s private detective ?—A. I have been a peddler, I just told yon, 
buying cotton, and dealing in horses. 

Q. Gave yon ever told this story about the payment of money by 
Governor Kellogg to those witnesses to anybody before to day ?—xV. 
Did I ever tell them ? I believe 1 did. 

Q. Do you know or not whether yon have ever told it before ?—A. I 
think 1 did. 

Q. Can yon swear that you did ?— A. I tell yon I did. 

Q. 1 am not asking yon what you have told me. I am asking you 
now, did yon ever tell that story to any other person before to day ?—A. 
I think I did. 

Q. To whom did yon tell it ?—xV. I think, to several persons. There 
is a gentleman in this room, I think, I told it to. 

Q. What is his name ?—xV. I cannot call his name; but 1 told him. 

Q. 1 did not ask yon what yon told him.—xV. Then what do yon want ? 
If von ask me a ([uestion, I will answer it. 

I ask yon the name of the person in this room that yon told it 
to.— A. I cannot read or write, Senator, and I do not keep memoran¬ 
dums. 

(i. Well, now, stop, Witness. Can yon give his name or not? 

The Witness. Well, I can’t make out what yon mean. 

Q. Do I understand you to state that yon do not know what I mean ?— 
A. Yon ask me a question, and then yon won’t let me answer yon. I 
told ^ou 1 cannot recollect; but I told it to several. 1 went in my 
synagogue and told it, 1 think. 

Wait orie moment, Mr. Williams. Yon say yon told several per- 


564 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


sons. Now, give me the name of one of those persons.—A. I told Mr. 
Charles Cavanac. 

Q. Oh, I thought so. Now, when did you tell him first?—A. About 
three mouths ago. 

Q. Where did you tell him ?—A. I told him on Canal street, about 
three months ago. I was going along there on Canal street- 

Q, Mr, Witness, 1 did not ask you for any of the particulars. 

Senator Hill. Senator, 1 think the witness has the right to explain 
himself. 

Senator Cameron. I did not ask him lor anything except the name 
of tlie pei vSon he told this story to. 

Si'uator Hill. I think the witness has the right to protect himself in 
giving in his testimony. I want him to understand that he has that 
riglit. You cannot go on and ask the witness to swear to a i>laiu fact 
when there are probably other things connected with it to explain and 
properly rejjresent the witness’s testimony. 

Senator Ca3IERON. Well, now, after that lecture I will go on. 

Senator Hill. It is a very pro])ei‘ lecture at this point. 

Senator Cameron. I say it is not 3 a)ur right to make them, at an^' 
rate, in that manner. Your opinion is, doubtless, a very good one. 

Senator Hill. Well, wdietlicr it be gond or bad, I will give it all the 
time when I think it is needed. 

Senator Cameron. I think now 1 will goon afcer that second lecture. 
I suppose I ought to be obliged for it, but I am not. 

Senator Hill. 1 have done and said nothing for .your obligation. Sen¬ 
ator. I have been endeavoring simjily to do my duty for the pnitection 
of this witness. 

Senator CAMERON. And, I repeat, I sui)pose I ought to be very much 
obligctl for \)Oth your first and second lectures; but I am not. 1 will 
go on, though, upon this point. 

Q (By Senator Cameron.) Give the name of the person or persons 
to wliom you told this story.—A. I told a hundred persons,'I reckon, 
that Governor Kellogg is smarter- 

Q. I did not ask you that. Give the name of any iierson whom you 
told, excei)ting Cavanac, that Kellogg gave that money to those wit¬ 
nesses in his room, in Washington.—A. 1 cannot begin to tell you all 
of them. Jf 1 go to get the names, maybe 1 have to bring you half the 
names in the city. 

Q. Wait a moment. I did not ask you for any of that.—A Well, sir, 
there is a gentleman (pointing to Mr. Walker); that is the gentleman I 
told. 

Q, Wdien did you tell him ?—A. I told him, by my best recollection, 
about a week ago. 

Q. Where did you tell him ?—A. I met him, and he asked me is my 
name Williams; and 1 said, “ YYs.” 

Q. Wait. I did not ask you what you said to him or what he said to 
you. 

The Witness. Well, 1 can’t make you out what you ask. 1 cannot 
speak English so good as you, and you trying to catch me. 

Q. AVhere were you when you met that gentleman (Mr. Walker) ?—A. 
I met him close to the custom-house. 

Q. I asked you where you told him this story, and you say at the 
custom-house. Is that right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, when were you first in Mr. Walker’s office ?—A. Last week, 
I believe. 

Q. What time of the night ?—A. I do not go out at night, sir. It 




SPOFFORD VS. KKLLOGG. 565 

was Governor Kellogg wlio called on me to go and see him at night. 
Mr. Walker I always saw in the daytime. 

Q. How many times were you ever in jail ?—A. Mk, Senator? 

Q. Yes, yon. —A. What do you n:ean '? 

I mean what I say.—A. Uow many times I was in Jail ? 

Yes, how many times have you been in jail ? 

The Witness answered and said : ‘‘I do not think that you have been 
in jail, Senator I do not ask you no such questions like that, and I do 
not believe that you have got the right before this committee.” 

Q. Well, stop there; I am not goaig to discuss that with yon. How 
niaiiN times have you been in jail ?—A. I think that 1 know what you 
want. You want to insult me and make me mad, but I tell you all the^ 
time [ have been in, jail for fighting or something of that sort; and Mor- * 
ris Marks said on Saturday that he would tint up a job on me; for me 
not to go to the committee, and he had me locked up for embezzlement, 

I believe. 

I asked you nothing about what you were put in jail for; I ask 
you how majiy times you have been in jail.—A. I would not answer 
you ; I do not answer, if you come to New Orleans to insult people. If 
I come here and answered and swore for Governor Kellogg as he wanted 
when in Washington, and as I worked for him there, then I would have 
been a good man, but now that 1 do not swear for liim, I have been in 
jail. I was a bad man and you can insult me this wa^'. 

Q. 1 think it is impossible to insult you, Mr. Williams.—A. Well, 
Senator, 1 do not know what you think is an insult, but I recollect yon, 
what ,^ou done in Washington last summer. You recollect that witness 
Johnson, and if you keep on I will tell everything what you done. 

Senator Cameron. Go on. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Williams, you must not get excited. If you have 
been in jail either justly or unjustly say so, ami give your reason or ex¬ 
planation for it. The Senator has t he right to ask you the question and 
you must answer it. 

The Witness. You can go to every court in New Orleans and see how^ 
many times, it you wanted to know, but plenty of people in this city 
like myself would get drunk and get arrested. That is the rule in New 
Orleans, and get arrested too for disturbing the peace. He wants to 
know the number of times; then I think you had better go and get them 
from the court. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) If you do not know the number of times, just 
say so.—A. I do not know. Senator. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) Have you ever been in jail at all ?—A. 

I told jmu I had been arrested for disturbing the peace, and lighting, 
getting drunk and such things like that. Yes, sir; I have been iu 
jail. 

Q. When were you first put in jail ‘I —A. I do not recollect. 

Q. When were you last in jail ?—xV. Morris .Marks sent his deputy to 
me and he could not buy me, to not come before the committee, so he 
fixed up that job, and had me arrested so as to keep me from coming to 
this honorable committee. 

Q. Were you ever arrested for larceny ?—A. No, sir; never in my life : 
never. 1 am 57 years old and I <;an get a re(;ord in my country and in 
this that I never was arrested for larceny. 

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Walker took down what you said in 
writing?—A. I do not know; I imule it in an atlidavit. 

Q. Where ditl you make it ?—A. In the State house. 

il. Who were present when you made it ?—A. I do not recollect all 


566 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


the names, but there was, I believe, the State auditor, and a Jew rabbi 
that they brought to swear me iuto it. 

Q. Wiio swore you to that affidavit?—A. The Jew rabbi. 

Q. When did you make that affidavit 5 I mean the date of it ?—A. I 
do not recollect what the date was; I cannot tell that. 

Q. About how long ago was it as near as you can recollect? Give me 
your idea of the time.—A. Lthiuk it was about iu August that I made 
that affidavit. 

Q. Was the affidavit read over to you after it was signed by you ?— 
A. Yes, sir; and I did not make any change iu it; I told the truth. 

Q. Who took that affidavit after you signed it ?—A. The gentleman 
upstairs in the State-house; I did not see Mr. Walker until about ten 
clays, but I think it was the State auditor, I thiuk they called him, who 
took the affidavit; I was sworn iuto it and it is on three sheets of paper; 
I made it and recognized it voluntarily. I am 57 years of age, an old 
man, gentlemen, and I do not deny anything what I have done. I am 
a Union man and a good Eepublican. 

Senator Cameron. Well, that is enough of that. 

The Witness. O, yes, 3 ’ou don’t like it; I know what you want; 
you want me to swear for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Ko; I do not want it because it is not responsive to my question. 
You said, I believe, that you hid yourself to keep away from the com¬ 
mittee?—A. Yes, sir; so I did hide myself down on St. Peters street; 
I can show you the place. 

Q. Well, answer my question; why did you hide yourself ?—A. Well, 
there is a man who said if you hide yourself you will get your money, 
and there is Morris Marks who said if you go to that committee I will 
never get my pension ; that Governor Kellogg will break it up ; and I 
am a poor man, gentlemen, and a cripple, and I cannot help myself; 
and he said for me to hide myself, and I went on St. Peter’s street 
and staid, and when it was time that committee should adjourn, I came 
home and locked the door. Then this man came (indicating the deputy 
sergeant-at arms) and I would not have let him in, gentlemen, if I knew 
who he was and what he was coming for. 

Q. Where did Morris Marks tell you that ?—A. Here iu the'St. Charles 
Hotel last night. He told me that between seven and eight o’clock. 

Q. Where was it that he met you?—A. Right there iu that rotunda. 
He called me out from the hall on the steps. He was here last night, 
and you saw him yourself. 

Q. Kow, Mr. Witness, if you will just answer my question, you will 
save yourself and the balance of us a great deal of trouble. Wlio were 
present when he told you that? Was there anybody else there?—A. 
I beg your pardon. Senator. Do you mean, did Morris Marks call wit¬ 
nesses to hear what he said to me. 

Senator Cameron. Ko, sir. 

A. He called me by myself, and he took me by my hand, and said to 
me, “ Williams, don’t you go to that committee.’’ 

Q. I did not ask you that. I asked you if there was anybody else, 
present ?—A. O, there was plenty of people about the hotel, but he 
told me secretly. He would not tell me that in the presence of plenty 
of people. Morris Marks is smarter than that. Senator. He don’t do 
no such thing like that in public. 

Q. Well, hold on. Did what hesaid frighten you?—A. Well, Senator, 
I do not want to lose my pension, and so that scared me that I went off 
and hid myself, and that gentleman over there never would have got me 
if I had known who he was. 



SPOFFOKD y.S. KELLOGG. 5G7 

(»>. \\ liy (lid you miik(‘ tliat aflidavit tliat you liave spoken of?—A. If 
you wanr to know, I will make the statement and tell you. 

C^. ho asked you to make that affidavit ?—A. I went mvself and 
made it voluntarily. 

W ho asked you to go and make it ?—A I met Charlie Cavanac, 
and 1 say to him, ‘‘Oh, yes, they give it you ia the neck and he said, 
“ How ? ’ and I said, “ Our crowd was sharper thau you,” and I said to 
him all that was done, and told iiim that I got a letter to Badger to 
take me and give me some work, and that then Kellogg wrote to Badger 
not to do it, and that now when he treated me so badly I said 1 would 
give away everything. 

Q. When did you ask for a place in the custom-house ? Was it after 
you got back from Washington ?-»-A. I went with a letter that Governor 
Kellogg gave me. I went the second day, and I met Morris Marks, and 
as I come bac.k I had bought some fish, and he asked me if I went to 
Washington and got nothing more than dead fish. And I said, “Xo; 
1 brought fivsh fish.” 

Q. When was that ?—A. That was in July. 

Q. Wliat (lid you say to him ?—A. I wanted to know everything and 
everybody what I saw when I first come. I took the letter to General 
Souer downstairs on tlie left hand side in the custom house, and I showed 
him the letter. The letter was not fastened up that 1 had from Governor 
Kellogg. 

Q. Who was that letter addressed to ?—A. It was directed to General 
Badger. 

- Q. Why did not you go to him with it ?—A. Because I knew Mr. Souer, 
and I saw him in Kellogg’s room in Washington, and I thought he 
would brought me up to Ba(lger. He took it and wrote a few lines and 
fixed it in a small enveloiie and told me to go upstairs. 

Who did you go to see?—A. Jim Lewis. 

Q. What did Lewis do for you ?—A. He told me 1 would be ])ut to 
work right away. 

Q. Well, what happened next ?—A. Then I went to General Badger, 
and I saw a negro named Dick, and I said I wanted to see (jeneral 
Badger; and he said I coud not see him; that^ his hours were one to 
two o’clock. Then 1 said to him will he be* kind enough to take in 
these letters. He took the letters, and at last, about fifteen or twenty 
minutes, he called me in and I went in. There were several persons in 
there and he gave me a chair. General Badger said, “When did you 
come?” and I said “ Yesterday.” Then he said, “ Did you take the stand 
and swear in Washington ?” and I said, “Xo.” Then he said to me that 
there was no vacamjy now, and if there is a vacancy I will give it to 
you. Then I got the address of Senator Kellogg at Chicago, and I wrote 
to him. I wrote to him that I had done several months’ work for him 
and that I want a i)la(je; that if Charlie Cavanac had met me in Wash¬ 
ington he wmuld kill me for what I had doie there; but I got no answer; 
and then I met Charlie Cavanac, and told him all, everything, and if you 
give me a chance I will tell it all here. Jim Lewis when we left Wash¬ 
ington to come here was drunk. He was drunk there in Washington, 
and had to be hauled to the train. I do not know the names of the 
carriage-men that Blackstone and the negroes rode round in. I was 
there when they took them out and I was there to the last. I did all 
that (rovernor Kellogg wanted me to do, and now you come down here 
and ask me if I steal. 1 hoi)e God Almighty will pardon me, but I never 
heard of that. I kno\v what you want. You want me to swear a lie, 
and 1 won’t do that. 


568 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Hold up, Mr. AVituess. That will do. (To Senator Hill.) I thought 
perhaps you would waut to protect him. 

Senator Hill. I will do so whenever it is necessary, Senator (lameron, 
and I would very much ])refer to have none of your reflections upon my 
actions in this investigation that do not concern you. 

The Witness. When they come to me aiul want me to say everything 
that they want sworn to, and want to give me $250, then I am all 
right; but now 1 want to steal everything and I am a bad man. I thank 
you. Senator, but I am not that kind of man. 

Senator Cameron. Have you got through ? 

The AVitness. I am an old man, and I come from Poland, and I am 
an old man and so are you, and I am sure you would not ask me such 
questions as you have if you do not waijt to insult me. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) O well, I will go on and ask you some 
other questions. AVho asked you to go to AVashiugton when you w^ent 
there last summer?—A. Jim Lewis; on the 15th of May, the contract 
was made wdth me to go to Washington, and it was on Decoration Da^* 
that he sent for me to go; and Jim Lewis gave me three twenty dollar 
bills to buy my ticket. 

Q. AVell, stop. I only asked you who it was that asked you to go to 
AVashington.—A. AVell, that w’as Jim Lewis. 

Q. That is enough, then; I osily asked you that.—A. AA^ell, that w'as 
Jim Lewis then. Xow are you satisfied? 

Q. AA'heu did he ask you to go?—A. It wasFi iday,ou Decoration Day. 
I can remember that, for I always go to the cemetery on Dei.'oration Day, 
because I wms in the Union Army. 

Q. What day did you start to Washington ?—A. On Saturday. That 
was Friday he gave me the money, and T started the next day, on the 
Mobile train. 

C^. What time did you reach Washington ?—A. Monday night. 

Q. AVhere did you stop iu Washington ?—A. I went to the American 
Hotel. 

Q. AA^ell you have told us that. AVhere did you board in the city ?—A. 
At the American Hotel, did’nt I tell you ? Murphy, I believe keeps the 
hotel. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a remark 
to the committee at this point, and it is this : I think that in justice to 
myself as a brother Senator, and in consideration of the character of the 
evidence of this witness regarding myself, what he swears 1 did in 
AVashington with these witnesses, I think it is but proper that I be 
allowed, at as early a date as possible, to produce such witnesses as I 
may need to rebut the statements that he has made here. I put the re¬ 
quest upon the ground that this is a personal matter affecting a brother 
Senator; and if I am not able to cover this matter as fully as possi¬ 
ble iu this investigatidu, and wdiile the committee is here, I shall ask 
the Senate, on the first day of the session, to order such an investiga¬ 
tion as will cover the wiiole matter. This is a matter which I think is 
not covered by the resolution under w^hich the committee is now 
acting. 

Senator Hill. Senator, I think your request is a very reasonable one, 
and that you slmuld have the right to introduce w ituesses upon the 
t)oiut whenever you choose. 

Senator Kellogg. Thank you. Air. Chairman ; that is all I ask the 
committee to give me. 

Senator Hill. I think you have the right to do that. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 would like, Air. Chairman, to have this man 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


569 


here in the morning, as I have some matters that I would like to exam¬ 
ine him on—some matters and dates that I would like to question him 
about. 

Mr. \\ ALKER. 1 would like to know, ]Mr. Chairman, whether the wit¬ 
ness is discharged or not. 

Senator Hill (to the witness.) Mr. Witness, you,are still considered 
as on the stand. You are not discharged from your subpceaa, and you 
must be here at ten o’clock in the morning. 

Mr. Walker. I would like, on the part of the contestant, to state 
that we thought it would be preferable, and perhaps safer, for the wit¬ 
ness to remain during the night in charge of the sergeant at-arms. 

Senator Hill. I think, perhaps, it would be best myself. 

The Witness Williams. Yes, sir; Senator llill,"l would ask that 
too. I am afraid of my life, and I would like to ask you for protection 
for all the night. 

Senator Hill (as chairman) directed the deputy sergeant-at arms to 
take charge of the witness and keep him subject to the further orders of 
the committee. 

On motion, the committee thereupon stood adjourned to 10 a. m. 
Wednesday, November 10. 


New Orleans, Wednesday, Xovember 10, 1870. 

Present, members of the committee; also, 0. L. Walker, esq., coun¬ 
sel for the memorialist, Henry M. Spotford ; and the sitting member, 
Senator William Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. Gentlemen, I believe the hour ot the meeting of the 
committee has arrived, and we will go on. 

TESTIMONY OF BEUNAKl) WILLIAMS RESUMED. 

Bernard Williams recalled to the stand. 

Senator IliLL. Senator Cameron, 1 believe you had the examination 
of the witness yesterday. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Mr. Williams, you stated yesterday that you made a bar¬ 
gain with Jim Lewis to go to Washington City. State, if you please, 
as near as you can, when you made that bargain with Jim Lewis.— 
Answer. I made it with Jim Lewis, by my best recollection, on the 15th 
of May. He sent for mo at my house, 210 Bienville street. 

(,). Whom did he send for you —A. Whom did he send for me I He 
sent a negro. 

Q. Do you.know his name?—A. That negro’s name ? Yes; 1 cannot 
call his name; I have seen him in the custom-house every day; I know 
him when I see him, and I can pick him out at the custom-house; he i^ 
there every day. 

Q. Did you go to the custom-house when he sent for you ?—A. I 
did, sir. 

Q. State what bargain you made with Lewis.—A. With Jim Lewis? 
He sent for me, and it was on the 15th of May, and he told me, “ Will¬ 
iams, there is trouble on hand for the Republican party”; I asked him 
what it was, and he told me that if he could get out Governor Kel- 
logg from his seat that no Republican can live in the State ; that they 



570 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


would be all of them huug, every one. Then he employed me to go and 
watch Mr. Cavanac and anybody that comes into the State-house to see 
him, to come and report it to him, and I did. That was on one Satur¬ 
day, and on Friday after, I believe, if I recollect, there was an ex-Metro- 
poiitan policeman by the name of Levi—he was carried there by Mur¬ 
ray—they went there together, and a man by the name of Chisholm, 
who lived right opposite me, on Bienville street—they all went there to¬ 
gether. 

Q. Give Levi’s first name.—A. I only know him by the name of Levi. 
He is a countryman of mine; I knew him when he was a little boy. 

Q. Where does he live?—A. On the corner of Burgundy and —^- 

streets. There’s where he lived when he used to be a Metropolitan 
officer. 

Q. How long did you continue to watch the State house?—A. I was 
employed on the 15th, and I was taken off of the State-house, I believe, 
on the 30th ; that was Decoration day, and I always go to the cemetery 
on that day; that was a rainy day, and I was sent for in the morning, 
and I came up to thepustom-house, and Jim Lewis told me that now is 
the time for any good Kepublican to look after the interest of Governor 
Kellogg. 

Q. What arrangement did you make with Jim Lewis about going to 
Washington ?—A. He gave me three twenty-dollar bills to buy my 
ticket. 

Q. When did he give you those ?—A. On Friday, about 9 o’clock, if 
I am not mistaken, or between 9 and 12, but it was on Friday, I am 
sure; I know I was gone from home before breakfast. He told me to 
come and get the ticket to Washington, and I coine to the Saint Charles 
Hotel here and bought my ticket for fifty-seven dollars and twenty 
cents; a gentleman down here in the corner office sold me the ticket. 
Jim Lewis had sent me to ask the price of the ticket two days before, 
and I told the gentleman downstairs that I wanted the ticket, and that 
there was seven or eight men at the custom-house who had to go to 
Washington, and if he would let them go cheap they would go all to¬ 
gether by his road. 

Q. Did you buy any ticket for anybody except for yourself?—^A. I 
only bought for myself. 

Q. When did you start for Washington ?—A. On Saturday. He 
wanted me to go on Fridaj^, and I said I would love to stay at home a 
day to fix up my business; and I left on Saturday by the Mobile train. 

Q. You stated yesterday that you had a letter to Governor Kellogg 
from somebody in the custom-house- 

The Witness. Well, you don’t ask me that now ? 

Q. ^^Yom whom did you receive that letter?—A. That was given to 
me in my own hand by Jim Lewis, and it was made by Badger and Jim 
Lewis. 

Q. It was a letter by Badger to Jim Lewis ?—A. Ko ; by Jim Lewis 
and Badger to you, Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Whose letter was it; who signed the letter?—A. The letter that 
I had ; didn’t I tell you that Jim Lewis gave it to me? 

Q. It was signed, as you understand, by Lewis and Badger, then ?— 
A. Yes, sir; by both ; and if you let me I can show you the size of it. 
It was not fastened, but left open. 

Q. Did you have a letter from anybody else to Kellogg ; did you take 
a letter from another man in Kew Orleans to Kellogg?—A. I don’t 
think I did ; I believe I had another note; I had another note; I hate 



SPOFFORD VS. Kh:LLOGG 571 

to tell gentlemen here before this committee, but if you force me I 
will. 

Q. Well, tell who it was.—A. It was from John Anderson. 1 was 
his detective when he was here in jail, arrested and convicted about the 
returning board, and he had me appointed for his detective, and he paid 
me in vouchers, and I sold the vouchers on Canal {^treet. I never done 
any work for them. 

Q. When did you get that letter from John Anderson ?—A. The same 
Friday; and when I left he told me he would be in Washington, and 
that I should serve Kellogg like 1 had served him. 

Q. Did you ask Anderson to give you that letter?—A. I don’t think 
I did ; he gave it to me voluntarily ; he said I was a good man, and I 
know how to play my point, and he would give me a letter to Governor 
Kellogg, and that I should serve him so good as 1 had served himself 
when he was in jail. 

Q. Didn’t you state to Anderson that you wanted to go to Washing¬ 
ton to look after your pension ?— A. No ; that’s what they teached me 
to say; that I should say, if anybody asked me, that I was going to 
Washington to look for a i)ension, and that I am not in the custom¬ 
house. 

Q. What was that last remark ?—;A. That I should tell them I was 
not in the custom house. 

Q. Give the names of the persons who taught you that.—A. There 
is Jim Lewis is one. He is a negro. There is Badger is two, and An¬ 
derson is the third one, sir. 

Q. When did they tell you that?—A. Friday, when they called me 
to the custom-house. They said, ^‘Don’-t you talk to anybody that you 
are going to Washington in the interest of Kellogg against Spoftbrd; 
you say that you are going about your pension and so I did tell 
everybody. 

Q. Did you deliver those two letters to Governor Kellogg?—A. That 
is the gentleman there; I gave them to him [pointing to Governor 
Kellogg). 

Q. Were you acquainted with Governor Kellogg at that time?—A. 
I think he was too long the governor ol this State that I should not 
know him. 

Q. Stop, now, and answer the question.—A. 1 did know him. 

Q. Had you ever talked to him before you met him in Washington 
and talked to him there ; did you ever talk with Kellogg before that ? 
—A. With Governor Kellogg ? 

Q. Yes; that’s what I say.—A. I think I did, sir, 

Q. When ?—A. When he was here as governor in the State of Lou¬ 
isiana. I have got a license, and I think 1 can give you satisfaction 
that I know him too well. (Witness produced a paper.| 

Q. Is that the paper you produced yesterday?—A. Y^es, sir; here it 
is; if 1 didn’t know the gentleman I don’t think he would give me the 
papers. 

Q. It does not follow that every peddler who could get a license is 
acquainted with the governor.—A. That i)a))er was given to me on ac¬ 
count of that I am a Kepublicau, and I don’t deny it. 

Senator Cameron. The date of these papers is January, 1874. 

Senator Vance. What is It? . 

Senator Cameron. It seems to be a license to peddle. 

Senator Kellogg. The first one is dated in 1871, and seems to have 
been renewed in 1874. It is not signed by me ; it is signed by the aud¬ 
itor of the State. 


572 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The Witness. Governor, after I got that paper the auditor had to 
sign it, so the collecror will let rne i)ass. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) Is Governor Kellogg’s name on itf—A. 
That’s the paper what I got. 

Q. Is Governor Kellogg’s name on it ?—A. I don’t know; you can read 
it better than I can. 

Senator Cameron. His name is not on it. 

Senator Hill. The witness cannot read, he says. 

Senator Cameron. So I understand. That’s the i)aper, Senator, you 
read Mr. Clark’s name from yesterday. 

Senator Hill. Clark’s name is on it, and I see it is the .same paper. 

Senator Kellogg. The auditor issued the license. It is a certitie<l 
copy of a license issued by the auditor and renewed \ ears after. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) Wlnni did you arrive in Washington ?— 
A. It was on Monday night about half past B) o’clock, at the Sixth 
street depot. 

Q. When did you first see Governor Kellogg in Washington ?—A. I 
went the n(*xt day. 

Q. Well, now, don’t go over all that giound that you went over yes¬ 
terday ; but just tell me, when did \ou next see him f —A. I went over 
to AVillard’s Hotel, but the clerk told me 1 could not see him, and to go 
to the Capitol. I went there at nine o’(dock on the street car, and they 
allowed me to stay down where the Senarors sir, and afterwards they 
told me to go up, and I saw all the Senators coming in, and I said to 
the doorkeeper, “ What time did Governor Kellogg come in ?” and he 
said to me, he is'bus}' now and in trouble about the investigation, and 
he never comes until 12 o’clock.* Then, })retty soon. Governor Kellogg 
and you. Senator, come up. But that was the first time that I seen him. 
That was at the front door where that old man keeps his seat. 

Q. What day of the week did you arrive in Washington ?—A. I be¬ 
lieve it was, if I am not mistaken, on Monday night. 

Q. Did you see Governor Kellogg on Tuesday yourself—A. Yes, 
sir ; but not in the morning until 12 o’clock. 

Q. On Tuesday?—A. Yes, sir; at the Capitol. I am sure it was 
Tuesday. 

Q. When did Spofford’s witnesses, of whom you spoke, get to Wash¬ 
ington ? 

The Witness. Do you mean those negroes? 

Senator Cameron. Yes, I mean those negroes. 

The Witness. I cannot remember exactly how many days it was, but 
I was every day at Governor Kellogg’s. 

Q. That’s not the point we are trying to get at. Tell, as near as you 
can, when the witnesses got there.—A. They got there at night. I was 
sent every day to WGitch at 10 o’clock and see if they were coming. 
That night when they did come I was tliere with Reynolds and that man 
with the S(»lit nose that works in the Treasury. 

Q. Do you know the name of that man ?—A. He was here before, in 
New Orleans. I know him very well, he talks French. 

Q. Can you give his name now?—A. I don’t think I can. 

Q. Where does the man with the split nose work in Washington '?— 
A. At the Treasury Department. He has got a big ‘silver badge on, 

Q. How old a man is he, in your opinion ? Tell how he looks.—A. I 
can tell hun if I see him. He is a man built like me; and that idght 
the governor sent me with him to the depot, and if he will tell the truth 
to the committee he will save me the trouble. If he will tell you, I don’t 
need to tell you. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


573 


Senator Hill. Stop, Mr. Witness, Governor Kellogg is not a witness. 

A. Well, there he is now, gentlemen, and he can tell von better than 
1 can, if he wants to. 

^ Q. (Hy Senator (’ameron.) W^e won’t go into that, ^Mr. Witness. 
Now, di<l those witnesses get to Washington Tuesday night ?—A. I 
beg your pardon, Senat( r, you don’t get me to say I toid you so. 

Q. Did they get there Tuesday niglit?—A. I can’t tell you what the 
date was; I e.annot swear to it, and I am on oath. 

Q. Did tliey get there the same day that you first saw Governor Kel¬ 
logg?—^^A. I beg your })ardon, Senator, they did not. 

Q. Did they get there the next day ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. W'ell the next day after that—Thursday ?—A. I cannot tell you. 

Q. W^ell, did they get there Thursday or not?—A. By my best belief, 
gentlemen, I believe Governor Kellogg knows better than me. 

Q. O, well, I did not ask you that. 

The W’lTNESS. You want me to tell >ou what day it was, and all I 
can say tiiai it was between four and five days; 1 can’t say positive, 
but between four and five days after. 

Q. When did you see those witnesses after they got to W'ashingtou ? 
—A. I saw them just after they come. 

Q. Did you see them the same day or not, or the next daN ?—A. 1 was 
at the depot and W’m. Beynolds- 

Q. O, don’t go over that again. 

Senator Hill. 1 think, Senator, th^ slioi test way is to let him tell it 
over in his own way. 

The WYTiNESS. 1 seen them that night. 

Senator Cameron.* Verv well, that is all. 

A. Well, 1 (lid. 

Q. Where did you first see those witnesses in Washington ?—A. The 
first time at the Philadelphia House. 

Q. Well, now, t! at is all I ask you. Now, give me the names of those 
witnesses.—A. I believe there is thn^e that 1 can call the names, and 
the balance of them, if they come here, 1 can i)tck them out ; Init 1 don’t 
know the names of the niggers, every one of them. 

Q Give the names of the three that you do know.—A. There was 
Johnson, and DeLacy, and Blackstone. He was last Sunday in my 
house. 

Q. Wait, that is all 1 asked you. Was the name of one of the three 
Watson ?—A. 1 don’t recollect his name, but I can i)ick him out. 

Q. Well, 1 did not ask you that. Was the name of one those two 
Swaisey ?—A. There were two that looked like brothers, De Lacy and 
another yellow* nigger. You know a nigger—you can’t hardly tell them 
apart, some ot them—still if I had the five here 1 could ])ick him out. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) If you remember his name tell it.—A. Them 
three I remember well. 

Q. Well, if you do not remember the others, say so.—A. I do not; 1 
can’t call their names. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) You stated that you took chose five col¬ 
ored men to Governor Kellogg’s room ?—A. I did ; yes, sir. 1 took them 
by Governor Kellogg’s orders- 

Q. Well, hold on now. Let me ask the question, and you answer it. 
Where did you take them to? Did I understand you to say that you 
took them to Willard’s Hotel?—A. Yes, sir; I took them ut) Seventh 
street through F street to the back entrance. 

Q. When ? Was that the same night they got to Washington ?—A. 
Yes, sir ; the same night. 



574 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Walker, counsel for the memorialists, interrupted the proceedings 
to make the following statement and objection : 

Mr. Chairman, 1 beg pardon for interrupting the proceedings and the 
examination of the witness, and I desire to state that there is one party 
here in the room whose presence at this time I object to. I think it is 
the rule that while one witness is testifying another one who is to follow 
him shall not be present and hear the testimony. Our desire is to elicit 
the truth, and I think it is necessary, owing to the peculiar character of 
this investigation, that parties should be excluded from the room who 
may subsequently come before the committee to testify. I refer to the 
presence at this time of Col. Jim Lewis. 

Senator Hill. If Mr. Lewis is to be introduced as a witness I think 
the objection is proper. It is our wish to examine the witnesses sepa¬ 
rately, unless there be some special reason why he should be present. 

Senator Cameron. Mr. Walker sj)eaks of a rule, but I was not aware 
of any such rule having been adopted by the committee. 

Senator Hill. No, theie has been none adopted except the general 
rule in all such investigations in or out of court. I think at the request 
of any party to the proceedings the witnesses can be separated. 

Mr. Walker. I beg pardon of the Senator; I was mistaken. I sim¬ 
ply make the request now in the usual form of ordinary judicial pro¬ 
ceedings. 

Senator Hill. We have no rule to the effect stated, but I think I did 
state to the parties that the witnesses would be separated. 

Senator Cameron. Well, this is the first I had heard of it. 

Senator Hill. Yes, I think it is; I nev^er brought it to the notice of 
the committee. 

Mr. Walker. I never said anything about it, for up to this time it 
was unnecessary. 

Senator Cameron. It has never been discussed by us to my knowl¬ 
edge. 

Senator Hill. That is a fact, Senator, but if Mr. Lewis is to be called 
as a witness he must retire from the room. 

Mr. James Lewis arose and said: Mr. Chairman, I have no subpoena 
to appear as a witness, and I know nothing of what has transpired here 
except what I saw in the papers this morning purporting to be the tes¬ 
timony of the witness now on the stand, and I came of my own motion, 
desiring to vindicate myself in relation to certain things which the wit¬ 
ness is reported to have sworn. 

Senator Hill. You will be allowed that privilege, Mr. Lewis, at the 
proper time. 

The examination of the witness resumed. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Who were in Kellogg’s room at the time you took these witnesses 
there on the night of their arrival in Washington, besides Mr. Clark, 
whom you named already, I believe ?—A. I cannot call his name good, 
but I believe I have got his address. I give you that and then you will 
be satisfied. I believe I will give you the papers that will make Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg say that I tell the truth. 

Q. O, well, Mr. Williams, do not go on in that way; I asked you the 
names of those parties who were present.—A. Well, Senator, I give you 
what I know. I tell you you want me to swear; I hope you want die 
truth. 







SPOFFORD VS. KEI LOGO. 575 

Senator Cameron. I do want the trutli and 1 don’t want any more 
of yonr gabbing Ubont it. 

[The witness produced a letter and lianded it to Senator Cameron.J 

A. That is the gentleman’s name. Here it is down there. 

Senator Cameron (reading from the paper). “ J. Hale Sypher.” 

The Witness. He said to them what Governor Kellogg did; that 
they could go back on them affidavits. • • 

Senator Hill. Let us see that letter. It is not in, Senator ? 

Senator Cameron. Ko, sir. 

(By Senator Cameron.) Q. Now, can you give me the name of any 
other person who was present besides Clark and Sypher?—A. I don’t 
think anybody else was there. There were too many in the room any 
way. 

Q. I am not going over that now. I am trying to get at the names 
of the parties who were there. You were there?—A, Y^es, sir; I brought 
the nigger there. 

Q. You brought Johnson, I believe you said ?—A. I brought the tis^e 
of them, Johnson, DeLacy, and Blackstone, and another one, and a big 
yellow nigger that looks like Jim Lewis. 

Q. And there were two white men who were there with Kellogg ?—A. 
Yes, sir; a priv^ate secretary of Kellogg and General Sypher. They 
was inside when he took out the big envelope. 

Q. Wait a minute, I want you to give me the names, or tell me how 
many were in there ?—A. I will count all 3011 want until we get to five 
and then no more after that. 

Q. What time did you say those five white men were there ?—A. From 
the Philadelphia House ? 

Q. What time was it when j’ou took them to Kellogg’s room ?—A. It 
was after 12 o’clock, I am sure. 

Q. Was it before 1, or after ?—A. It was between 12 and 1,1 be¬ 
lieve, to the best of my knowledge. 

Q. About what time was it when you say Governor Kellogg paid the 
money to these colored men!—A. You must allow me to tell you a little. 

Q. Wait, I want you to tell me by answering my questions. Give me 
the time, in your opinion, when jou sdy Governor Kellogg paid the 
money to these five witnesses ?—A. It was, I believe, when they got 
through there. They had drinks and cigars, and, after drinking. Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg told them that the^’ must go back on their affidavits, and 
they said no, the,v were afraid to go back on them because they would 
go to the penitentiary, and then it was that Governor Kellogg took the 
law book and read to them that they could do them nothing at all for 
going back on them, and after that he said no Kepublicau could live in 
the State of Louisiana unless they went back on their affidavits and 
helped him to keep his seat, and then they all agreed to do that. He 
was to give them five hundred dollars, give them an office while he was 
Senator, and protect them if they had any trouble, and he give them 
the live hundred dollars in bran new notes. He took them out of the 
envelope and counted them just this way; one, two, three, four, five, 
like that, and give to every one of them in this way the five hundred 
dollars, and he said j^ou are all good boys now, and we will give it to 
the old rebel in the neck. That was his kind of talk. 

Q. What time in the night was it ?—A. I am too poor to wear a watch. 
Senator; I believe it was after 1 o’clock, for it was near day when we 
come back to the hotel. 

Q. How long did you stay after the money was paid ?—A. We staid 
a long time, for we had plenty of drinks and smokes. 


576 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Wbat kind of liquor did you drink A. Good cognac, and cigars 
and a plenty of them. I had the best part of it; I got cigars for five or 
six days to smoke. 

Q. Were you in the room of the committee at the capitol when John¬ 
son was called as a witness?—A. Certainly I was; every day I was 
there. 

Q. Was he called the next day after you saw him at Kellogg’s room? 
—A. I will tell you in a minute if you will let me think good. 

Q. Certainly/take your own time.—A. There is a gentleman over 
there by Senator Hill, Mr. Cavignac. I was in the hotel with Jim 
Lewis, eating breakfast, and we were all eating with the niggers. I 
am sorry to make these remarks of a white tnan eating with the nig¬ 
gers, but I had to do it. And Cavignac he come down stairs and called 
for the witnesses to go to the capitol, and then we had a good laugh at 
him, thinking how he was going to be fooled, and Jim Lewis said, “ Give 
it to that old rebel in the neck,” and they said when he come down to 
make Charley Cavignac believe that moon shined in the daytime. 

Q. Well, now, Mr. Witness, I do not care for all that; 1 asked you 
when it was. What time was it?—A. They came to Governor Kellogg 
by the night, and the next morning they took the stand. 

Q. You stated yesterday that Kellogg gave you a letter to General 
Badger?—A. He did, sir. 

Q. Did you bringthat letter to New Orleans with you?—A. I brought 
it with me right here to New Orleans. 

Q. When did you see General Badger about get'ing a place in the 
custom-house?—A. I left ^Vashington, I believe, on a Friday, and I 
missed the connection and laid over in a place called Montgomery—no. 
I’ll tell you the place I laid uj)—I could not make the connection, and 
when 1 got home—I cannot tell exactly the day, but I think it was 
Saturday I laid up; I cannot tell exactly the day—but 1 came home, 
and when I passed by the custom house I met Maurice Marks, and 1 
had bought at the lake a bunch of fish. He hailed me and said, “Hal¬ 
loo, AVilliams, did you went to AVashiugton to get dead fish ?” I said, 
“No,” and he said, “ The fish are dead,” and I did not know what that 
meant. Next day I went to General Souer, down stairs in the custom¬ 
house, and I showed him the letter by Governor Kellogg. It was not 
fastened, but was in an envelope not so big as that, but about so big 
(measuring with his hands), and he opened it and read that letter, and 
he told me that Badger was a fraud. That is what Souer said, and he 
said, “ 1 did not want to go to him myself,” but he wrote me a few lines 
on an envelope and fastened it up. I took it up stairs and showed it 
to Jim Lewis, and he told me I could not see Badger until 1 o’clock, 
and I went up to the doorkeeper at Badger’s and give it to him ; that 
was the yellow nigger, and I give to him the two letters, and he carried 
them in to Badger, and I waited about quarter of an hour and then 1 
went in; and Marks came in with a man named Shevenal, an ex-Metro- 
politan policeman, and he said, “ I make you acquainted with Mr. Sheve¬ 
nal,” and Badger said, “ I am acquainted with him.” Then Badger 
called me up to him, and he said, “ You brought a letter,” and I said, 
“ Yes, sir.” He asked me, “AVhat is the news in AAmshington ?” and I 
said, “ Y^ou get it all in the paper,” and he said, “Did you take the 
stand in AA^ashington?” 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Take what ?—A. The stand. He wanted to 
know if 1 take the stand in Washington to swear myself, and I said uo, 
I did not; and he said to me, “ Y^ou cannot get any work until the first 
of the mont,h.” He told me that again, and after I had waited until 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


577 


thou I came back, and when I come I could not see him, and the door¬ 
keeper told me that Governor Kellogg had sent a letter not to give me 
any work. 

Q. By (Senator Cameron.) This doorkeeper is named “Dick” or 
“Nick”?—A. Dick. He came before to my house and told my wife, 
ait,d said he didn’t believe Governor Kellogg. That was the remark he 
made, that he didn’t believe “promising Kellogg.”’ He will give you a 
letter, and then he will send another not to give you the work. That is 
what he told me that Kellogg did for me. He gave me the letter iu 
Washington, and then he wrote another one to Badger not to do it. 
Then I began to tell my friends what Senator Kellogg does, and how 
much money it cost him to keep his seat. 1 told everybody that I knew, 
and all that I knew about it. 

Q. Did you tell anybody how much Kellogg bad to spend to keep his 
seat, before you found out that you could not get a place in the custom¬ 
house ?—A. No; 1 don’t tell anything, for I wanted my place. 

Q. And when you could not get it, you commenced to tell everybody 
this story ?—A. Yes. Senator, but it is no story. 1 told everybody that 
he was a fraud, and I say so now. 

Senator Vance. Mr. Witness, we want nothing of that sort here. 

The Witness. Well, Senator, he worked me seven weeks, and he 
gives me nothing for it, and he makes me do those things, which if 
Charley Cavignac would catch me when I was lying under his door, he 
would have killed me. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) Who is that? — A. Charley Cavignac. If 
he knew what I was doing lying under his door to hear what was said, 
and stealing away his witnesses, he would kill me. 

Q. You stated, I believe, in your testimony, that you were a Union 
soldier ?—A. Yes, sir; I was; I served in the United States Army, and 
I was a good Union soldier and a Re])nblicau. 1 expect to live and die 
one. 

Q. Were you a Confederate soldier, too?—A. No, sir; I runaway 
from them. They wanted to press me to service and I ran away, for I 
am a Rei)ublican, as I told you, and I will die one. 

Q. Do you swear you never were iu the Confederate Army ?—A. 
Didn’t I told you they tried to press me in, and I would not go ? 

Q. Well, but I asked you another question. There were a great many 
who were pressed and ran away, and got put in again. I ask you now, 
were you at any time in the Confederate Army ?—A. I ran away, I told 
you; they had me pressed in, and and I ran ott‘. 

Q. They had you pressed, and you deserted; is that what you mean ? 

Q. (By Senator Vance.) Did you run away from the Army or away 
from home ?—A. From the Army, Senator. I went away from Hie Army 
into the Union service. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) Where were you taken from, when you 
were pressed into the Confederate Army ?—A. Right here in the city of 
New ()rleans. 

Q. Where did you get away from them ?—A. I got away here. 

Q. Were you caught b^’ the Confederate authorities after you ran 
away ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did they sliave your head so that it looked like minedoes now?— 
A. Did thi‘y shave my head ? Did you come here for nothing but to in¬ 
sult people? I want to answer you plainly, and I want to tell you the 
truth, but you Just merely come here to insult me and make me mad. 
If I wouhl conie and take the.stand for Governor Kellogg and swear 
that Levi and Chissolin and Min i ay showed me money that they got 
37 H K 


578 


SPOFFRRD VS. KELLOGG. 


from Spoffbrd, you would say I am the best man in the world. I know 
you. Senator’; and you will try and get up anything in the world against 
me; but I wish that you wouldn’t insult me. You did it yesterday. 
You asked me yesterday if I was arrested for larceny. Do you think, 
Senator, that a man can’t be a Republican without being a thie< ? 

Senator Cameron. You had better ask ray colleagues about that.. 

The Witness. That gentleman insults me, gentlemen. I know what 
he done in Washington last summer; I will come out with it right now. 
I won’t take these insults from any man. 

Senator Hill. Keep your seat, Mr. Witness, there is no necessity 
for being excited or irritated. Just go on and tell what you have to say 
in answer to the question. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What did the Confederate authorities do with you when they caught 
you —A. They had me arrested. Are you satisfied now ? 

By Senator Yance : 

Q. What did they do to you? Just answer that question.—A. They 
had me arrested ; had me chained, and I ran away again, and they never 
could catch me no more; and 1 kept right away until the Union forces 
came in, and then I wont with General Butler. 

Q. Did they punish you for running away ?—A. Yes, they would, if 
I didn’t run aw^ay again ; but that gentleman over there, I know him 
well, and he wants to give me bad character now because I swear the 
truth about Governor Kellogg. 

Senator Hill (to the witness). You will find no trouble, Mr. Wil¬ 
liams, in getting along all right, if you will just answer the questions. 
Senator Cameron does not want to insult you, I presume. 

The WYtness. Yes, sir, he does; he must think a man can’t be a 
Republican without being a thief. I know what he means. 

Senator Hill. You must not undertake to defend the Republican party 
here. That is too big a job, I am afraid, for you to undertake. 

The Witness. 1 will always stand up for my party, and I would not 
vote for no rebel that ever lived. 

By Senator Cameron. (Q.) Now, have you got through? 

The Witness. Well, what do you want? 

Q. You say that when you were arrested you were chained, and that 
you ran away again. Now, did they punish you in any other way than 
that which you have stated ? 

Senator Hill (to the witness). Say yes or no. 

A. Senator, that man breaks my heart. I am an old man ; I am fifty- 
seven years old; and I have got a family; and yesterday he asked me 
if i was a thief, and to day he asked me the same thing, and if I had 
my head shaved. O, I know very well what he thinks; he thinks that 
everybody must be a thief or a robber on account that he bes a Repub¬ 
lican. Let him ask me a decent question and I will answer him every¬ 
thing; but if he comes here to break my heart, I will not answ^er it. 

Q. Did you say you would answer the question?—A. Let these other 
gentlemen ask me questions; I will not answer you nothing. 

Senator Vance. O, yes; go on and answer the question. 

Senator Cameron. What shall I do with the witness, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Hill. Stoj), Mr. Witness, you must answer the question. If 
you can answer them, do so; if you can’t, say so. If you think the 
question affects your honor or character, don’t answer it, if you do not 
want to. You must answer, and you are bound to answer, under the 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. bl\) 

order of the committee, unless the question will criminate you in some 
way. If it will criminate you, you are not bound to answer that. 

Senator Cameron. I do not think I have asked him any such ques¬ 
tion yet. 

Senator Hill. I do not think myself, Senator, that you have trans- 
grossed the rule. Let us be quiet now and go on: Answer the ques¬ 
tion squarely, for the truth will hurt nobody. 

The Witness. Of course I will answer, Senator, and Governor Kel¬ 
logg knows it is all right. lie knows me and now he thinks I am a bad 
man, but if I swear the other wmy I am a very good man. 1 have their 
papers what I will bring to the committee. 

Senator Hill. Wait, Mr. Witness, hntil the question is asked you, 
then answer it. 

Senator Cameron. He stated that he had some papers j if they are 
from Governor Kellogg, I desire him to produce them. 

Senator Hill. Go on with the examination; you can get on with that 
afterward. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You state that you made an affidavit ?—A. I did, well and good. 

Who asked you to make it f—A. Nobody. I nu(de it myself. It 
don’t make no difterence with me that nobody should ask me to make 
an affidavit. 

Q. Well, stop. Who were present when you made itf—A. There is 
one gentleman here present who was there; Mr. Charley Cavanac. 

Q. Who else ?—A. There was another Bepublicari and the State au¬ 
ditor. 

Q. Where did you make that affidavit?—A. In the State-house, up¬ 
stairs. 

Q. When did you make it?—A. About three months ago, I believe ; 
if it is not a little ov’er or a little later; but to my best recollection it is 
about three months ago. 

Q. How long was it after you found out that you could not have a 
place in the custom-house when you made that affidavit?— A. I made 
it I tell you about three months ago. I wrote a letter to Chicago to the 
address of the governor ; what-his-name down there at the custom-house 
gave me his address. I wrote to General Sypher, and I showed you the 
answer that he gave me, and I got the time for the letter to go, and I 
show you when that time was. I got no answer from Governor Kel¬ 
logg, and General Sypher wrote me that the governor wasn’t there. 

Q. This letter is dated July 30. 1 asked you the date of the making 
of the affidavit?—A. You can see that the governor wasn’t there. You 
can see 1 don’t tell no lies; but the governor when I wrote to him I 
could get no word from him. 

il. 1 will ask you again. ITow long was it after you got this letter 
betore you made this affidavit ?—A. The first time—there is a gentle¬ 
man I believe named . I met him and we began to talk 

and he asked me where was you that summer, and I told him I was in 
Washington. He said “ what were you doing in Washington,” and I 
said that I was there for Governor Kellogg, and Governor Kellogg he 
gave it me in the neck, and I told him that amigger has got more luck than 
a white man, and the niggers got five hundred dollars apiece, but they 
didn’t work like me, no, sir; and after that I met IMr. Cavanac, and he 
said, “ Williams, come over here,” and he said, “ Will you tell me the 
truth what was in Washington ? ” and I said, if I can I will, and I told 
him all the same as I tell it to you now. I told him I was a poor man, 
and I was beat out of work at the custom house, and that I wrote to 
Governor Kellogg, and I got no answer, and I show him that letter too. 


580 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Well, now, the question I asked you was how long it was after 
you got the letter before you made the affidavit ?—A. I can’t tell you 
exactly. 

Q. Well, about how long ?—A. I believe it is about three months. 

Q. Three months ago !—A. Yes, sir. I made it and I will identify it 
if you will show it to me. It is my true affidavit. 

Q. I do not want to go into that just at this time 5 but how was it 
drawn up? Was it iu this way (showing an affidavit), or do you want 
to go on and tell your story all over again ?—A. It is not a story, Sen¬ 
ator, but it is the truth. 

Q. Well, did you go on in the affidavit and make the statement some¬ 
thing as you are making it here and see it taken down in writing ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. After it was taken down was it read over to you ?—A, Everything 
was re .d over to me and I understand it. 

Q. And you swear to it?—A. I did swear to it before the Jew rabbi, 
and I don’t swear any other way but by my religion. I don’t belong to 
the reformed Jews. 

Q. You are an orthodox Israelite then?—A. Yes, sirj but I don’t 
call it like you. 

Senator Cameron. Now, I am going to ask the witness a question I 
think will excite him probably, but I think it is my duty to do so. 

Q. (To the witness.) I want to ask you, Mr. Williams, it’ at one time 
you and your brother were not arrested for larceny, and if you did not 
turn State’s evidence and was allowed to go free or was discharged and 
your brother convicted ?—A. No, sir 5 I will deny it j I will deny it at 
once; no, siree. 

Senator Vance. Stop right there, Mr. Witness. 

The Witness. Don’t you want a little more? 

Senator Cameron. I will take the balance. 

The Witness. No, sir; if you want me to tell you all that my life has 
been I will do it, but this is three or four times you started to insult me. 

Senator Hill. Stop, Mr. Witness, do not make any speeches. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Well, leaving out any reference to your brother, were not you and 
another man arrested for larceny, and did not you turn State’s evidence 
and were discharged and the other man convicted?—A. I beg your par¬ 
don, Senator, you are mistaken. You go on now and say what you 
please and I won’t answer you. 

Senator Vance. That is the end of it. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Were you and another man arrested for highway robbery or any 
other crime and upon the trial you turned State’s evidence and were al¬ 
lowed to escape and the other man was convicted?—A. Mr. Chairman, 
I hope you will pardon me for that request. I am an old man and have 
a family and such questions like that they break my heart. He want 
to ask me all that and put it in the paper to-morrow morning. 

Senator Hill. You can answer it or not.— A. I tell him I did not. He 
want me to go for Kellogg and tell a lie for him ; and I say, no. 

Senator Vance. Stop now; be quiet and answer the question.—A. 
Ain’t you got any more against me. Bring it all up what you have got. 
Tell it all out and when you are done I will tell you that is not so. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


581 


By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Well, Mr. Witness, I am not acquainted with you.—A. Oh, yes, I 
am with you. I know you from Washington, and when I see you down 
here I know you again. You think all Republicans should be in the 
penitentiary, don^t you ^ 

Senator Hill. Answer the question. 

The Witness. It* there is a robbery in the city of New Orleans and 
he thinks I <lid it let him bring them people here. Let them swear if 
they want, but I beg your pardon gentlemen j I hope you will not let 
this man ask me these questions. 

Senator Hill. When he asks you a question of that sort, j ou are not 
bound to answer, but do not get excited over it. 

At this i)oint Senator Cameron asked that the paper memorandum 
previously presented by the witness, and purporting to be in Senator 
Kellogg’s handwriting, should go into the record. 

The paper is as follows : 

Rooms of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate. Cai)itol. Sen¬ 
ator Saulsbury, Chairman. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. I will ask the witness a question. Have you made a claim on the 
government for a pension ?—A. I did, sir, when Governor Packard’s 
brother was the pension agent 12 or 13 years ago. 

Q. Did you employ General Sypher when you were in Washington to 
look after it?—A. 1 did, Senator; everything like that what is true I 
will tell you. 

Senator Vance. Just answer the questions. You talk too much.— A. 
Yes, sir ; I do. I will answer the questions. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. At the time you say Governor Kellogg paid the money to these 
five colored men did you say he paid it in his room at AVillard’s Ho¬ 
tel ?—A. That is the place. 

Q. Were you present at the time?—A. I was looking at him like I 
look at you now. 

Q. And you say Mr. Sypher and i\Ir. Clark were present?—A. That 
is his name. He was Governor Kellogg’s private secretary. 

Q. Well, his i)rivate secretary th^n and the five colored men ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Each man got it counted out to him this way from a big envelope 
counting like this; one, two, three, four, five, bran new hundred-dollar 
bills. Then he told them you are all good boys, and we will give it to 
the old rebel in the neck, and each bill was a bran new^ hundred dollar 
bill. 

Q. Wait one moment, Mr. Witness ?—A. O, yes, you don’t like that 
I know. 

Q. Were these five men all present at the same time?—A. Each one 
was there, and had the money before they left Washington. I will tell 
you something else. 

Q. Go ahead and tell it, sir?—A. There is Governor Kellogg, and 
there was that other nigger—not Kelly; that yellow nigger was brought 
to you from the Philadelphia Mouse when Jim Lewis was dead drunk, 
and they brought Jim Lewis there dead drunk, and could not make out 
anything what to do. The baggage man wouldn’t let the baggage go 
out, and the next morning you was in bed and you paid 8185, that you 
know yourself. 


582 


SPOFFORD V8. KELLOGG. 


Q. Whom did he i)ay it to'^—A. To the yellow nigger that gets paid 
from the treasury every mouth a hundred dollars, 

Q. What is his name ?—A. Kelly. 

Q. Is he a Louisiana man f—A. I know him when I see him ; he come 
from here. 

Q. Did he live here before he went to Washington !—A. He was liv¬ 
ing at Lake Providence whon I knew him. I have peddled all through 
the State, and I know nearly every nigger in Louisiana. 

Q. Do you know his name?—A. Ko; he was a yellow nigger what 
worked in Lake Providence and teached music and he had to go away 
from there. You know, governor, you saw him in Washington and you 
spoke to him. If you want me to tell everything, I will. I was every 
day in your room in the committee-room until that day when they 
wanted me on the stand and I would not go; I said I was sick. 

Senator Cameron. That is all, Mr. Chairman, I believe. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I will just ask you a few questions. You said something about 
watching Mr. Cavanac and listening at his door; I do not know what 
you meant by it. Didn’t you say something about watching Mr. Cav¬ 
anac, or that Governor Kellogg got you to watch him ?—A. Yes, Sena¬ 
tor, I was listening under his door. 

Q. How came you to be there ?—A. I was sent by Governor Kellogg 
to watch every movement that he made. 

Q. Governor Kellogg sent you ?—A. Yes, sir; and paid me to listen 
at what was going on in Mr. Cavanac’s room. 

Q. Who paid your expenses to Washington ?—A. Jim Lewis gave 
me three twenty-dollar bills, and I paid $57.25 for a ticket to go and 
come, an excursion ticket, I believe is what they call it—to go and come 
back on, and he gave me $50 besides; but the jnoney 1 had in Wash¬ 
ington Governor Kellogg gave me everything; he gave it to me what I 
wanted before, but after it was over he gave me not a thing; he said 
those fellows had bled him too much already. 

Q. Who paid your expenses—all of them— your hotel bill and so on ? 
—A. That gentleman. [Pointing to Senator Kellogg.] Every time I 
wanted money I would come to him ; I got as much as I wanted; all 
the negroes came to him and got money and they went out and rode 
around the city with a body guard, and if these niggers should meet 
Charley Cavanac, and they were to’talk good to him and give it to him 
in the neck, this way. [Putting his hand up to his neck.] 

Q. Who paid for those carriages, do you know ?—A. Mr. Kellogg did. 
I didn’t pay nothing. 

Q. You said something, I believe, on yesterday about somebody not 
wanting you to testify before this committee; just state to the 
committee who that somebody was.—A. It was Morris Marks, and 
it was on Monday night that I saw him. I met him on Monday 
at 11 o’clock before the jewelry store, and I said to a man named 
Williams who was there too—1 said, “ There goes promising Kellogg 
and he said, “Who is that?” and I said, “ Gov^ernor Kellogg.” He 
was standing in the door, and he came and took me "this way and 
said, “ Hello, old fellow ”; and I said, “ O, yes, you treat me nicely, 
didn’t you, governor ? ” He said, “ How ?” 1 said, “ Didn’t you write 
a letter to Badger not to give me any work, didn’t you?” and he 
said, “ Ko, sir.” And I said, “The nigger there told me so”; and he 
said he was a fool, “but I’ll fix everything right”; and he said, “ You 
come to the St. Charles Hotel at 7 o’clock.” I came here and I saw that 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


583 


gentleman. | Indicating Senator Cameron.] lie was sitting on tbe next 
bencli to me. I can show yon the bench out there now, and two of 
them were talking, two old gentlemen ; then he shook hands with him 
and went upstairs, and I sent up my card, and the boy came down and 
said Governor Kellogg wasn’t upstairs. 1 waited a few minutes and I 
said to the clerk that 1 must see him, and the clerk sent a boy with me 
to number 12 upstairs, and I think that gentleman [Senator Cameron], 

I think it was him, for, Senator, I cannot see good as J am an old man ; 
but there was one old gentleman that he let out, and the boy knocked 
at the door and Governor Kellogg came out in his shirt sleeves. Ain’t 
that true, governor ? And he took me this way, and said, “ You wait 
downstairs while; and 1 told him, I said ‘‘Governor, my wife is sick, 
and 1 want to go liome,” but I waited till 9 o’clock ; then he come ami 
said that I should come back to-morrow, and then Morris Marks come, 
and that gentleman was talking to two old gentlemen at the time. I 
believe one of them was a priest. Marks came to me and said, “ You 
made an atlidavit about this case.” And I said “Yes”; and he said, 
“ Well, now, you better kee|) away from that committee ; you keep away 
every day from 9 to 3 o’clock”; and he said if I didn’t do it, Governor 
Kellogg would be hurt at me and would break up my ])ension, so I kept 
away, gentlemen ; that is true, because I can’t alford to lose my pension. 
I hope, ISenators, that you will see that I do not lose it. 

Q. And he is the man that said that to you? |Pointing to Morris 
Marks, who was in the room.]—A. Yes, sir, that is him, Morris Marks. 

Q. P)id anybody else tell you not to come to the committee ?— 
A. Jitn Lewis saicl to me I would be well i)aid not to come before the 
committee. He said, “ You made an atlidavit, but we will send you 
away, and when the committee is over you can comeback, and you will 
be w'ell paid.” 

Q. He said he would send you away ?—A. Away from Xew Orleans; 
so long as the committee has been here I will be sent away, and yester¬ 
day that man [pointing to the de])uty sergeant-at-arms] came and 
catchctl me locked up in my room. 1 was hided out all day at No. 8 G, 
ISt. Peter’s street. 

Q. Did anybody besides those parties tell 3^011 to stay away?—A. 
No, sir, I could not tell that. He told me to (;ome at nine o’clock at the 
hotel, and at nine o’clock 1 was afraid that you would catch me and 1 
could not come. 1 had instructions not to be caught. 

Q. Something was said by you in answer to a (piestion i)ut by Smia- 
tor Cameron, about 30111 * being arrested last Saturday ?—A. Yes, sir, I 
was; that fellow Morris Marks had me arrested. • 

Q. Have you any reason to know that he had it done ?—A. YYs, sir; 
last Saturday I w'as sent for by the internal-revenue ollicer, Morris 
iMai ks. . 

Q. Y*)u were sent for by him ?—A. Yes, sir; that is him there now. 
lie sent for me to come over to the custom-house, and I sent him word 
1 can’t come, that my wife is sick and 1 don’t want to come and see any 
of them fellows at all. You be sure. Senator, that I would be a dead 
man it those fellows think they better get me away. I went to the cor¬ 
ner ot Danphine street to get a lu’escriptiou for my wife, and met the 
clerk with red whiskers ; he said “ Good ev^ening, Mr. M illiains,” and I 
said How are you ? ” That was this fellow that Mon is Marks sent for 
me tliat I was talking to there. He said, “ You don’t come to the cus¬ 
tom-house ? ” I said to him, “ You see my trouble;^ my wife is sick and 
1 have just come out for medicine.” He said, “ Well, come and take a 
drink,” and we went to the corner to take a drink, and then he said, 


684 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


“ You come to tbe custom-bouse with me.’’ I said, no, I would not go 
to tbe custom-bouse; and be said, ‘‘ If you don’t come I will have you 
arrested,” and I said, “ Wbat for will you have me arrested; wbat have 
I done to be arrested for ? ” He said iie would have me arrested any¬ 
how. I said I was no tbief, and ‘‘ wbat for will you have me arrested? ” 
He said, “ Do you remember in July we went over to Habnsville, in tbe 
parish of St. Bernard ! We went in the interest of Governor Kellogg, to 
get some witnesses.” I said, Yes, but what you going to have me ar¬ 
rested for?” He said, “ Where is my justol ?” I said, “ Your pistol ? 
Wbat for do you talk to me about your pistol ?” I said, “ You know you 
was dead drunk when you got there, and I had to get the niggers to 
put you in tbe car. Wbat pistol,” I said, “ are you talking about ? ” He 
said, ‘‘ Never mind, 1 will put up a.job on you and have you arrested ” ; 
but, he said, ‘Mf you come to tbe custom-house I won’t arrest you.” 1 
said to him, “For God sake do let me go home with tbe medicine for 
m 3 ’ wife.” Well, be took me along and we come to Jackson Square 
station, and be bad me arrested about three o’clock. He made a charge 
against me tor tbe embezzlement of bis pistol, and be had Morris Marks, 
who was tbe adjutant of Governor Kellogg, to make the charge of em¬ 
bezzlement, and I was locked up about an hour, and I staled locked up 
until my friends—good citizens, gentlemen—come and bailed me out, and 
Monday I went before the recorder and I was honorably acquitted. 

Q. Can you give any reason why tbe^’ wanted .you arrested ?—A. O, 
it was because I wouldn’t come in tbe custom-bouse and do wbat tbej' 
wanted me to do. 

Q. Did they tell you wbat they wanted with you there ?—A. They 
wanted me to run away from New Orleans, and they will do it now if 
they get a chance; every day I will be arrested, and so I ask you for 
protection so I shall not go to jail. 

Q. Did you complain to Mr. Walker about that treatment?—A. I 
did ; that’s tbe gentleman that went my bail; if be hadn’t I should have 
been in jail until Monday morning eleven o’clock, and my poor wife was 
sick at home and needing that I should be there. 

Q. Mr. Walker did not go your bail, did he, or was it some of your 
friends ?—A. Yes, sir, it was m 3 ’ friends. 

Q. How long have you known Mr. Walker?—A. I have known him, 
I believe, a few weeks, that is all. 

Q. Did Mr. Walker send for you to come to his office ?—A. I believe 
he did. 

Q. Who did he send?—A. I do not recollect the name well. Senator. 

Q. You si)oke of going to Mr. Walker’s office; did 30 U ever go there 
in the afteruoon or at night?—A. I believe 1 was there twice, between 
live and six o’clock in the evening. 

Q. Was it early iu the afternoon or evening ?—A. It wms dark all the 
time; you asked me and I can answer; but if a man ask me if I have been 
arrested for stealing like that gentleman there, I can’t. (Pointing to 
Senator Kellogg.) 

Q. You say you are too poor to buy a watch ?—A. Yes, sir ; I cannot 
buy one; but if Governor Kellogg will give me that place he promised 
me I could buy one. 

Q. Were you ever at Mr. Walker’s office as late as seven o’clock?—A. 
I think I was, at seven o’clock. 

Q. Did you go there most frequently in the day or at night?—A. I 
think several times in the day, and several times at night. 

Q. Did you go during business hours and on business ?—A. I went 



SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 585 

ou business, of course. I told Governor Kello^" that I bad been at that 
gentleman’s. 1 told him the same that 1 tell yon. 

Senator Hill. That’s all right. 

The Witness. Yes, sir; several times. I can’t say how many, but 
not later than seven o’clock no time. 

Q. You said something about those witnesses in Washington getting 
their live hundred dollars; do you know what they did with it f—A. I 
believe I do. I am not sure, but I think they sent it home, some of I hem, 
by the express. 

Q. How do you know that?—A. Because I was upstairs in their 
rooms, and I could see it. They were putting it up in envelo))e to 
send home, and if I was there in Washington now I could point out the 
very i)lace where they sent it. 

Q. What did they say after they got through with the committee about 
having money to come home?—A. There was two fellows, you recollect 
that night, governor, two fellows that couldn’t get away; then there 
was a telegram came back to you that two tickets was missing, and they 
wouldn’t go by the Mobile road; they said there was too many rebels on 
that road, and they wanted to go by Cincinnati; they were afraid the 
rebels would catch them on the road. I wanted to change my ticket 
and sent a telegram, and it came over here. I can’t tell the office, but 
it came to the Philadelphia House. Williams is the man what kept it. 
He is a negro, and the telegram came for those tickets, that they should 
go by Cincinnati. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) What is the name of that Jewish rabbi 
that you say swore you to that affidavit?—A. His name is Siefert; but 
one minute. Senator, I think you want to ask me how much money I 
offered to Murray to go away from Washington. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) How much money you offered Murray ?—A. 
Yes, sir; it was when 1 come to Washington, and Murray camej; he was 
arrested, and they wanted to arrest that gentleman too (l\Ir. Cavanac)^ 
and Mr. Sherman prevented it. 1 w^as sent by Governor Kellogg, and I 
worked on that nigger three or four days, and I am an old detective, 
gentlemen, but 1 couldn’t do anything with Murray. I offered him five 
thousand dollars in cash, and then afterwards to name his own price. 

Q. To do what ?—A. To go back on Spoffbrd. 1 believe that’s his 
name, though 1 don’t know the gentleman. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg offer him five thousand dollars to go with 
him, or on his side of the case?—A. Yes, sir; and he offered him five 
thousand dollars cash to go away from Washington, and go by Detroit 
into Canada. O, I siient much money on him, from Governor Kellogg’s 
money, for cigars and whisky, to try and get him to agree to do that 
thing" Jt wasn’t my money, you know that, but 1 offered him that 
money from Governor Kellogg about twenty times. 

Q. Well, wdiat did he do ?—A. He wouldn’t take it, and he said a 
million dollars wouldn’t make him go back on Spofiford. But Governor 
Kellogg said to keep after him, and if 1 could get Murray to go away, 
to go with him to Canada, to go through Detroit and to stay there with 
him until after the committee adjourned, and if anybody came after us, 
or came with a letter, not to believe him. that he would not be telling the 
truth, and that when the committee adjourned—after it had adjourned 
—I should get a telegram with the watch-word, “ The Union Forever”; 
that when 1 got that, then I will know that everything is all right and 
1 can leave the nigger and come back. 

Q. “The Union Forever,” you say, was to be the telegram ?—A. Yes, 
sir, if I got a telegram with “The Union Forever” 1 will know that 


580 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


everything is all right and I can leave him and come back^ I should get 
that telegram from him. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) When did Kellogg tell you to try and get 
Murray to go back on Spolford —A. Eight the first day when we come 
to Washington; when I met him upstairs, he took me aside and said, to 
pull him away, that was Eandall, or Eeynolds maybe his name was, 
dead drunk, and was up there after the governor; he told me to i)ull 
that man away, that he was ashamed to have him about, and he gave 
me money to buy him some clothes with, and I went on 7th street and 
bought them. 

Q. For who was that?—A. For Eeynolds, that fellow that was there 
bothering the governor. He was dead drunk, I tell you. 

Q. Where was he?—A. He was upstairs in the Capitol. 

Q. Whereabouts in the Capitol ?—A. In that place where all the 
pictures are, and looks like a big skylight. 

Q. Was he so drunk that he could not stand up ?—A. He was just so, 
like you cut otf a tree you expect it all the time to fall; he was sorter in 
that fix where he couldn’t stand up or lay down. I beg your pardon. 
Senator, he would not call all the witnesses to know about it, he told me 
that in private of course; you see I was his most trusted man there. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) You say nobody was present?—A. Me and 
him, that’s all, and he said to pull this man Eeynolds away, that he was 
ashamed to have him about there where everybody could see him, and 
I did pull him away, and I will tell you all if you want to know it. 

Senator Cameron. Tell all you know.—A. I will tell you all, Senator. 
I know what you want. If I will say that Cavanac gave me money to 
swear for Spofford, then it is all right for you. 

Q. Well now, stop that. Where Avas Marks when he told you what 
you have sworn to?—A. Do you mean at Washington, Senator? 

Q. O, no, just wait now ; this Marks, you say he told you to run away 
from Yew Orleans.—A. He was upstairs here in the hotel. 

Q. Was that Monday night?—A. Yes, sir ; and you were sitting out 
there yourself. 

Q. Well, stop right there, that’s all I asked you.—A. Yes, sir ; I know 
that’s all. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) We are through with you, Mr. Witness, but 
remember you are not discharged. 

The Witness. Senator, I wish you would put me in charge of that 
man [the sergeant-at-arms], for I am afraid of my life. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) Wait one moment; one of those witness¬ 
es is out doors and I wish to bring him in and see if the witness can 
identify him. Ask Mr. Swasey to come in. 

[The sergeant-at-arms brought in a colored man.] 

The Witness. Yes, that is one of them. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) You say he was one of the five that you took 
to Senator Kellogg’s room ?—A. Yes, sir; you recollect [speaking to 
the man] when you were sick in Washington and I gave you all you 
wanted. O, yes, indeed. Senator, he was one of them same fellows. He 
did have the five brand new bills—hundred dollar bills—and he thinks 
he will get it now. 

Mr. VValker (of counsek for memorialist.) i\Ir. Chairman, I under¬ 
stood the sitting member to make some suggestion or request on yes¬ 
terday, looking to the introduction of witnesses on his part in rebuttal 
of this testimony by Mr. Williams. I desire to state that when they are 
subpoenaed 1 shall object to their being given any preference OA^er those 
summoned by us. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 587 

Senator Kellogg. I was not paying attention, Mr. Chairman, and I 
did not understand the point. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Walker objects to giving preference to your wit¬ 
nesses over his; but I stated last night that if you had witnesses upon 
this matter of bribery that you desired to introduce, you could do so, 
but 1 did not mean to open the door to a general iiiipeachmeiit of this 
man’s character; that will come afterwards. 


TESTIMONY OF ABRAM LEVI. 

Abram Levi, a witness called for the memorialist, and who, being 
an Isrealite, was sworn according to the manner of his faith. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. No. 139 Burgundy street* 

Q. In New Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you here in November and December, 187G ?—A. Y>s, sir. 

Q. What was your occupation ?—A. I was on the old Metropolitan 
police. 

Q. You belonged to it as an officer?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Where were you stationed when on duty ?—A. In the State- 
house. 

Q. Were you there at that place at the time Kellogg is claimed to 
have been elected as Senator ?—A. I was there, certainly, on police 
duty. 

Q. If you know of any facts going to show that there was no quorum 
present on the day he was claimed to have been elected, please state 
them.—A. I do not know anything about it. Senator; I attended to my 
police duty. 

Q. Hid you see anybody carried up into the State-house on a plank 
that night?—A. I did not. 

Q. VVell, on a litter, then ?—A. No, sir; nothing at all. 

Q. Hid you see any sick man taken into the building ?—A. No, sir ; I 
did not. 

Q. Were you there all night?—A. No, sir; I was on day duty. 

Q. Was the election in the daytime or at night?—A. I suppose it 
was (laytime. I was on day duty, and I was there at night until the 
legislature met, and then I was put on day duty. 

Q. You say you saw nobody carried into the building ?—A. No, sir; 
nothing of the kind. 

Q. Ho you know' a colored man from Tensas Parish—a black man— 
named Walker?— A. Maybe if I w'ere to see him I would know' him ; I 
cannot say that 1 would exactly. 

Q. Ho you know Swasey ?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill here interrupted the progress of the examination for the 
following statement: “I will state that I have received a letter from 
Mr. P. J. Maloney, I believe is the name, addressed to me as chairman 
of this committee, in which he says if it is necessary to rebut the testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Williams he puts himself at my disposal. I make this 
statement here because I do not want anybody to put himself at my 
disposal. If either t)arty wants it they will know how to get it in the 
usual and regular way. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, will you state his address? 

Senator Hill. He says he is at the internal-revenue office. He is a 



588 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


clerk, I suppose, and is the man, I understand, who had this man Wil¬ 
liams arrested on Saturday. 

The examination of Abram Levi was resumed. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Ho you know Ex Governor Warmoth?—A. 
Yes, sir ; I know him. 

Q. How long had you been on duty at the State-house, in the 
capacity of policeman ?—A. Since the first day the returning board 
commenced to meet until the last man left the building, on the 25th 
April, 1877. 

Q. What part in the building were you generally assigned to?—A. 
Sometimes 1 was detailed upstairs, and sometimes right in front on the 
banquette. 

Q. Were you frequently in the house of representatives ?—A. No, sir; 
I had been in there sometimes. 1 passed there, and 1 knew some of the 
members. 

Q. Were you in the house of representatives at the time of balloting 
for Senator?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you there the night previous, or the night afterwards ?—A. 
I was there the next day, that was all. 

Q. WYre you there on the day and during the balloting, or the day 
before?—A. No, sir; I was not. I didn’t see Governor Kellogg at that 
time at all; the only time was when he left the place. 

Q. Where were j’oii on the morning when they were taking the 
vote?—A. Sir? 

Q. Where were you when they were taking the vote on the Senatorial 
question, on the 10th of January ?—A. 1 was downstairs; 1 cannot tell 
exactly where I was, but I suppose 1 was on duty. 

Q. Hid you see this man Thomas, a member of the legislature, carried 
into the house of representatives?—A. I did not see anybody carried. 

Q. Hid you see him about there?—A. I never saw him carried into 
the house. 

Q. You never saw him lifted in, as a sick man ?—A. No, sir ; nothing 
of that kind. 

Q. Hid you hear of it ?—A. I can tell how I heard it. If he were sick 
or not I don’t know. Last Wednesday I was passing on the street—I 
am a glazier—and was going to put some glass in, and a man came up 
to me, Barney Williams, and he told me he had got a job for me, and he 
gave me a card to come to Common street, I believe 1(30 Common street, 
and he gave me the card and said to come there at 9 o’clock. I went 
there upstairs and presented the card, and said to the gentleman, a man 
sent me here to put in some glasses ; he said, “ That’s all right; have a 
seat and sit down”; and 1 thought that was rather strange, for I was 
nothing but a poor glazier, and then he turned round and began to talk 
to me; he commenced by asking me my name, and if I served on the 
metropolitan police, and I saw what he was after and I said nothing. 
He asked me about Thomas, just like you have done, and I said 1 don’t 
know nothing about it. 

Q. And do you swear now that you don’t know anything of Thomas 
being sick ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never saw him so, or heard of it? — A. I can’t swear to that. 
I never saw him myself. 

Cross-examined by Senator Cameron: 

Q. When did Barney Williams tell you he had a job for you?—A. 
YYs, sir; he told me that. 

Q. When?—A. Just a week to day, I think. 



SPOFFORD yS. KELLOGG. 589 

Q, Did be tell wbat the job was?—A. He said it was to put some 
glass ill. 

Q. Did be tell you where to goto get that job?—A. Yes, sir; he said 
to go to IbO Common street, I think. 

Q. Do you remember the name ot the person who kept that place ?— 
A. :No, sir. 1 just went there and gave the card to the gentleman; that 
is him, I think, sitting there [pointing to Mr. Walker]. 

Is that the gentleman that you saw there?—A. 1 believe so. 

Q. That is Mr. AValker. What conversation did you have witii ]Mr. 

alker ?—A. Not much, sir. He asked me if I knew a man named 
Thomas, in the legislature, and I saw what he was after, and I said I 
didn’t know nothing. I took up my box and went out, and he asked 
me no more. 

Q. Did you ask Mr. Walker if he had a job for you ?—A. lie said he 
believed he had a light out back there, but he could do without having 
it put in yet. 

Q. Did you tell him that Barney Williams had sent you there ?—A. 

,Yes, sir; and he said, “That’s all right,” to take a seat. 

Q. And you say you thought it was strange that he would ask you, a 
poor glazier, to take a seat in his office?—A. Yes, sir; I thought so. 

Q. And when you went there you supposed he had a job for you?— 
A. YYs, sir; I went on purpose with my ghuss-box on my back. 

Q. Who did Barney Williams tell you this gentleman w'as ?—A. He 
never said anything about his being a lawyer, but he said he was a com¬ 
mission merchant. 

Q. Williams told you so?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you do any job of glazing at Mr. Walker’s office ?-^A. No, sir; 
I did not. 

Q. Did he point out an^^ job that Ite wanted done?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you now understand that he got you there for the ])urpose of 
pumping you and tinding out what you knew of this case?—A. I do 
not know, sir. When I saw that I could not get a job 1 picked up my 
box and stepped out. 

Q. And you say you do not know whether Mr. Thomas was at the 
house of representatives on the night of the election of the Senator or 
jiot?—A. No, sir; I don’t know nothing about it. 

Q. Did you tell Mr. Walker anything about it ?—A. Well, sir, I just 
stated what he spoke to me and what I said to him. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Wlien Mr. Walker told you to take a seat 
wasn’t he engaged with another gentleman?—xV. Yes, sir; he was talk¬ 
ing with him near the door. 

Q. And he told you to take a seat and wait ?—A. Yes, sir; that’s all. 


TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH MAZET. 

Joseph Mazet (colored), a witness called for the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. Riglit now ? 

Q. Yes.—A. 1 reside at N^o. 27 Orleans street, in the seventh war<l. 

Q. In the seventh ward of the parish of Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir ; I was 
born there and have resided there ever since. 

Q. Were you living there in 1874 at the time the election was held ?— 



590 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG}. 


A. I was there iu 1874 and 187G and all the time. I have never moved 
from there a month at a time. 

Q. Do yon know anything going to show that false registration papers 
were used there in that election ?—A. Yes, sir. IJnder Mr. Hutton, who 
was chief registrar there, false registration papers were used. At the 
corner of Bagatelle and Kreps he had an offiee ; over 30 ) or 400 of these 
false reixistration papers were made there. E have testihed that already 
before Mr. Morrison’s committee, which was investigating the election 
there. 

Q. Who were the election officers in that ward in 1876 ?—A. Mr. J. 
Moore, and at the same time he was candidate for tlie registrar. At the 
same time the candidates witii him were Blackstone and Glardeur, and he 
resigned, Moore did, twenty-four hours before the election came off and 
put a man who had been his clerk, and whose name wasGondolfi, in his 
place. But tlm day of the election Gondolfi’s office was shut up and 
he could not be found. I voted that day at poll No. 3, and Mr. Henry 
Monier was there and Mr. Kerlet and Mr. Frempert. 1 voted between 
eight and nine o’clock in the morning, and at the same timel voted there' 
was a big crowd of people there, and an old man named Porter came 
there to vote and was refused. He is the same man that I took before 
the Morrison committee, but he voted the Democratic ticket after I 
voted. Mr. Kelly and others went with him. He used to live on Great- 
man between and Bagatelle, and after he voted some of these 

Eepublicans went to his house to whip him, but 1 found that out and I 
went there to see him and his wife, but they got there and whipped him 
anyhow because he voted the Denmcratic ticket. 

Q. Well, Mr. Mazet, the question I asked you is whether you know 
that any of the false papers used in 1876 were used in that election ?— 
A. Yes, sir; when Moore was registrar. Judge Whitaker was there and 
I was there. I was canvassing under Mr. Burke and I applied to Gov¬ 
ernor Hahn to have me appointed for the Democrats there at that poll. 
I went with the application and he refused me. I said to him I am go¬ 
ing to fight you anyhow and I will stand by that door and see who votes 
there that day and see that they vote right. Don’t you forget it now. 
lam going to fight you, and every time that a colored man came there 
I tried to listen to his name and hear what name he gave. Mr. Moore 
objected to that and called a policeman to take me away, but I staid 
there anyhow until Friday night, but they got me into a row because I 
struck a nigger who called me a damned Democrat and cursed me. I 
knocked him down for it and they arrested me and had me locked up. 
They tried to drive me out in the street before that but they could not 
do it. That was the time when I was working for the Democratic party 
and voted the Democratic ticket in 1876. 

Q. At that poll No. 3 in 1876, was everything there that day orderly 
and peaceable ; was there any disturbance there'?—A. Do you mean by 
the Democrats ? 

Q. Y"es, sir; or by anybody.—A. Well, sir, the Democrats never in¬ 
timidated any body while I was there. I was canvassing for them and 
running around for votes and only this man Porter, I think, sent for me 
and said they were going to whip him because he voted the Democratic 
ticket. I was there most of the day. The Democrats were treating 
around and the radicals was going about threatening what they would 
do to any damned nigger what voted the Democratic ticket. I was 
there all the time myself, but they never said anything to me. WTien 
I heard them talking about going to whip Porter ! went to see him but 
I got there too late. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


591 


Q. \Yell, you mean to say, ]\Ir. Mazet, that you saw no disorder at 
that poll that day that justified the countinjif out of that vote for intimi¬ 
dation or fraud or any thing of the sortf—A. No, sir. I was there all 
the time, I heard afterwards that they did throw it out, but I could 
not make out for the life of me what for. I went to have soiue papers 
put in the district court about the election, but 1 (k)n’t know whether 
Governor Ilahn put them in or not. 1 gave everybody a fair (diance so 
far as I could, and everybody that they kept from voting that 1 knew I 
gave his number in the district court. 

Cross-examined by Senator Cameron : 

Q. How many colored Democrats were there in the seventh ward at 
that time ?—A. I can’t tell you. Senator, exactly, but there were many 
and many of them. 

Q. Give the names of some of them whom you know.—A. Well, sir, 
there was my father, Louis Mazet, my brother-in-law, Armand Gaudet, 
and great many others that 1 can’t recollect their names. 1 can tell you 
the reason- 

Q. Well, 1 don’t care for your reason for not knowing them. I want 
now that you should give the names of all the Democratic colored men 
in the seventh ward at that time whom you can now remember.—A. All 
1 can remember? Joseph Cosine, old man Betancourt; 1 don’t know his 
first name, but I can give his residence ; yes, I remember his first name, 
Victor, that is his name, and some others that 1 cannot recollect. 

Q. Well, now, Mr. Mazet, have you given the names of all the col¬ 
ored Democrats who were living in that seventh ward at that time to 
your knowledge and whom you can remember ?—A. I have given the 
names of all I can recollect. I didn’t need to know their names par¬ 
ticularly if I could only get them to vote the Democratic ticket. 
1 know a great many colored men in the ward by sight, and I would 
work with them just the same as if 1 knew their names, and if I can 
get them to vote the Democratic ticket, that was all I wanted. 

Q. Now, then, will you please answer my question? Have you given 
the names of all the colored Democrats in the seventh ward in 1876 
whom you can remember?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, stop right there, then. Do you know whether tho^e men 
whose names you have given voted at the election in 1876?—A. In 
1876 ; what election was that. Senator ? 

Senator Hill. That was the Presidential election, Mr. Mazet. 

A. Y"es, sir; they voted then. They voted in the Presidential elec¬ 
tion. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) They all voted, you are sure of that ?—A. 
Y"es, sir; 1 am certain they voted. 

Q. Did you see them all vote?—A. No, sir; but I have seen them 
since, and their papers are all marked “voted.” 

Q. When did you see their papers and see that they were thus marked 
“voted”?—A. 1 saw some of them the same day of the election. They 
are all of them relations to me and voted that way because I did. 

Q. Do you know of any colored Democrat in the ward who was pre¬ 
vented from voting at the election in 1876 ?—A. Who was prevented 
from voting? 

Q. Yes, sir; do you know of any Democrat, any colored Democrat, 
who wanted to vote the Democratic ticket in 1876, and who was pre¬ 
vented from doing so at that poll, 1 mean ?—A. 1 don’t recollect exactly. 
1 know some who were weak though, and did not vote because they 
were afraid. 




592 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You say some one or more of them were whipped ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were they whipped after or before the election —A. After the 
election. 

Q. Were they whipped on election day or after that day had passed ? 
—A. Some were whipped on election day and some afterwards. 

Q. Who were whipped that you know?—A. Well, old man Porter 
and his wife were both struck, and another colored man who lived on 
Union street between Robinson and Claiborne was whipped. I don’t 
remember his name, but I fetched him before the Morrison committee. 

Q. Then there were Porter and one other man and Porter’s wife f — 
A. Yes, sir; those are the three that were whipped. 

Q. And they were whipped, were they ?—A. Yes, sir , those were the 
only ones I know in the seventh ward. 

Q. Well, now, to go away from that. When were you told that you 
would be wanted as a witness before this committee ?—A. Sir ? 

Q. When were you first told that you would be wanted before this 
committee as a witness?—A. When was I told that ? 

Q. Yes, sir; when were you told that ?—A. Why, they sent me a 
subpoena. 

Q. When did they send you the subpoena ?—A. They sent me the 
subpoena some time yesterday. 

Q. Had ^ou talked with any one about this Kellogg case at that time? 
—A. No, sir; I had not. 

Q. No one, whatever?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever talk with Mr. Walker—that gentleman there (point¬ 
ing to Mr. Walker) ?—A. No, sir; and 1 never saw him until yesterday; 
and when 1 saw him then I told him I was here. 

Senator Bill. Senator, we got the information about this witness’s 
testimony from the Morrison report. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron, to the witness.) What is your business,* 
anyhow ?—A. My work now, sir ? 

Q. Yes; what are you working at now ?—A. I work under the gov¬ 
ernment. I am inspector of weights and measures in the third district. 

Q. Under the State or city government?—A. Under the State gov¬ 
ernment. 

Q. Who employed you in that capacity?—A. I got my commission 
from the governor, sir. 

Q. From Governor Nicholls?—A. Yes, sir; from Governor Nicholls. 
The same one which is the governor now. 

Q. I asked you if you got it from Governor Nicholls.—A. I answered 
jou, sir, that 1 did. 

Q. When did you get it ?—A. Well, sir, I believe, if I remember the 
date correctly, I got the commission on the 12th April, 1877. 

Q. Have you been in that office all the time since that?—A. Y^es, sir; 
I have been there since that time until to day. ' 

Q. Then you mean to say you have had the same office all the time? 
—A. Yes, sir; I ain’t had no other. 

Q. How many other colored Democrats in that ward have got offices 
under the present State government?—A. I don’t know, sir. You will 
have to ask them about that. 1 did not keep any account of anybody 
but myself. ' ’ 

Q. Well, now, will you wait until I get through? I want you to tell 
me how many colored Democrats in that ward have got offices under 
either the State or city government.—A. AVell, sir, 1 told you I don’t 
know. 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 593 

Q. Do you know of any others besides yourself?—A. Yes, sir; I know 
of some colored policemen, and that is all. 

Q. How many of these colored policemen do you know ?—A. I don’t 
know how many, exactly. 

Q. Give the number, as near as you can.—A. Well, sir, there is Louis 
Boyer, in my district—Allison. That is the only two colored police, I 
believe, in my district, and there is some in the district that I don’t 
know. 

Q. Did those men who were on the police force in your district vote 
the Democratic ticket in 1876'?—A. 1 don’t know that, sir; I did not 
see them when they voted. 

Q. Do you know that they were Democrats in 1876 ?—A. Well, sir, 
Allison was on the police at the time and he staid there. He was at 
the State-house under Packard, and then he went on the police under 
Nicholls. 

Senator Cameron. I believe that is all. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Walker, have you any other witness present ? 

Mr. Walker. T believe not just at this moment, Mr. Chairman, and I 
think, probably, we would save time by taking a short recess, as I would 
like to introduce some other witnesses in a particular order. 

Upon consultation, the committee resolved to take a recess for one 
hour, namely, to 1.30 o’clock p. m. 


The committee resumed its session ])ursuant to adjournment, all the 
members i)resent; also Mr. Walker, counsel tor the memorialist, Henry 
M. Spotford; and the sitting member, Senator William Pitt Kellogg. 
Senator Hill. Mr. Walker, what witness have you ready for us now ? 
Mr. Walker. 1 would like to call Mr. Bloomfield, from the custom¬ 
house. 


TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN BLOOMFIELD. 

Benjamin Bloomfield, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By-Senator Hill: 

Question. Mr. Bloomfield, do you live in New Orleans ?—Answer. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your business now ?—A. I am auditor, sir, at the custom- 
house. 

Q. Have you the records of the custom-house in your charge?—A. 
Not all of them, sir. 1 have certain records belonging to the custom- 
house that are regularly in my charge, the pay-list, &c. 

Q. You have the whole pay-list of the custom-house in your i)ossession, 
have 3 ’ou not?—A. Of the custom-house proper, I have; that is, the 
pay-list of the department of customs. 

Q. Mr. Bloomfield, is it in your powet to produce the list of the persons 
who were on the pa^’-rolls of the custom-house, who have been paid tor 
work on account of the government trom the 1st June last to the 1st 
November last?—A. Yes, sir; with the consent ot the collector of the 

port, 1 could do so. , - ^ 

Q. What right has he to give his consent or not tor the production ot 
those lists ?—A. He is the chief of the office. He has charge of all those 

38 s K 




594 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


matters; but I tbink, sir, there will be no difficulty about it 5 I think he 
will give it readily. 

Q. Mr. Bloomfield, you have the subpoena of this committee to bring 
them here with you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then, sir, you will please bring them.—A. I w-ill, sir, by his con¬ 
sent, see that they are produced. 

Q. How long will it take you to make out that list?—A. Well, sir, it 
will take some time. I think, probably, it would be better to produce 
the duplicates, and let them be in the custody of your sergeant-at-arms, 
so that they can be returned in proper shape, as they are the only evi¬ 
dences of the disbursement in the custom-house, and the collector’s 
bondsmen are responsible for their proper care and presence. 

Q. O, we will be satisfied, Mr. Bloomfield, if you will produce the 
duplicates.—A. I will do so, sir, provided you see that they are not lost. 

Q. O, that is all right. We will take care of them and you will be 
relieved of all responsibility for them after you deliver them to the com¬ 
mittee. You can produce them to-morrow morning between 10 and 4 
in the afternoon.—A. Yes, sir; say any time after 11 o’clock. 

Q. Well, say then at 12 o’clock.—A. Yes, sir; I will have them here. 

Q. Just have them here and we will take the responsility for their 
safe keeping.—A. Very well, sir; I will have them here and have a 
receipt written for them, and your sergeant-at-arms General Wilcox’s 
signature will protect them. 

Senator Hill. Who else will we have, Mr. Walker ? 

Mr. Walker. Mr. Stephen Le Gardeur. 


TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN LE GARDEUB. 

Stephen Le Gardeur, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Mr. Le Gardeur, do you live in this city Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you live in this city in 1876?—A. Yes, sir; I have been living 
here all the time. 

Q. Were you ever acquainted with Mr. P. G. DesLonde, who, I be¬ 
lieve, was a clerk in or secretary of state in 1876?—A. Yes, sir; 1 
knew him. 

Q. He was secretary of state under Kellogg as governor?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Were you acquainted with him personally ?—A. Yes, sir; I knew 
him personally. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him or hear him make 
any statement about the character of the body that elected Governor 
Kellogg to the United States Senate? I mean with reference to whether 
there was a quorum present at the time of that election. 

Senatir Cameron. I object, Mr. Chairman, to the testimony. 

Senator Hill. It is the same objection, I presume, that you made 
during the examination of Mr. Garric? 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir; precisely. 

Senator Hill. Then it is overruled. 

Senator Cameron. I supposed it would be, but I wanted it noted. 

Senator Hill. Go on, Mr. Le Gardeur, and answer the question. 

A. All that I have heard, 1 presume, was related by Mr. Garric. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 595 

Q. Have you read what he was reported to have sworn ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I read it this inornjiig. 

Q. And you heard those same things said by Mr. Des Londe ?—A. Yes, 
sir, except about the bonds; tliat I (lid not hear. 

Q. liepeat what Des Londe did state in your hearing.—A. He said he 
was i)resent at the time that Senator Kellogg was elected, or said to 
have been elected, and that he could state and prove that Kellogg was 
not elected a Senator; that there was no quorum present when he was 
elected ; and that it* he was going to testify in this case at all, he could 
certainly testify against Kellogg, and prove that he was not elected. 

Q. That is, if he testified at all ?—A. That is, if he would testify. 

Q. Did he give any reason why he would not testify?—A. I do not 
remember, sir, that he did. 

Q. Do you remember anything else that Mr. Des Londe said during' 
those conversations which you heard?—A. No, sir; nothing else im¬ 
portant that I can remember. 

Q. Did you hear him state that more than once?—A. Yes, sir: I think 
possibly twice. 

Q. You think he stated it twice at least in your hearing?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. About what time was that, Mr. LeGardeur, when Mr. Des Londe 
made those statements?—A. My dear sir, I do not remember exactly. 

Q. Do you remember whether the time w’as about as given in Mr. 
Garric’s testimony ?—A. Yes, .sir; I think probably it was. Mr. Garric 
took a piece of paper and took the date, and all about it, and put it in 
a drawer in my office, and this morning I found the same piece of paper 
in the drawer which he took with him. 

Senator Hill. Senator Cameron, the witness is with 3 011 . 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What is your business, Mr. LeGardeur ?—A. I am a custom hou'e 
broker, sir. 

Q. What business connection, if any, has Mr. Garric, the gentleman who 
testified here on yesterday", with you?—A. lie has no business connection 
at all, sir. He is a friend of mine, and comes into my office very fre- 
<iuently. 

Q. Speak a little louder, sir, if you please.—A. I say every day he 
comes into m 3 " office. Mr. Garric is a friend, and used to come tliere, to 
my office, every day. 

Q. To which political party do you belong, Mr. Le Gardeur, if any ?— 
A. None, sir. 

Q. Are 3 "ou a citizen of the United States?—A. Yes, sir; I am a citi¬ 
zen of the State of Louisiana and of the United States. 

Q. Do 3 "Ou ever vote in an 3 " of the elections that are held here ?—A. 
Yes, sir; 1 always vote. 

Q. Which ticket do you usually vote ?—A. Well, sir; I always make 
iny own ticket. 1 select 1113 " own men, and if I am satisfied to vote for 
them, I do so. 

Q. For the candidates of which party have you usually voted since 
reconstruction ?—A. Well, sir, I hav"e scratched a great man 3 ' names ou 
one ticket, and selected some others from the other ticket to fill their 
places. 

Q. Are you recognized as a Itepublican in this city ?—A. A Republi¬ 
can, sir? 

Yes, sir. I ask you are you recognized or regarded as a Republi¬ 
can by those who know you in this city?—A. Do 3 "ou mean me or Mr. 
Garric ? 


596 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


A. No, sir. I mean are you generally recognized as a Re{)ublican in 
this city by the people who know you best?—A. No, sir; I do not think 
I am, but i don’t know that I can say whether I arn or not. 

Q. Have you ever considered yourself a Republican ?—A. Not more 
than I have considered myself as a Democrat. 

Q. I did not ask you that, Mr. LeGardeur. I asked you w hether you 
have ever considered yourself a Rei)ublican ?—A. No, sir; but 1 want 
to answTr j^ou truly, and I say I am as much a Republican as I am a 
Democrat. 

Q. How long have you known Mr. Di^s Londe ?—A. AVell, sir, only 
since he has been w^orking at the post-office. ► 

Q. How long has that been ?—A. Sev^en or eight months, I think, or 
about that time. 

Q. Now state, as nearly as you can, when you heard Mr. Des Londe 
make this statement first which you say he did make.—A. AVell, sir, I 
could not positively tell you. Exactly w'hen he first made it, 1 could not 
say, but may be two or three mouths ago, or may be not so long. 1 do 
not know exactly, because I did not take uoti(ie of it at all. 

Q. You say you did not take any notice of the statements he was 
making?—A. No, sir; I did not. 1 had no reason to do so. 

Q. How did he happen to make that statement, JMr. Le Gardeur; 
how did he get into the conversation with you and Mr. Garric?—A. 1 
cannot say, sir. Like every other conversation we had, it was brought 
about just as any other man would have brought up the couv^ersation. 
I do not know that there was any particular reason for it. 

Q. What was the first statement that he made in regard to the mat¬ 
ter that you remember ?—A- The one 1 have stated, sir. 

Q. Then, without any preliminary conversation at all, you say he went 
on and made that statement to you and Mr. Garric?—A. Yes, sir; he 
asked me nothing at all, for I knew nothing about it, and it comes from 
him. 1 suppose he made the statement from his good will, and just 
naturally as any other man. 

Q. Then you think it comes from his good will just naturally ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. AA^ell, now, when did it come from his good will just naturally?— 
A. I cannot tell, sir. 

Q. What month was it?—A. That I can’t remember, sir. * 

Q. What other conversation did you have with Mr. Des Londe about 
that time?—A. I do not know that there was anything else that passed. 

Q. Speak a little louder.—A. Well, sir, I don’t know of any other 
very particular conversation that w^e had. There w'ere a great many 
other conversations about little matters, foolishness, speaking of things 
at that time going on, not connected with this matter. That is all. 

Q. Can you remember anything else that he said at that time ?—A. 
No, sir; it w^as just like any other conversation that he had there, and 
that I did not take notice of. 

Q. And you say that he told all this just as you tell it here?—A. Ex¬ 
actly not, sir; but it was like what Mr. GarricVelated, and I remember 
it because it was so. 

Q. A^ou remember it because Mr. Garric said it was so ?—A. No, sir; 
I remember it because it is true that he said it substantially as Mr. Gar¬ 
ric told it and as I repeat it. 

Q. Then will you please state it again ?—A. AA^ell, sir, it was substan¬ 
tially that Mr. Des Londe said Mr. Kellogg was not elected United 
States Senator; that there w'as no quorum present at the time of the 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


597 


election ; and that if be was to be called on to testify be would certainly 
prove that be was not elected Senator. 

Q. What did you say to that?—A. Xotbinfi: at all, sir. 

Q. What did you say to cilf it out?—A. Nothing at all, sir. 

(,>. M bat was said about Kellogg or bis election as United States 
Senator before Des Londe volunteered to make that statement ?—A. I 
do not know, sir, that anything was said which ought to have induced 
the statement. 

Q. And w^as nothing whatever said to put his mind on that sub¬ 
ject ?—A. 1 cannot say that there wUvS, sir. 

Q. Well, you remember nothing that was said to do that ?—A. I do 
not remember anything that was said that ought to have calletl forth 
the statement. 

Q. What was said by you or Garric after he made that statement ?— 
A. I do not know, sir, what Garric said. I know I kept on at my 
business. 

(>>. I did not ask you that, sir; I asked you what was said, if anything 
was said, that you remember ?—A. I do not; No, sir. 

Q. You cannot remember every word?—A, No, sir. 

Q. And not one word that was said?—A. No, sir. 

Q. AV^hen were you snbpcenaed, Mr. Le Gardeur, as a witness in this 
case before this committee?—A. To-day, sir. 

Q. When did you talk with Mr. Garric last about this conversation f 
—A. This morning, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you what he had sworn ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you read it in thejnewspapers ?—A. No, sir; not particularly ; 
I glanced over it. 

(,>. How do you know what he testified on yesterday ? Y^ou spoke a 
while ago of what he testified. Now how do you know that he testified 
that?—A. Well, sir; as I tell you, I glanced over his testimony, and 
parties told me what he swore. 

Q. Who were these, parties ?—A. They were parties in the house here, 
sir. 

Q. What did ^mu mean when you replied to Senator Hill that you 
could confirm what Mr. Gnrric had testified on yesterday ?—A. Because, 
sir, the paper that I found this morning and that he had showed me was 
exactly what 1 was told he had related here. 

Q. it was confirmatory, then, of what he told you at the time, and 
what you remembered and what the parties told you he related here?— 
A. Y^'es, sir; because I was told by the parties what Mr. Garric had said ; 
and I said, if he said so, it was correct. 

Q. What did Mr. Garric say to you about his testimony ?—A. Noth¬ 
ing, sir ; nothing in the world. 

Q. Did he tell you he had testified before the committee?—A. Yes, 
sir, he did; and i told him 1 did not want anything to do with that 
affair. 

Q. Well, now, Air. Le Gardeur, did you see this morning what he 
testified on yesterday ?—A. No, sir ; 1 did not; after I found the piece 
paper this morning he stated what he testified about what Mr. Des 
Londe said. 1 had glanced over the paper containing what purported 
to be his testimony, and when the paper w’as found it confirmed him and 
my own recoliection, but as to reading and knowing all that he testified, 
I did not. 

Q. You read that this morning, then?—A. Y"es, sir; and I am satis¬ 
fied that it is correct, and that Air. Des Londe said so. 


598 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. What satisfied you of that fact ?—A. Because, sir, I remembered 
what he did say. 

Q. Did you remember it before you saw that paper or evidence —A. 
I never thought ot it at all. 

Q. Would you have remembered it before that if it had been recalled 
to you?—A. Certainly I would. 

Q. What do you mean now by saying that you remembered it because 
the paper confirmed it?—A. Because I remember it now. 

Q. Why did not you remember it before?—A. Because, sir, I had no 
reason to remember it. 

Q. To whom have you talked with in regard to this matter besides 
Mr. Garric ?—A. Nobody in particular; 1 have spoken to parties about 
it in the custom house probably. 

Q. Give the names of any persons that you have spoken with besides 
Mr. Garric.—A. Well, sir, there were some parties, Mr. Preaux, for in¬ 
stance. 

Q. Did Mr. Preaux tell you he had reaa the testimony of Mr. Garric 
in the newspaper?—A. Yes, sir ; 1 think he did. 

Q. Are you sure that he told you ?—A. Well, sir, somebody did, but 
I cannot say positively whether it was him or not. 

Q. Well, then, somebody did; who was it?—A. Ido not remember. 

Q. Give the name of the person.—A. I do not remember who told 
me; 1 would tell you as well as I told you the balance if I remembered it. 

Q. When did Mr. Des Londe cease to be secretary of state ?—A. I 
do not remember that, sir. 

Q. When did he commence to be secretary of state ?—A. Nor do I 
remember that, sir. 

Q. Well, then, during what years was he secretary of state ?—A. I do 
not know, sir. 

Q. You stated in reply to Senator Hill that he was secretary during 
Kellogg’s administration ?—A. I did, sir; but I do not remember when 
Kellogg was governor of the State. 

Q. You do not remember during what years Kellogg was governor of 
the State ?—A. No, sir; most assuredly I do not. 

Q. Do not you know as a matter of fact that Mr. Des Londe was not 
secretary of state when Governor Kellogg was elected to the Senate?— 
A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Then you do not know anything about it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do not you know that he was not in the city when Kellogg was 
elected ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not know anything about that?—A. No, sir; it was not a 
part of my business and I had.no occasion to imjuire into it. 

Q. Tlnm you do not know what year it was when Governor Kellogg 
was claimed to have been elected Senator ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not know when the legislature met that was said to have 
elected him ?—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Do you know what year he was elected gov^ernor in ?—A No, sir. 

Q. Do you know what year Warmouth was elected governor of Louis¬ 
iana ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know how many years Kellogg acted as governor ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Do you know when Senator Jonas was elected Senator ?—A. No, 
sir; I do not; as I told you, those were matters in which I took no inter¬ 
est, and 1 had no occasion to remember them. 

Senator Cameron. That is all. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


599 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. You mean to say, Mr. Le Garcleur, that you paid no attention to 
politicians or politics A. No, sir. 

Q. You staid at borne and paid no attention to what was going on in 
the government?—A. No, sir; I paid no attention to those matters. I 
do not know who is or who will be in Xiolitical alfairf^. 

Q. What newspapers do you read, Mr. Le Gardeur ?—A. I do not care. 
Senator, about reading newspapers; they bother me. 

Q. I thought perhaps you read the Bee?—A. I do for business, sir, 
but not for politics at all. 

Senator Hill. That will do; I wish there were more peojde like you. 


TESTIMONY OF ALBERT W. FLANAGAN. 

Albert W. Flanagan, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator JIill : 

Question. Mr. Flanagan, please g4ve your name and residence to the 
stenographer.—Answer. My name is Albert W. Flanagan, and I live on 
Milam street, near Constance. 

Q. You live in New Orleans, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron.) What did the witness say his first nam e 
was ? * 

The Witness. Albert W. Flanagan, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Hill). Did you reside in this city in 1876?—A. I 
have lived here all my life, sir. 

Q. All your life?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Flanagan ?—A. I am doing nothing 
now, sir; but 1 am a clerk by occux^ation, and have been employed in 
the district courts. 

Q. You have been employed in the district courts ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Aristide De Joie ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Was he a member of the legislature in 1876, or claimed to be?—A. 
Yes, sir; I think he claimed to be a member from the thirteenth ward. 

Q. Do you know anything about for whom he voted for United 
States Senator in the Packard legislature? Was that the legislature 
to which he belonged ?—A. Yes, sir ; the Packard legislature. 

Q. Do you know from your own knowledge, or have you heard him 
say, for whom he voted for Senator?—A. I was working in Judge Dib¬ 
ble’s office, and he was in and out there pretty often—him and some 
other members of the legislature—they came in there pretty otten. 

Q. State if you saw, or if you heard him say that he received money 
for voting for Kellogg; and, if so, how much he received.—A. Well, sir, 
it’s been a good while ago. 

Q. Just state the facts, Mr. Flanagan, to the best of your recollection. 
All we want is your best recollection, and that you should state the 
real truth of it.—A. Well, sir, I disremember the circumstances of the 
thing; it has been so long ago. 

Q. Did you see him receive any money ?—A. I saw some money pass 
between their hands in there. 

Q. Do you know how much it was?—A. I don’t remember. 

Q. Was it as much as two hundred and fifty or three hundred dollars? 
—A. Somewhere thereabouts, sir. 



600 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you hear either party who was iu there that day say how 
much it was ?—A. I believe two of them that were in there got the 
money, and it was divided amongst them. 

Q. How is that, sir 1 —A. I say I believe two of them in there got the 
money and divided it amongst them. 

Q. Who was the other party ?—A. I cannot remember the name just 
now. 

Q. Ton saw the money pass between their hands ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who paid the money to them ?—A. I believe it was a man named 
Harris. 

Q. Who did he pay it to ?—A. De Joie received it, I believe. 

Q. Was anything said at the time as to what he received it for ? Tell 
it out, Mr. Flanagan; you are not responsible for it.—A. The conversa¬ 
tion was about the voting for Governor Kellogg for United States Sen¬ 
ator; that was about what the conversation was. 

Q. And that was what the money was paid for ?—A. Well, sir, that 
was what the conversation was about. 

Q. It was mentioned during the conversation ? 

Senator Cameron. Let the witness state what occurred. 

Senator Hill. Of course. 

Senator Cameron. Well, of course, but the witness is not stating 
that. 

Senator Hill (to the witness). Go on, Mr. Flanagan, and state all that 
occurred there, what was said or done, and as much of the conversation 
as you can remember.—A. The conversation was about voting for Kel¬ 
logg for United States Senator, and it was going on while the money was 
liaid. 

Q. Was anything said by either one of the parties as to the money 
being too little or too much?—A. I do not remember; I was busy at 
work, making a copy of the tax collector’s reports, that I was employed 
by Judge Dibble to do. 

Q. Was the money divided there in the office?—A. Yes, sir; right 
there. 

Q. Do you know which one of them got the most ?—A. No, sir; I do 
not know which got the most. 

Q. Between whom was the money divided ?—A. Between De Joie and 
the other party that was with him. 

Q. Was T. B. Stamps present at the time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What position did he hold at that time?—A. State senator. 

Q. He was State senator in the Packard legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was the party who divided the money, was he ?—A. No, sir ; 
it was De Joie who had the money. 

Q. He and De Joie got the money ? 

Senator Cameron. The witness has not said that, and I object to your 
putting testimony into his mouth. 

Senator Hill. He said that both of them got it, that they were both 
in there, and I have put nothing in his mouth. 

Senator Cameron. Well, I object to this method of examining the wit¬ 
ness. 

The Witness. I say he was present when the money was divided. 

Senator Cameron (to Senator Hill). You asked him, or rather I sup¬ 
posed you intended to ask him, if Stamps got the money. 

Senator Hill. Just so ; he said there were two, aud I wanted to know 
who they were. He said they were Stamps and De Joie, and I wanted 
to know from him if Stamps was the other man with whom the money 
was divided. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 601 

Senator Cameron. I suppose that’s what you wanted, and it is an¬ 
swered now. 

By Senator ITill : 

Q. Now, Mr. Flanagan, tell us the names of the two members of the 
legislature wlio were there.—A. Well, sir, there were a great many per¬ 
sons in the oflice that day. 

Q. I mean members of the Packard legislature.—A. I know Stamps 
and Do Joie were there ; then there were a number of other parties, 

Q. Are they or not the parties you alluded to when you spoke of the 
division of the money 1 —A. De Joie and Stamps were together when 
the money was divided. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. With whom were they there ?—A. With the other gentlemen I 
spoke of. 

Q. W'ho else besides De Joie got some of the money ?—A. I think 
Stamps got some of it. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Well, what time of the day was it ?—A. It was between 11 and 1 
o’clock. 

Q. In the day time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, who is Mr. Harris, whom you spoke of ?—A. He was the tax 
collector of the 2ud district, 1 believe. 

Cross-examined by Senator Cameron : 

Q. What is your present occupation, Mr. Flanagan?—A. I am out of 
employment at present. I was deputy clerk of the 2nd district court 
until the 27th of last mouth. 

Q. How long had you occupied that position ?—A. I occupied it about 
eighteen months. I was employed about there before that time. I had 
been there since a little boy, ten or twelve years old. I might say I 
have been raised there almost. 

Q. What was your occupation at the time Kellogg was elected Sena¬ 
tor?—A. I was assistant clerk in Judge Dibble's office, and he was as¬ 
sistant attorney-general at the time. 

Q. AVhen did you commence your occupation in his office?—A. I will 
have to reckon it; I was working in the superior district courr, and I 
was discharged there ; and I went to work for Judge Dibble, I think, in 
1873. 

* Q. The latter part of 1873?—A. Well, maybe it was in June, 1873. 

Q. Where was Judge Dibble’s office situated at that time?—A. At 
the corner of Common and Carondelet street, number 170 Common. 

Q. Who were the members of the legislature, did you say, who were 
present on the day of Kellogg’s election, besides Stamps and De Joie? 
—A. I don’t know, sir, whether that was the day he was elected or not; 
1 didn’t say that. 

Q. Well, I am speaking of that day.—A. Well, sir, if that was the 
day, there were some others there whose faces were familiar to me, as 
they came in and out of the office pretty often. 

Q. Can you give the names of any other members of the legislature 
who were i)resent in Judge Dibble’s office that day?—A. No, sir; I 
cannot remember their names, for it has been so long ago, and 1 never 
gave any further thought to it, not expecting to be called on to say any¬ 
thing about it hereafter. 

Q. When has your attention been called to this matter ?—A. The first 
I heard about it they were hunting me up for a witness. 


602 


SPOFFORD VS. kp:llogg. 


Q. When was that?—A. I believe it was last month. 

Q. Did they find you ?—A. They found me to day. 

Q Did you make any statement in writing, in regard to this matter 
—A. Yes, sir; I did, some titne ago. 

Q. ‘‘Some time ago’’ is rather indefinite; when did you make that 
statement, as near as you can remember?—A. Well, sir, as near as I 
think now, it was last year some time. 

Q. What did you mean when you said that your attention was first 
called to it when they were hunting you for a witness ?—A. Well, sir, 
that’s what I call my attention being directed to this matter. 

Q. What time did you make that statement in writing?—A. That 
was last year, some time, sir. 

Q. Fix the time when you made it, as near as you can.— A. I do not 
remember any better than that. 

Q. AVas it in the summer?—A. Yes, sir; sometime during the sum¬ 
mer. 

Q. Some time during the summer, you think?—A. Y'es, sir; I think 
so. 

Q. AVhere did you make that statement?—A. In the clerk’s office of 
the third district court. 

Q. AYho were present when you made it?—A. Mr. Sullivan. 

Q. Who is Mr. Sullivan ?—A. He is deputy clerk of the third district 
court. 

Q. Who wrote that statement ?—A. Mr. Sullivan. 

Q. And 3 ’ou signed it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(*>. Did you read it after you signed it?—A. I read it before I signed 
it; I never sign anything without reading it. 

Q. Did you have it in your possession after it was written ?—A. Y^es, 
sir. 

Q. Did you swear to it ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Before whom?—A. Mr. Sullivan. 

Q. When did you last see that written statement ?—A. I have never 
seen it since. 

Q. I didn’t ask you that; I asked you when you last saw it.—A. I 
last saw it on the day when it was written out. 

(j). Who took possession of it after it was written out and sworn to? 
—A. It was put into an envelope, I think, and sealed up and mailed. 

Q. It was mailed, was it?—A. Y^es, sir; I think it was. 

Q. By whom was it taken and mailed?—A. Mr., Sullivan told me that 
he had mailed it to Senator Jonas. 

Q. Where was Senator Jonas at that time ?—A. He was in Washing¬ 
ton City, I think. 

Q. Do you remember when he went to Washington City?—A. No, sir; 
I don’t. 

Q. Do you remember when he was elected Senator ?—A. I think he 
was elected Senator in 1878. 

Q. That was the last election for Senator, do you mean ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And you think he was elected Senator in 187-^?—A. Y"es, sir; I 
think he was elected by the legislature of 1878, I mean. 

Q. What time was he elected in 1878, if you remember?—A. I don’t 
know, sir; but it was while the legislature was in session. 

Q. The legislature has been in session a good many times, hasn’t it?— 
A. Y^es, sir ; but not in 1878. , 

Q. Whom did you first inform, at or about the time that you made 
the affidavit of which you have spoken, in regard to the facts which 
were then put into that affidavit ?—A. Well, sir; the way in which the 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


G03 


whole conversation about that matter and theatlidavit came about was 
Ibis: Mr. Sullivan said to me, “Albert, you were workin" with Jud^e 
Dibble a lonj^ while, and you know somethinj>’ about what occurred 
amon" the iieojile in the Republican jiarty.” 1 said, “ How do you 
know ?” and he said, “ I have heard of it,*’ and tlien lie asked me some 
i[uestions about it, and asked me to tell him the trutlt He said to me, 
“ Senator Jonas has been inquiring about you and has never been able 
to find you down here, and he wants you to make a statement of what 
you know about those Republican doing's.” 

Q. Yes; and did you make it that same day ?—A. Yo, sir: not that 
same day, but it was some time afterwards. 

Q. What i)Osition were you occupying, Mr. Rlanigan, at that time ?— 
A. I was employed then in the third district court. 

Q. How long had you been employetl there at that time?—A. Well, 
1 think about—1 was not employed regularly there at that time, but 1 
was doing job work there, making out State tax suits and State license 
suits; that is, suits for State taxes and State licenses, for ^Ir. Arm- 
bruster. 

Q. How long did you remain in that same emjdoyment, or in that 
ofiice, after the making of this affidavit?—A. I finished my job about 
three months ago, I think; I finished up the work for Mr. Armbruster, 
and I had made a contract for mo to make them out at so much a])iece. 
1 wanted him to employ me regularly, and he said he didn’t think it 
would pay; that there was not much business after that, and he had 
enough clerks; so we entered into an agreement to do them at so much 
apiece, and 1 was to make out the docket and index it. 

Q. And you were employed at that work, you say, until about three 
months ago, you think ?—A. Yes, sir; but since then I have been doing 
some job work for him; making out subpienas, citations, and other 
work of that kind; but 1 have had no regular work there since. 

(k>. State the conversation that you heard between Harris and De Joie 
at the time you have sjioken. Begin, now, at the beginning of that 
conversation as you remember it, and go through with it as far as you 
can recollect it.—A. I cannot remember the conversation in that way. 
It has been so long since it took place, and I didn’t fix it in my mind. 

Q. Well, then, can you remember any part of it further than you have 
already attemi)ted to state it?—A. ^"^o, sir, I cannot; it has been so 
long ago that 1 cannot give any more than the general run of it. 

Q. Cannot you remember a single word of it ?—A. I don’t believe 1 
can. 

(^. You don’t think you can remember a single word of it that you 
can swear to as having been spoken by either of the ])arties whom you 
say were then i)resent?—A. Xo, sir; I don’t believe I can. 

Senator Hill. What was that? 

Senator Cameron. 1 asked him if he could remember the conversa¬ 
tion that took place between Harris and J)e Joie at the time the witness 
refers to, and he said that he could not, and then asked him if he cordd 
remember any i>art of it, and he said he could not, and finally asked 
him if he could remember a single word of it that he could swear to as 
having been said by any of the parties whom he says were present, and 
to that he answers that he does not think he can. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Who were present in tlie ofiice at the time you say you heard the 
Conversation between Harris and DeJoie?—A. Well, sir, some other 
members of the legislature were there at the time, I think. 


604 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


Q. Who were present, Mr. Flanag’an ; giv^e their names?—A. The con¬ 
versation was between Harris and De Joie. 

Q. That is not what I asked yon, sir.—xV. Well, I could not state who 
were there at the time. 

Q. Well, who were present in the office, besides these parties, at any 
time during the day ? Give the name of any one who was in the office 
during the day that you remember.—A. Judge Dibble was in the office 
during the day, and there was Mr. Taylor—his porter was in the office, 
and his name is William Kerr; and there was different persons in and 
out during the day. 

Q. Can you give the names of any others?—A. W^ell, I can’t say. Ko, 
I cannot give the names of the others. 

Q. Stop. Who were in there during the day ? W^as Judge Dibble 
present at tlje time tliat Stamps and De Joie were in there ?—A. I 
don’t think he was. I think he w^as downtown at the court building, 
or somewhere else on business. 

Q. Was Mr. Taylor, whom you mentioned a while ago, present at that 
time ?—A. I don’t think he w^as; because I was writing at his desk, and 
if he had been in I would not have been there. 

Q. Vou say Mr. Taylor’s porter was AVilliam Kerr?—A. No, sir; that 
is Judge Dibble’s porter. 

Q. W^ell, whose ever porter he was, was he there at that time ?—A. I 
can’t say, because he was one of those kind of fellows who was in and 
out all the time, and wlien you wanted him he wasn’t there. 

Q. W’^ell now, Mr. Flanagan, were there any others present there at 
the time except yourself, Stamps, and De Joie?—A. Well, sir, I cannot 
give the matter any consideration at the time, and I cannot say. I was 
writing at the desk, and fixing up those reports. 

Q. You understand my question, Mr. Flanuigan. You are an intel¬ 
ligent gentleman, and can give a straight answer if you want to. Were 
any persons present at the time to which you refer, except yourself, 
Stamps, and De Joie?—A. I do not think there was, sir. 

Q. Was that office—Judge Dibble’s office—a public office ?—A. Y'es, 
sir. 

Q. Was the door to that office locked at that time or open?—A. Well, 
the side door toward the street, that was shut, and the door to the back 
office was open. 

Q. Do you know whether it was locked at that time or not?—A. It 
was a catch-lock that was on that door ; one of them locks that springs 
and catches when you shut the.door. 

Q. Do you know whether the door was locked at that time by that 
catch-lock?—A. I cannot say that, sir. 

Q. You do not know whether it was or was not ?—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Was not Mr. Harris, of whom you spoke a w hile ago, present there, 
in the office there, at that time?—A. Let me see; I think he w^as in the 
front office. 

Q. But you said a while ago that you heard a conversation between 
Harris and these men?—A. Well, sir, the way of that was this: the 
three were in the front ofiice talking together, and then De Joie and 
Stamps came out by themselves. They were then in the second office. 
Judge Dibble had what we called three rooms; the front w^as set apart 
as a [)rivate office. The office next to it was the one that Mr. Taylor 
took charge of, and then there was a room back there where 1 had my 
table and had my tax papers, and was making up these reports. 

Q. In which of those rooms were these three gentlemen?—A. They 
were in the middle room. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. * 605 

Q. beie were you at the time?—A. I was in the middle room, at 
Taylor’s desk. 

Q. And now, then, you say Harris was there; where was he?—A. 
A\ hen they first came in, the three of them were in the middle room to¬ 
gether. 

Q. What conversation did you hear between them in^that room?—A. 
Well, as near as 1 can make out, they were talking about legislative 
business. 

(»>. Is that the conversation that you heard ?—A. I can’t remember it, 
sir, well enough to state it. 

Q. Can’t you remember any of it, Mr. Flanagan ?—A. No, sir, I do 
not think I can ; for 1 ])aid no particular attention to it. 

Q. Where did they go after they left the middle room ?—A. They 
went out the side door and down the Common street stairs. 

Q. Did you see them after they went out of the middle room?—A. 
No, sir; all that I saw was when I got up to shut the side door, and 
then they were going down the stairs. 

(}. Who went down together?—A. De Joie and Stamps were in the 
middle room, and, after Harris came, the three of them went out the 
side door through the Common-street entrance. 

Q. Where was Harris when De Joie and Stamps had the conversation 
to which you have referred ?—A. He was in the middle room. 

Q. Can’t you remember now what was said ?—A. No, sir ; it has been 
so long that I don’t think I can. 

Q. What is Harris’s first name 7—A. I believe his name is H. H. 

HarrivS. 

Q. Where does he reside ?—A. I can’t tell you, for I have not seen him 
in three years or more—not since he was tax collector. 

Q. You say all this took ])lace now in January, 1878 ?—A. No, sir; I 
don’t say that. I don’t think it took place in January, 1878. 

Q. Well, then, when did it take place 7—A. It took i)lace, I think, in 
187(). 

Q. What time in 1870 ?—A. It was a little before the overthrow of 
the government here. I mean about the time that the Kellogg govern¬ 
ment was overthrown. 

Q. Well, wliat time was it in 1870 ?—A. I think it was about the be¬ 
ginning of January, 1870. 

Q. You think it was about the beginning of January, 1870, do you !— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that is as near as you can fix the time?—A. Yes, sir; 1 be¬ 
lieve it is. 

Q. What office did Harris hold at that time ?—A. I don’t know, sir; 
I don’t think he held any ofiice at that time. 

Q. 1 understood you to say a while ago that he was tax collector at 
that time, in replj" to the (juestion of Senator Hill; di<l you so state ? 
—A. He was tax collector from the second district; 1 know that ; but 
I don’t know whether he was at that time or not. 

When was he tax collector of the second district ?—A. 1 cannot 
remember now when he was. I know that he was at one time. 

(2. Was Mr. Shubert at one time tax collector of that district f—A. 
Yes, sir ; I believe he was. 

Q. When was he appointed tax collector of the second district?—A. 
I do not know when he was appointed. I know he was tax collector, 
and that is about all. 

Q. Was that afterwards or before Harris’s time ?—xV. I think it was 
after Harris’s time. 


604 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


Q. Who were present, Mr. Flanagan ; give their names!—A. The con¬ 
versation was between Harris and De Joie. I 

Q. That is not what 1 asked j^on, sir.—A. Well, I could not state who j 
were there at the time. ! 

Q. Well, who were present in the office, besides these parties, at any j 
time during the day ! Give the name of any one who was in the office ^ 

during the day that you remember.—A. Judge Dibble was in the office 
during the day, and there was Mr. Taylor—his porter was in the office, j 

and his name is William Kerr; and tliere was different persons in and i 

out during the day. ^ | 

Q. Can you give the names of any others ?—A. W^ell, I can’t say. No, i 

I cannot give the names of the others. i* 

Q. Stop. Who were in there during the day ? W^as Judge Dibble 
present at the time tliat Stamps and De Joie were in there f—I 
don’t think he was. I think he was downtown at the court building, 
or somewhere else on business. i 

Q. Was Mr. Taylor, whom you mentioned a wdiile ago, present at that 
time !—A. I don’t think he w^as; because I was writing at his desk, and 
if he had been in I would not have been there. 

Q. Vou say Mr. Tailor’s porter w^asAVilliam Kerr!—A. No, sir; that 
is Judge Dibble’s porter. 

Q. W^ell, whose ever porter he was, was he there at that time ?—A. I 
can’t say, because he was one of those kind of fellows who was in and 
out all the time, and when you wanted him he wasn’t there. 

Q. W’^ell now, Mr. PJanagan, were there any others present there at I 

the time except yourself. Stamps, and De Joie!—A. Well, sir, I cannot . 
give the matter any consideration at the time, and I cannot say. I was . i 
writing at the desk, and fixing up those reports. 

Q. You understand my question, Mr. Flanuigan. You are an intel¬ 
ligent gentleman, and can give a straight answer if you want to. W^ere 
any persons present at the time to which you refer, except yourself, 

Stamps, and De Joie!—A. I do not think there was, sir. 

Q. Was that office—Judge Dibble’s office—a public office!—A. Y^es, 
sir. 

Q. Was the door to that office locked at that time or open!—A. Well, 
the side door toward the street, that was shut, and the door to the back 
office was open. 

Q. Do you know whether it was locked at that time or not!—A. It 
was a catch-lock that was on that door ; one of them locks that springs 
and catches when you shut tlie.door. 

Q. Do you know whether the door was locked at that time by that 
catch-lock!—A. I cannot say that, sir. 

Q. You do not know whether it was or was not!—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Was not Mr. Harris, of whom you spoke a while ago, present there, 
in the office there, at that time!—A. Let me see; I think he was in the 
front office. 

Q. But you said a while ago that you heard a conversation between 
Harris and these men !—A. Well, sir, the way of that was this: the 
three were in the front office talking together, and then De Joie and 
Stamps came out by themselves. They were then in the second office. 

Judge Dibble had what we called three rooms; the front was set apart 
as a private office. The office next to it was the one that Mr. Taylor 
took charge of, and then there w as a room back there where 1 had my 
table and had my tax papers, and w^as making up these reports. 

Q. In which of those rooms were these three gentlemen!—A. They 
were in the middle room. 


J 










SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. ♦ 605 

Q. Whore were you at the time?—A. I was in the middle room, at 
Taylor’s desk. 

Q. And now, then, you say Harris was there; where was he?—A. 
W hen they first came in, the three of them were in the middle room to¬ 
gether. 

i}. What conversation did you hear between them in that room?—A. 
Well, as near as I can make out, they were talking about legislative 
business. 

(^>. Is that the conversation that you heard ?—A. I can’t remember it, 
sir, well enough to state it. 

Q. Can’t you remember any of it, Mr. Flanagan ?—A. No, sir, I do 
not think I can ; for I ])aid no particular attention to it. 

Q. Where did they go after they left the middle room ?—A. They 
went out the side door and down the Common-street stairs. 

(,). Did you see them after they went out of the middle room?—A. 
No, sir; all that I saw was when I got up to shut the si(h^ door, and 
then they were going down the stairs. 

Q. Who went down together?—A. De Joie and Stamps were in the 
middle room, and, after Harris came, the three of them went out the 
side door through the Common-street entrance. 

Q. Where was Harris when De Joie and Stamps had the conversation 
to which you hav^e referred ?—A. He was in the middle room. 

Q. Can’t you remember now what was said ?—A. No, sir ; it has been 
so long that I don’t think 1 can. 

Q. What is Harris’s first name ?—A. I believe his name is H. H. 

HarrivS. 

Q. Where does he reside ?—A. I can’t tell you, for I have not seen him 
in three years or more—not since he was tax collector. 

Q. You say all this took i)lace now in January, 1878?—A. No, sir ; I 
don’t say that. I don’t think it took place in January, 1878. 

Q. Well, then, when did it take place ?—A. It took place, 1 think, in 
187(>. 

Q. What time in 1870 ?—A. It was a little before the overthrow of 
the government here. I mean about the time that the Kellogg govern¬ 
ment was overthrown. 

Q. Well, what time was it in 1870 ?—A. I think it was about the be¬ 
ginning of January, 1870. 

Q. You think it was about the beginning of Jatuiary, 1870, do you ?— 
A. Yes, sir. • 

Q. And that is as near as you can fix the time?—A. Yes, sir; I be¬ 
lieve it is. 

Q. What office did Harris hold at that time ?—A. I don’t know, sir; 
I don’t think he held any office at that time. 

Q. 1 understood you to say a while ago that he was tax collector at 
that time, in repl}" to tlie question of Senator Hill; did you so state ? 
—A. He was tax collector from tlie second district; 1 know that ; but 
I don’t know whether he was at that time or not. 

(}. Wlien was he tax collector of the second district ?—A. 1 cannot 
remember now when lie was. I know that he was at one time. 

(^. Was Mr. Shubert at one time tax collector of that district?—A. 
Yes, sir ; 1 believe he was. 

Q. When was he appointed tax collector of the second district?—A. 
I do not know when he was appointed. I know he was tax collector, 
and that is about all. 

Q. Was that afterwards or before Harris’s time?—I think it was 
after Harris’s time. 


606 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Well, do you kuow now where Harris was living at that time?— 
A. 1 don’t know, sir, where be was living at that time nor at any other 
time. I never did know where he lived. 

Q. Did you understand him to be a resident of this city ?—A. I know 
he was in isew Orleans nearly all the time. Sometimes he was away, 
but nearly always he was here. 

Q. Where were these 'gentlemen when you saw the money passed 
from Harris’s hands to De Joie ?—A. They were in the middle of the 
room. 

Q. What was said at the time ?—A. I cannot remember the conver¬ 
sation they had. I never paid any attention to it. I had my reports to 
get ready by the time Judge Dibble or Mr. Taylor came back, and I was 
hard at work on them. 

Q. Then you did not pay much attention to what they were saying ? 
A. No, sir. I might have heard what they said, but I did not give it a 
thought. 

Q. You do not now remember what you did hear?—A. No, sir. I 
might have heard a good deal, but if I did I do not remember it. 

Q. Y^ou might have heard it; lam aware of that; I want to know if 
you did hear it ?—A. I can’t remember, sir, whether I did or not. 

Q. Do you remember what they were talking about?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Can’t you remember a single word that any one of the three said 
while in Judge Dibble’s office upon that occasion ?—A. No, sir ; I can’t 
remember it. 

Q. Well, now, how much money passed from Harris’s hands to De 
Joie’s?— A. I can’t remember how much ; I was so busy at the time. 

Q. Do you kuow whether it was one hundred or five hundred dollars, 
or anything about the amount ?—A. I seen him with a handful of money. 
That is all I kuow about it. 

Q. Y^ou will observe, Mr. Flanagan, that that is not answering my 
question. Can you state the amount?—A. No, sir 5 I cannot slate it 
positively. 

Q. What was said when Harris handed the money to De Joie. Can 
you remember that?—A. I think he said, “ Won’t that be all right?” I 
think that is the remark. 

Q. Do you swear that that is what he said ?—A. No, sir ; I could not 
swear to anything that | am not positive about. 

Q. Then you do not remember what he did say ?—A. No, sir; I can¬ 
not remember it positively. 

Q. Well, what did Stamps say while he was there ? Can you remem¬ 
ber anything that Stamps said?—A. No, sir; I can’t remember what 
Stamps said. 

Q. Can you remember anything that Harris said on that occasion ?— 
A. No, sir ; I cannot. 

Q. Well, can you remember anything that De Joie said ? Now, he is 
the last man ; what did he say ?—A. I think De Joie said, “ Come on ; 
let’s go.” 

Q. What parish or district did De Joie represent in the Packard leg¬ 
islature?—A. He came from the 13th ward. 

Q. Do you know where he now is ?—A. I do not know, but I have 
heard that he was a gauger; an internal revenue gauger in the custom¬ 
house. 

Q. The custom-house in this city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does Stamps live ?—A. He lives up in Carrollton, or rather, 
I believe, he did live there. 

Q. What is Stamps engaged in now, do you know?—A. I know we 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 607 

had a suit against him in the court for a cotton-factory license ; but I do 
not know whether he is engaged in that business or not. 

By Senator IIill : 

Q. You say, Mr. Flanagan, that you think all this occurred in 1876. 
Will you refresh your recollection. Was it after or before the election 
was held in 1876—the general Presidential election, you remember^ was 
held in 3876—now can you tell whether this occurred after that election 
was held or not ? 

Senator Cameron. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is an improper 
mode of examining this witness. 

Senator Hill. I think it is perfectly proper. 

Senator Cameron. Well, I object to it. 

Senator Hill. Well, I overruie it. 

Senator Cameron. You have no right, in my opinion, to ask any such 
question. 

Senator Vance. I think myself it is a leading question. 

Senator Hill. It is a leading question, but not on a material point; 
and, besides, I never heard in my life of a leading question, having the 
object that this question has, being objected to on a committee of this 
sort. 

Senator Cameron. Well, the objection is noted, so go on with the 
testimony. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Well, Mr. Flanagan, refresh your memory; 
that is all that I ask you to do, and I do not care to quibble ou a small 
point. Befresh your recollection and state whether this transaction oc¬ 
curred in 1876 or 1877.—A. 1 know it was after that election was held 
-(Then the witness goes on :) Now, wait; hold on a minute. 

Q. You say it was after the Presidential election ? 

Senator Cameron. Let him state it. Senator. 

The Witness. I know we had some fuss here about the 14th of Sep¬ 
tember and had to hide all the books; and then I know there was an 
. election in November—yes, the election was in November; and then it 
was the 9th of January scrape, I believe, came after that. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Now, January of what year was that ? Was it 
the January before or after the Presidential election ?—A. It was after¬ 
ward. 

Q. Why, certainly, ^ow, what do you mean by the 9th of January 
aft'air ?—A. It was "when the Nicholls government, I believe, was in- 
stalled. 

Q. Was it before or after that date that this conversation occurred? 
—A. It was before that date, I think. 

Q. Mr. Flanagan, Senator Cameron asked you if you had made an 
affidavit containing your statement concerning this matter; you said 
that you had. Was your memory of the circumstances fresher, at the 
time you made the affidavit or not, than it is now ?—A. Well, it was 
a heap sight fresher. I have had a heap more trouble since then. 

Q. You say your memory was fresher when you made the affidavit 
than it is now *?—A. Yes, sir; I had plenty of work then, and did not 
have so much trouble as I have had since. 

Q. Would you know that affidavit if you were to read it over again ? 
—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Please read over that affidavit. (Passing the paper to witness ) 
See if that is it. 

Senator Cameron. I object, Mr. Chairman, to this mode of getting 
the witness to corroborate his own testimony. 


^08 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Hill. You asked him a great deal yourself. Senator, about 
this affidavit and what was in it. 

Senator Cameron. I beg your pardon, I did not ask him a word that 
was in it. I asked him if he made the affidavit, and how he made and 
why he made it. 

Senator Hill. Yes, 1 did not object to that. 

Senator Cameron. Y^ou admitted, I think, that was proper ques¬ 
tioning. 

Senator Hill. In a matter of this sort, I think. Senator, it is an im¬ 
material point. All I want are the facts, and if the witness says he 
made an affidavit, and his memory was fresher w hen he did make it 
than it is now, I think he can certainly read it over and say whether it 
is true or not. 

The Witness. (After examining the paper.) Yes, sir j this is my affi¬ 
davit. 

Senator Hill. Now, Mr. Flanagan, look at the date in that affidavit. 
You will see that you have specified dates and years. 

The Witness. It may be that there is a mistake. 

Q. You mean about the year. Now, look on the other side; you read 
it over carefully, and see whether there is a clerical error in the affidavit 
in relation to that matter. Now, what have you to say about it?—A. 
I think that is not right, the “ 1872.’^ ‘ 

Q. You say that is not right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, are the balance of those statements right ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cameron. I must object to that affidavit being introduced 
in that manner. 

Senator Hill. When I offer it. Senator, you can object to it. 

Senator Cameron. Well, I object to it now. 

Senator Hill. Well, I have not ofi'ered it yet. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Mr. Flanagan, did I understand you to say 
that Mr. Sullivan wrote those statements down for you ?—A. Y^es, sir j 
he wrote it and I signed it.. 

Senator Hill. To settle this whole matter, I offer the affidavit. 

The Witness. That 1872 part is wrong. Judge Dibble was not 
assistant attorney-general at that time; he was assistant attorney-gen¬ 
eral in 1876. 

Senator Hill. Now, here is the affidavit itself that Senator Cameron 
alluded to in his cross-examination of this witness. I offer it as a part 
of the evidence and Senator Cameron objects to it. 

Senator Vance. Does that affidavit refer to this matter ? 

Senator Hill. To the very question itself. 

Senator Vance. (To Senator Cameron.) What is the objection, Sen¬ 
ator ? 

Senator Cameron. The objection is this: That he is now on the stand, 
and called here as a witness before this committee, and it is quite ma¬ 
terial in his evidence whether he made this affidavit a year or two ago, 
or when he did make it. The principal objection is to"the witness cor¬ 
roborating himself, after having testified to the facts themselves, by 
referring back to this and saying that its statements contain the true 
version of his testimony upon this point. 

Senator Vance. Certainly, I understand ; but suppose he takes it up 
and says that his memory was better then than now, and that the affi¬ 
davit is correct ? 

Senator Cameron. Y"es, but he does not say' it. 

Senator Hill. He says it is true. 

Senator Cameron. I did not hear him. 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


609 


Senator Hill. I so understood him. 

Senator Cameron. Well, I have not heard that from the witness yet. 

Senator Hill. He said that the year 1872 as written in the affidavit 
was not correct, but that otherwise the statements were true. 

Senator Cameron. Well, I say that I did not hear it from the witness. 

The Witness. Yes, that is what I say. 

Senator Cameron. He proposes now to coiTobora*te his declarations 
upon the stand by an affidavit previously made. If you were lawyers 
conductinf? a case, you certainly would not admit that a witness had 
that right. 

Senator Vance. Do you mean to say that he would not be allowed to 
offer his declaration at another time made about the same matter that 
he was testifying to? 

Senator Cameron. No, sir; nor would you consent to their admis¬ 
sion. 

Senator Vance. Yes, sir; I think he could. I think a party has 
got a right, aftfr going over his testimony, to offer in evidence the fact 
that he made certain declarations to the same fact at another time. 

Senator Cameron. I cannot agree with you. I think the opposite 
party can call it out for the purpose of discpialifying him, but I never 
heard of its being done before for the purpose of sustaining the wit¬ 
ness, or, what is worse here, for the purpose of allowing the witness to 
correct and corroborate himself. 

Senator Hill. I think there was a case in this very committee, cer¬ 
tainly in one of the sub committees of the Committee on Privileges and 
Elections in Washington, where a question was put as to whether the 
strict rules of evidence and the admission of evidence were to be fol¬ 
lowed in these examinations, and it was decided that they were not, 
and I certainly think in this case they should not be rigidly enforced. 

Senator Cameron. O, well, if you put it on that ground I do not 
know that I would object to it seriously. 

Senator Hill. I think it is the rule in all Congressional committees. 
Every report is made up on testimony that would not be strictly per¬ 
mitted to go in the record if the strict rules of a court of law were re¬ 
quested and enforced. Here is the affidavit that you asked him about; 
who made it; if he read it over; who wrote it out for him ; if he signed 
it; and if he swore to it; all those questions you put, and those fiicts 
you brought out. That reminded me to ask him the question whether 
his memory was as fresh now concerning these facts as it was when he 
made the affidavit. I thought it must have been fresher then than 
now^, and I called his attention to that fact. He says that his memory 
was fresher then, and ou looking at the affidavit he recognizes one error 
in it where the year 1872 is written instead of 1870, and now I offer it 
in evidence to settle the fact as to his memory and as to that clerical 
error. In Washington we admitted in this very case the affidavits of 
those witnesses made down here in Louisiana. 

Senator Cameron. %Yes; but you will understand that their state¬ 
ments before the committee did not agree with the statements made in 
the affidavits, and those were offered for the purpose of discrediting, 
and not for corroborating the witnesses. 

Senator Hill. They can be offered for either purpose, I think. What 
do you say. Governor Vance? 

Senator Cameron (interrupting). The witness now on the stand has 
been examined in chief and cross examined. The proposition now is to 
introduce as evidence the affidavit which he says he made some time 
ago. May 30, 1879, for the purpose of corroborating the testimony that 

39 8 K 


612 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


New Orleans, Thursday, November 1879. 

Sub committee met pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o’clock a. m. Pres¬ 
ent, all the members of the committee, also 0. L. Walker, of counsel 
for the memorialist, and the memorialist, Henry M. Spoliord, and the 
sitting member, William Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. We are ready to proceed this morning, Mr. Walker. 

Mr. Walker. 1 would like to call Mr. Alleyn. 

J. T. Alleyn, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and exam¬ 
ined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Mr. Alleyn, are you connected with the telegraph office in 
this city ?—Answer. Yes, sir; I am manager here for the Western Union 
Telegraph Company, in this city. 

Q. You have the custody of telegrams sent to and from this office ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you the telegrams sent to and from Mr. Kellogg since the 
month of June last ?—A. I cannot say of my own knowledge. Senator, 
but I presume I have in the business of the office. 

Q. You can find them by looking for them, can you not ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; I suppose so. 

Q. You have a subi;oena to produce them, Mr. Alleyn ?—A. Yes, sir 5 
I have a subpoena to produce all telegrams sent within certain times, 
but I must decline to do so under the general names of the subpoena, 
but I will produce those that may be specified by the committee. 

Q. You think it is a general subpoena, and that you have a right to 
decide under it what you will produce?—A. Yes, sir; the telegrams 
may be political or may be upon business that the committee ought not 
to see. 

Q. The committee will know better about that, Mr. Allyen, when it 
sees the telegrams.—A. Yes, sir; but I must decline to produce all the 
telegrams under this general subpoena; but I will produce such as are 
specifically stated, and that I am informed of. 

Q. Have you any messages from James Lewis to Senator Kellogg ?— 
A. I cannot say, sir, of my own knowledge. 

Q. Can you ascertain whether you have or not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you any messages from the friends of the witnesses and the 
guards who left with them for Washington in June?—A. Yes, sir ; I 
suppose we have, if any were sent, but you will have to give me the 
names, dates, and the points where they were going. 

Q. You cannot tell, Mr. Alleyn, I suppose, whether they are from Jim 
Lewis under his own name or under a nom de phme.-^A. No, sir; if 
under a nom deplume I could not tell. 

Q. Who have you been advising with, Mr. Alleyn, in regard to obey¬ 
ing this subpoena?—A. With the executive department of the com¬ 
pany. 

Q. Who were they principally ?—A. Mr. Merriwether, the superin¬ 
tendent. 

Q. Anybody else?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you been consulting anybody in the interest of this case ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. And you have not desired, or been influenced by any mode, or 
otherwise, to favor anybody in this case ?—A. Not particularly; no, sir. 

Q. And not politically ?—A. No, sir; I don’t indulge in politics. 

Q. You will have no difficulity in ascertaining whether the telegrams 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. G13 

mentioned are in your office?—A. If they are specified sufficiently we 
can find tbem. 

Yon can find any that are there?—A. Yes, sir; au}’that were 

sent. 

Q. Yon can find any telegrams sent by Badger or Lewis to ^Ir. Kel¬ 
logg, in May or June, can’t you?—A. Yes, sir; if they were sent from 
hero. 

Q. Can yon produce them before this coinmitee ?—A. No, sir; I 
would have to have further instructions. 

Q. Very well, Mr. Alleyn, J discover that you have no desire to pro¬ 
duce these telegrams, and that you can do so if you desire. As tar as I 
am to see, the committee will have to take such course as is left to it. 

The Witness. Will you specify the telegrams that you desire. Sena¬ 
tor ? 

Senator Hill. 1 specify all telegrams sent by Badger or Lewis to Mr. 
Kellogg in May and June last. 

A. If you will specify them by the dates and the points to which they 
were sent, I will try and ])roduce them. 

Q. Have you any of the telegrams that may have been sent en route 
to Washington?^A. No, sir; they would not be returned here. 

Q. Then none that wer-e sent on the way from here to Washington 
can be found here ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. All telegrams sent to Louis Souer, or Jim Lewis, or ^lorris Marks, 
in the months of May and June, or all answers to them from Governor 
Kellogg, you are to understand are wanted by the committee, and you 
will please produce them; you will have a subpoena to that effect; and 
if your executive committee think there is no power in the United States 
Government to compel obedience to it, we will test the question. 

Senator Cameron. That question, ^Ir. Chairman, will probably be 
tested in the Kansas case. The manager at Topeka refused to produce 
any telegrams whatever. 

Senator IIill. Yes, sir; so I understand. This telegraph company 
has gotten to be a great instrument in this country, and the question 
will have to be made, as to whether it is higher than Congress, or Con¬ 
gress higher than it. 

Senator Cameron. I see there is a case now in court in Saint Louis, 
where the question is likely to undergo investigation as to the power of 
the company to refuse obedience to a subpania. 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir; I think it is time for that question to be ad¬ 
judicated. I think it had better be tested at once, rather than to have 
a grand monopoly, protected by the government, refusing to serve it. 
This question is binding and must come up and be tested sooner or 
later. Ilave you rei)orted that Kansas case to the Senate yet ? 

Senator Cameron. No, sir; not yet. 

Senator Hill. You will do so, 1 i)resume ? 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. ]Mr. Alleyn, as manager of the telegraph office in this city, you 
will produce all telegrams sent by Jim Lewis, Col. James Lewis, 
A. S. Badger, IMorris Marks; or L. J. Souer, to Governor Kellogg, or by 
any other i)ersons to Governor Kellogg, and his replies to them ; refer¬ 
ring now, Mr. Alleyn, to the telegrams sent in May and June last ?— 
A. What other persons do you refer to. Senator, besides those you have 
named ? 

Mr. George B. Thomas, or anybody else employed in the custom- 


614 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Louse, whom you know to be employed there. If you know of any 
other persons who are employes of the custom-house, and who sent 
telegrams to Governor Kellogg during the time named, you are required 
to produce them, without any further specifications. The committee 
want no advantage of you, but at the same time they want no quib¬ 
bling or technicalities, and w^e want you to understand that you must 
obey the subpoena, as it is understood now and explained to you. What 
time can you produce them ?—A. Well, sir, there are a thousand or two 
telegrams to go through in order to get at those you desire. 

Q. Suppose you desired to find them for the benefit of the company, 
how long would it take you ?—A. I suppose I would have to take 
another clerk to go through them, and it would be two days. 

Q. Well, Mr. Alleyn, men who enjoy great privileges like the tele¬ 
graph company ought to be willing to take on themselves great bur¬ 
dens. 

Senator Vance. Do I understand this second specification of the 
telegrams desired relieves , the witness from answering the first sub¬ 
poena ? 

Senator Hill. Ko, sirj I just tried to accommodate him to an under¬ 
standing by what we meant by the first subpoena, and to see his willing¬ 
ness to obey it. I desire him to understand that his subpoena con¬ 
tinues. 

The Witness. This understanding now relates to June and Julyj the 
subpoena that I got said July only. 

Senator Hill. I will fix your subpoena, and we will confine it to May 
and June. Kow, Mr. Alleyn, we should be glad to have these tele¬ 
grams by Monday next, if you can get them. If you cannot get them 
in that time we will give you longer time. 


TESTIMONY OF EDWAKD LE LOUP. 

Edward Le Loup, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill ; 

Question. Do you belong to a telegraph office in this city ?—Answer. 
I am connected with the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Company. 

Q. Is that a different office from the Western Union Telegraph Office j 
is it an independent line from others ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you connected with that line in May and June last —A. 
Y^es, sir; 

Q. Have you received a subpama to produce certain telegrams sent 
from here in May and June last?—A. Yes, sir j I have. 

Q. Are you ready to produce them ?—A. I cannot, unless the com¬ 
mittee will designate the names of the parties and the dates of the tele¬ 
grams they desire. 

Q. How can we know that? Well, sir, we want to know if they are 
the telegrams the committee desires; specified as a telegram sent from 
here in those months to Governor Kellogg.—A. Yes, sir; but I want to 
know who sent it before I take the responsibility of producing it. 

Q. How are we to know of everybody who sent telegrams to Governor 
Kellogg during those months ?—A. Well, sir, that is for the committee; 
I cannot produce any others tlian those stated in that way. 

Q. Will you have any difficulty in finding these telegrams ?—A. No, 
sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 615 

Q. You have tbe custody of them, Mr. Le Loup ?—A. Yes, sir ; I have 
the custody of them for the company. 

Q. That company is not an individual, is it?—A. Ko, sir; it is a cor¬ 
poration. 

Q. And individuals have custody of its records, and you are one of 
them’? Well, now, sir, you were notified to produce any and all tele¬ 
grams sent during May and June last by L. J. Souer, Morris Marks, 
James Lewis, A. IS. Badger, or any other person connected with the cus¬ 
tom-house in this city, to Governor Kellogg.—A. Well, sir, the latter 
portion of the request I cannot answer unless I know what you mean 
by it. 

Q. But you can find all the others?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. And if you should find any other that you know to be from a cus¬ 
tom-house officer you can produce it?—A. Unless I know the party, I 
could not. 

Q. Well, Mr. Lo Loup, you will please comply with this subpoena; you 
will please produce all the telegrams that you understand from reading 
that subpoena the committee wants.—A. The subpoena reads to W. P. 
Kellogg. 

Q. Well, sir, we mean to and from him.—A. It is not so explained in 
the subpoena. 

Q. Well, sir, consider it explained in the subpoena. The instruction 
here in open committee is quite as binding on you, sir, as a subpoena. 

Senator Cameron, to the witness: Do you consider yourself at lib¬ 
erty, Mr. Loup, to act in this matter without any further instructions 
from any person ?—A. No, sir; I have to confer with the officers of my 
company. I am not at liberty, without first conferring with the officers 
in New York, to produce any telegrams from the files of the office. 

Q. Do you propose to be governed first by the instructions of the offi¬ 
cers in New Y'ork ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Uill.) Suppose you had an order of court, either the 
United States or of the State, to v>roduce these telegrams ?—A. Iwould 
look first to the officers of the company for my orders. 

Q. You hold their orders superior, then, to those of other tribunals in 
this government ?—A. In my estimation, yes, sir. 

Q. Perhaps we may have to suppose a further matter for you, Mr. Le 
Loup, unless you comply strictly with the orders of this committee. 
You may go now, sir, and produce the telegrams required of you on 
Monday next. 


TESTIMONY OF GUSTAVE TOURNADE. 

Gustave Touknade, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill ; 

Question. Where do you reside, ]\Ir. Tournade?—Answer. I reside 
now on Claiborne street, between Columbus and Le Harp. 

Q. Is that in the 7th ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you a citizen in the 7th ward in 1876?—A. I was, sir. 

Q. Were you commissioner of election of that ward in that year?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. At what, poll were you a commissioner?—A. At No. 3; as much 
as 1 can remember, it was poll No. 3. 

Q. Poll No. 3, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 


616 


.SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you a Republican commissioner?—A. I am a Republican, 
sir. 

Q. Were you a Republican then!—A. Yes, sir; I was. 

Q. Were you at that poll all during that election!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You can state to the committee, Mr. Tournade, whether that elec¬ 
tion was peaceable and orderly.—A. It w^as, sir, most assuredly. 

Q. Were any protests against it in any way filed!—A. ]Not that I 
know of, sir. 

Q. Did the commissioners, all of them make out the return from that 
poll in the proper form !—A. The return was made out properly, the 
books were delivered to the sheriff of the parish, .as the law contem- 
ifiated, I believe, but we were to make a copy of some papers, I forget 
what they were, we were to have made a copy of them and to have de¬ 
livered them to the registrar of voters on the next day. 

Q. That is, they were to be made out in twenty-four hours after the 
polls closed !—A. That is it, but we had remained more than twenty-four 
hours. We had been counting from the day of the election until the 
next day at 4 o^clock in the evening, aud we felt so tired that we de¬ 
cided that we should go home, and the next morning fill up any papers 
that were necessary, and‘make delivery of them. 

Q. But you have stated, as 1 understood, that the election was very 
lieaceable !—A. O, it was, sir. There was no disturbance at the polls. 

Q. Were the returns made out by the commissioners!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you intended to do no wrong in the conduct at that election 
at that poll !—A. No, sir; all was fair and square with us. 

Q. Was there any false or fraudulent exclusion of voters there !—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Everybody entitled to vote was permitted to do so!—A. Yes, sir; 
of course there were challenges made on both sides, but those were de¬ 
cided to the satisfaction of everybody. 

Q. Who was the supervisor of registration, or rather the assistant 
supervisor in that ward at that time!—A. For that ward, do you mean! 

Q. Yes, for the 7th ward.—A. 1 think it was Mr. Gondolfi. Mr. Moore 
was the supervisor until one day or two previous to the election, and 
then he resigned and was followed by Mr. Gondolfi. 

Q. Who was Gondolfi ; did he have any connection with Aloore pre¬ 
vious to that!—A. I do not know, sir, what he had. 

Q. Do you know whether he was clerk or secretary or not!—A. He 
may have been, sir, but I do not remember; I would not state positively 
that he was. 

Q. Do you remember how the vote stood in that ward !—A. At that 
poll, sir ! 1 would not pretend to give the exact figures, but I think there 
was a decided Democratic majority at that'poll. 

Cross-examined by Senator Cameron : 

Q. Did you commence counting immediately after the close of the 
poll on the day of election !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did you continue to stay until 4 o’clock the next day !—A. 
Yes,- sir. 

Q. Then what did you do!—A. Then we closed the box containing 
the tickets polled, and went and delivered it to the sheriff’s ofiice. 

Q. By whom was it delivered at the sheriff’s office !—A. By us, sir, 
the commissioners. 

Q. You went with it too as one of them !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You stated, I believe, that you adjourned then until the next day! 
—A. No, we had to see some papers prepared before leaving the poll; 


S'POFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


617 


we bad some statements to sign and which were to be sworn to, and 
then the box was closed and carried and delivered to the sheriff of the 
parish. 

Q. What were yon to do the next day ?—A. We were to meet next 
day and make out certain copiesj but I do not remember distinctly what 
papers those were. 

Q. Were they papers that you understood the law required you to 
make copies of?—A. Yes, sir; but it was the first time that I had served 
as commissioner of the election, and I was rather green about the duties 
we had to perform. 

Q. Did you meet next day ?—A. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Q. What did you do?—A. I will tell you what occurred; after with¬ 
drawing from the poll I had my dinner, and I felt so tired that I went 
to bed. 

Q. That was the day after the election?—A. Yes, sir; and after the 
delivery of the box containing the tickets polled, and while 1 was sleep¬ 
ing, some parties came to my house and said they wanted to see me. 
Well, my wife woke me up, and I admitted them into the room, and 
they said they wanted to see the statements or reports or papers that 
I had carried home with me. I told my .wife to allow them to see them, 
and they said, We want these, ” and 1 said, “ Very well, take them 
away,” thinking that it was all right, and that it was a delivery of the 
returns in due form made to the registrar of voters. 

Q. Who were those parties who came there A. The parties who 
came were Moore, Mr. Goudolfi, and Mr. Gardeur. 

Q. Well, did anything else occur f—A. So, on the next day, it had 
been agreed that we would meet and make whatever copies we had 
to make, and make delivery to the officers to whom they would have 
been delivered. We were to meet at the house of Mr. Davenport, who 
was one of the commissioners. So next morning 1 went to see him and 
told him what occurred, and we went together to the office of regis¬ 
trar of voters and demanded the delivery of our papers, so that we 
would make our copies, and the delivery of them papers to us was re¬ 
fused. 

Q. That is, they refused to comply with your demand at that time ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, did anything else occur in relation to the matter ?—A. Noth 
ing else that 1 remember. 

Q. Have you ever testified in regard to these facts before?—A. I 
have, sir, before another committee. 

Q. Do you remember what committee it was; was it the Morrison 
committee, so-called, or the Howe committee ?—A. 1 cannot remem¬ 
ber ; I remember that it was one of them. 

.Q. It was a Congressional committee, was it?—A. Yes, sir; it was. 

Q. Do you remember whether it came from the House of Kepresenta- 
fives or the Senate ?—A. I cannot say, sir. 

Q. Can you give the name of any person a member of that commit¬ 
tee?—A. I cannot remember any, sir. . 

Senator Cameron to Mr. Walker. What committee was it, do you 
remember? 

Mr. Walker. It was the Morrison committee. 

Senator Hill. It was from that report that we got the data. 

Senator Cameron. I suppose so. 

]Mr. Walker. Ho testified about thd 29th or 30th of December. 


618 


SPOFFORD VS. Kellogg: 


Examinatiou resumed. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What business are you now engaged in, Mr. Tournade?—A. 
None, sir. 

Q. What business were you engaged in at the time of the election of 
which you speak ?—A. I was a bookkeeper at that time, sir. 

Q. How long have you been out of employment ?—A. About one year, 
sir; that is, I have been entirely out of employment about one year. 

Q. What were you engaged in when you testified before the Congres¬ 
sional committee of which you spoke?—A. I was keeping the accounts 
of some cigar manufacturers with the internal-revenue department. 

Q. Have you at any time been employed in any capacity by the pres¬ 
ent State government or city government?—A. No, sir; but do you 
mean if I have at any time ? 

Q. Yes, sir; that Is what I asked you.—A. 1 have been employed 
from 1864 to ^67 or ^68 in the capacity of deputy sheriff; since then I 
have never had any public employment. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Did you say that the gentleman who called on 
you that night after you had gone to bed was Mr. Moore?—A. I believe 
it was, sir. * . 

Q. Was he the same Moore who was a candidate for the legislature in 
that ward?—A. I think he was, sir. 

Q. And had been supervisor of registration up to the day before the 
election ?—A. I think he was. 

Q. This man Gondolfi was the other one, the man who was supervisor 
after Moore, and at tbe time he called ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was the other; Mr. Gardeur, did you say ?—A. Yes, sir; but 
I forget his Christian name. 

Q. Was he a candidate at that time ?—A. I don’t think he was. 

Q. Was he in any official position; did he have any office ?—A. I 
don’t think he was in any official position. 

Q. What time of the night was it when they called?—A. About 9 
o’clock, I think, sir ; I cannot specify the time particularly; as soon as 
I got home I eat dinner and went to bed. 

Q. And you say you gave them the papers that they said they want¬ 
ed ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever get them back ?—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. They refused to give them up, did they ?—A. Yes, sir; the next, we 
went and demanded them, and they refused to deliver them up. 

Q. Did they give no reason why they refused to deliver them up ?— 
A. If they did I disremember it. I do not remember what reasons they 
gave; it is so long ago I cannot remember distinctly all that was saili 
and done. 

Q. I will ask you to refresh your memory. Was not Gardeur one of 
the candidates for the legislature, and wasn’t he returned as elected 
from that ward ?—A. I think not, sir. I think it was his brother. 

Q. You think it was his brother who was the candidate?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I understood you to state that, before you adjourned, at 4 o’clock 
that day after the election, you had completed the count ?—A. Yes, sir, 
and made it out; we made the statement and affidavit. It was made 
before some gentleman whom some citizen called in from the outside. 

Q. Then you had nothing else to do, in connection with the election 
or counting of it ?—A. No, sir, except to make out two copies of the 
statement to give to some officials of the city. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


619 


Q. Did those parties give you any reason that night when they called 
at your house, as to why they wanted those i)apers ?—A. I do not know, 
sir, that there was much conversation; I was half asleep all the time. 


TESTIMONY OF JOHN CLARK MILLER. 

John Clark Miller, colored, a witness called for the memorialist, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Do you live in New Orleans?—Answer. Yes, sir; I live at 
455 Terpsichore street. 

Q. How long have you lived in New Orleans?— A. Ever since 1855. 

Q. Are you acquainted with a man named Johnson, who was a mem¬ 
ber of the legislature here?—A. No, sir, I am not. 

Q. You say you are not acquainted with him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know him when you see him?—A. Well, sir; there are 
two of them. 

Q. Were both of them members of the Packard legislature?—A. 
Yes, sir; I believe they were. 

Q. Do you know the one who went to Washington as a witness last 
June?—A. There were two of them went. 

Q. Then you knew both of them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you acquainted with either one of them?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you become acquainted with either one of them since?—A. 
In the last few days I have become acquainted with J. J. Johnson, of 
De Soto. 

Q,. Di I you overhear a conversation between him and Tom Murray ? 
—A. No, sir; I never have, but I have seen him and Mr. Murray to¬ 
gether. 

Q. Did you hear Johnson say anything about his testimony in Wash¬ 
ington City?—A. No. sir; I did not. 

1^ Q. Did you hear him say anything about Murray’s testimony in 
Washington City?—A. No, sir; 1 did not hear anything about it. 

Q. Nor anything about his connection with this case?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor how he would swear if he were called upon ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You heard nothing of that kind ?—A. No, sir. 

Mr. Walker, counsel for the memorialist, interrupting, Did not 
you state to me in the rotunda a quarter or half an hour ago in the 
presence of Mr. Moony that you and IMurray and one of the members of 
the legislature named Johnson had had a conversation together, and that 
Johnson said somethnig about Mr. Murray’s testimony in Washington, 
and that Johnson said to Murray your testimony w as true, and when 
the committee come here 1 will testify that it is true. 

The Witness. Now you are getting at the other Johnson. Last sum¬ 
mer when Mr. Murray came from Washington they were sitting on m 
bridge on the corner of Melpomene and the canal. There was a ^ 
come u]) there and me ai^d the man got to talking. I jlon’t know who 
he was or w hen he w’ent aw ay. 

Senator Cameron. Well, now, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the 
witness give the testimony in a correct manner. 

Senator Hill. We will get at the man directly. 

Senator Ca>ieron. I enter an objection to this method of taking testi¬ 
mony. 




620 


SPOFFORD VS KKLLOGG. 


Senator Hill. (To tbe witness) go on. 

The Witness, resuming: I asked Murray who it was, and he said it 
was H. S. Johnson, of Terrebonne, and after he got away from us, Mur¬ 
ray said, “ Did you hear his conversation with mef- I told him no, I 
did not, and yesterday he come to me and last night again. That was 
last night he come to the National Hall and asked qje if I would go be¬ 
fore this committee and say so and so, and I said yes that I would; 
and now the sergeant at-arms got after me and you put me under oath 
and 1 won’t swear to a lie. 

Q. Did you tell him—Murray—that you would?—A. I said to him 
that I would come before the committee and say what he told me. 

Q. What did he say to you. What did he want you to do ?—A. He 
wanted me to go to Mr. Walker and tell him certain things. 

Q. What things were those ?—A. That I should go to Walker and 
say to him that his (Murray’s) testimony was true. 

Q. Then you told Mr. Walker a lie?—A. I told him what Murray said 
to tell him. 

Q. Well, you told him a lie then, did you not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you intend to deceive him by telling him that ?—A. Well, sir, 
I will not tell a lie and swear to it. 

Q. You will tell a lie, however ?—A. Yes, sir ; but I won’t swear to it. 

Q. Did not you say that you would come before this committee and 
swear to it ?—A. Not if I was put under oath; I did not mean that. 

Q. Well, consider yourself not under oath. 

Senator Cameron. 1 object to that. 

Senator Hill. The objection is sustained. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Then you mean to say that you intentionally 
deceived Mr. Walker?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did you do that for. Was it in order to get yourself sub¬ 
poenaed before this committee ?—A. I had been subpoenaed then, but 
I saw them this morning. Mr. Murray hunted for me and down to my 
house for me. 

Q. You had your subpoena then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you told them what you would say before this committe ?—A. 
Yes, sir. Mr. Murray came to my house and they had sent out for me 
the sergant-at-arms, and he come to where I was working, and he said 
I should report here this morning. Last night Murray came to where 
1 was at the National Hall, and said he wanted me to say this and 
thus to Mr. Walker. 

Q. And you said it to him ?—A. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Q. Did you tell him that you would swear to it ?—A. No, sir; I did 
not. 

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Walker in your life until within the last hour? 
—A. No, sir; never until now. 

Q. That was the first time, then, that j ou ever saw him to know him ? 
—A. Yes, sir, to know him ; that was the first time. I might have 
seen him before, of course. 

Q. Did you tell Mr. Walker what you w ould say to this committee ?— 
A. Yes, sir; but I did not tell him 1 would swear to it. 

Q. But you didn’t tell him that you would not sw^ear to it?—A. No, 
sir; but I won’t because it is not true. 

Q. Now, look here. Miller, didn’t you intend to make him believe that 
you would swear to it in order to get before this committee?—A. No, 
sir; 1 don’t want to be before the committee; I would rather be to work 
ten to one. 

Q. Well, what made you tell him a lie; what inducement was there 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 621 

for you to tell him that lie ?—A. I had none; but as I thought Mr. Mur¬ 
ray had been so anxious to have me come here that I would come. 

Didn’t he tell you last night what he wanted with you before the 
committee ?—A. Yes, sir. He asked me if I would tell this and tlius, 
and I said, yes. And he wanted me to come last night. I said, no. 
He asked me to come this morning, and I done so; and Mr. Walker 
came and asked me if 1 heard this conversation. This was the same con¬ 
versation that Mr. Murray asked me to say that I heard here. And I told 
him, yes. And now you bring me in here and put me under oath, and 
I won't swear to a lie not for no man. 

(^. Well, but 3 'ou have not told me why you told Mr. Walker the lie f 
—A. Why, just because Muriay said so. I had no idea that you were 
going to bring me in here and put me under oath. 

Q. Then you mean to say that you would tell the lie if you were not 
put under oath ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Have you talked to any one else about what you would swear 
here ?—A. Xo, sir; 1 don’t think as I have. 

(^. Has any other person, Governor Kellogg or any others, given you 
any inducement to deceive the parties in this case ?—A. Xo, sir; there 
was not. 

Q. Have you had any inducement to deceive anybody’ about what you 
would swear ?—A. Xo, sir; I never talked to Mr. Kellogg five minutes 
in my life. 

(i. You don’t think it is wrong to swear to a lie, do you. Miller?—A. 
Yes, sir, I do. 

Q. But you don’t think it is wrong to tell a lie ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. And you say now under oath that you do not know 11. .M.‘John¬ 
son, from Terre Bonne ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Would you know him if you were to see him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Y'ou know that you had a conversation with him on the bridge that 
you spoke about?—A. Yes, sir ; I had that conversation. T know I had 
a conversation with a man, but I did not know that he is Johnson. 

Q. Well, you know that he is the man that Murray said was John¬ 
son ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you said you heard the conversation between him.and Mur- 
i^ay ?—A. Xo, sir; 1 said I did not. 

Q. And ^lurray said to you what it was ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you said that you would say that was it wjien you came be¬ 
fore the committee ?—A. Yes, sir ; that is what I told him. 

Q. And after you saw him in the room Tuesday there you said that 
you would say that to the committee?—A. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Q. Have you seen that man since you had the conversation with him ? 
—A. I might have done so; but 1 did not speak to him since then. 

Q. Did you speak to him then ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. How close were you to him ?—A. I went about as far as to that 
railing. 

Q. It was not a secret, was it? They did not appear to be talking 
about a secret?—A. Xo, sir; but I went off. 

Q. Was there anything of that sworn that you heard ?—A. Xo, sir; 1 
never heard none of it. 

Q. Well, did Murray tell you what Johnson had said to him?—A. 
Yes, sir; he told me something that ho said Johnson’had said to him. 

Q. Well, now, what was it ?—A. He told me, as I said before, that the 
evidence that he would give if this committee come here would be the 
same what Murray had got in Washington. 


622 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. That is what Murray reported to you as the conversation he had 
just then with Johnson?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that if the committee come here he, that is, Johnson, would give 
different testimony from what he give in Washington ; that is, Johnson 
would give different testimony?—A. Yes, sirj that’s w^hat Murray told 
me, and that is everything what I did say. 

Q. He said that Murray had testified to what was true, and he would 
testify the same way if this committee came down here ?—A. Yes, sir; 
Murray said that Johnson told him that his testimony—that is Mur¬ 
ray uow-*-what he had given in Washington, was true; and Murra}^ said 
he was the only man that went away from here to Washington what 
made out a case, or the foundation "of a case, for Mr. Spofford; that 
is it. 

Q. Do you mean by this testimony ?—A. Yes,- sir. 

Q. Did Mr. Murray state that to you immediately after the man 
wheeled off" from the bridge?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was the first thing he said to you after the man left ?—A. 
Well, it was a few minutes between the times. 

Q. What time did this take place?—A. It was in the evening, about 
sunset or a little after. 

Q. What time of the year?—A. I don’t remember what month it was, 
but it was in the warm months, though. 

Q. Was it a month or two ago, or farther off than that ?—A. O, further 
off*. Two, three, or maybe four mouths ago. 

Cross-examined by Senator Cameron : 

Q. How long have you known Tom Murray ?—A. Him and I were 
boys together. I think we have known each other some 25 or 30 years. 

Q. When did you first ascertain that Tom was employed by Judge 
Spofford in this case?—A. I didn’t know it till then after he had come 
back from W^ashiugton. 

Q. You say Tom told you that he, Tom, was the only man who had 
laid the foundations for a case for Mr. Spofford ?—A. He did, sir; right 
there on that bridge. 

Q. Well, now, not that Johnson said it; Tom said that?—A. Yes, sir; 
that is what Tom said himself. That is, Tom was the only party that 
had laid the foundations for Mr. Spofford’s case. 

Q. What did Tom tell you on that occasion with regard to his em¬ 
ployment by Spofford or Cavanac as agent or detective to work up the 
testimony in this case?—A. Nothing, sir; he never told me nothing 
about either. 

Q. Wbat did he tell you he was going to do when the committee came 
herefrom Washington this winter?—A. He never said what he was 
going to do, but he said all these members of the Packard legislature, if 
they didn’t give testimony according to their affidavits that they had 
made, they would all be sent to the penitentiary. 

Q. That is what Tom said to you, is it?—xY No, sir; he never said 
that in so many words, but from his conversation I inferred that; he did 
not tell me that. 

Q. When did Tom tell you all this from which you drew that inference, 
or, rather, when did you next see Tom after that conversation ?—A. I 
don’t remember any time that I saw him till last night. He come to the 
National Hall, and had this conversation with me about the committee. 

Q. Did you hear any of the conversation that took place between the 
man called Johnson and Murray at the time referred to ?—A. No, sir • 

I do not swear that I swore it two or three times. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


623 


Mr. Spofford. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me for oue moment to 
make a statement with regard to a matter of fact. I desire to state it 
in order to set Senator Cameron right in a matter pertinent to myself. 
It is to say that I never in my life employed Mr. Murray, and the state¬ 
ment in the manner in which it will appear in the record and in the Sen¬ 
ator's question is an implication against me on that point. 

Senator Cameron. I ask that the statement just made by the gentle¬ 
man, Judge Simftbrd, be stricken from the record. 

Senator Hill. You mean Judge Spoftbrd’s statement without your 
own ? 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. Several of Senator Kellogg’s statements have gone 
down on the record without any objection. 

Senator Vance. And at his, Senator Cameron’s, request. 

Senator Hill (to the witness.) You said in reply to a question by 
Senator Cameron that Murray was employed by Judge Spofford. I did 
not understand you to say that Mr. Murray said so. 

The Witness. Xo, sir; I stated that myself. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Vance.) Senator Cameron has said that 
he objects to that statement going in the record. Will it go in ? 

Senator Vance. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. It goes down, Mr. Stenographer. 

Senator Vance. Now, Mr. Chairman, if we can do it, I move that 
this witness be not allowed to prove his attendance. 

Senator Cameron. You forget that he w^as subpoenaed before he 
talked to Murray. 

Senator Hill. No, sir. I understand it was before he wms subpoenaed 
that he talked to Murraj". (To the witness.) When wais the time that 
you spoke to Murray about what you would testify ‘i —A. It was last 
night, sir; and he said to me that if I did not care to come my name 
would be stricken from the list, and I said I did not care to come to the 
committee, as I knew nothing, but he told me what I should say, and 
tried to pull me to come here. 

Q. And you said that you would come before the committee and 
swear to it ?—A. I did not say that. 

Senator Hill. Well, whatever you said is down on the record. 

Senator Cameron, Senator Vance has made a motion, do you object 
to it? 

Senator Cameron. I do not—to the motion. 

Senator Hill. To its agreement then ? 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir ; I certainly do. 

(To the witness.) You have had no conversation with Governor Kel¬ 
logg, I understand you, about your testimony before the committee ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor with any representative of Kellogg?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill. He answered that to me, and said he had not spoken 
to any friend of Kellogg’s, even. 

The motion by Senator Vance in relation to the witness proving his 
attendance and receiving pay was held under advisement. 

Mr. Samuel Weil, a witness called for the memorialist, was sworn, 
but excused from examination for the present on account of sickness. 

Senator Kellogg. It was the supposition, I believe, on yesterday 
that I would have some witnesses summoned here for this morning. 

Senator Hill. Have you any witnesses present? 


624 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Band ALL, clerk of the committee, laid before the chairman a list 
of witnesses for whom subpoenas had been issued in behalf of Senator 
Kellogg. 

Senator Kellogg.' Yes, sir; I have some witnesses present, and it 
is expensive to the government to keep them waiting if we can dispose 
of them in the meantime. 

Senator Hill. We will dispose of them in ample time. 

Mr. Walker, counsel for the memorialist. We have some witnesses 
under subpoena, but they are not present just now and ready to be in¬ 
troduced. 

Senator Hill. I do not see any reason why we should not suspend 
the examination of witnesses for the contestant for the present and let 
Governor Kellogg introduce his witnesses. 

Mr. Walker. I suppose when my witnesses come in we can swear 
them to come in ? 

Senator Kellogg. I have no objection, but I did not want the com¬ 
mittee to leave without my having an opportunity of swearing and hear¬ 
ing all of our witnesses. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Cameron.) What do you think, Senator, 
about suspending the examination of the witnesses for the contestant 
and going on with Governor Kellogg’s witnesses? 

Senator Cameron. 1 think we might as well, and save what time we 
can. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Kellogg.) Call in your witnesses, governor. 


TESTIMOl^Y OF JAMES LEWIS. 

James Lewis (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Mr. Lewis, where do you reside?—Answer. At 487 Canal 
street. 

Q. In this city ?—A. In this city, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided in this city?—A. I have resided in 
this city I suppose some thirty or thirty-five years. 

Q. What office or official position, if any, do you now hold ?—A. I am 
at present, sir, the naval officer of the port of New Orleans. 

Q. How long have you held that office?—A. I have been there over 
a year. 

Q. Did you hold any other public office or official position from any 
quarter before you were appointed to your present office ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You may state what they were, Mr. Lewis.—A. I will state, sir, that 
since a colored man was allowed to hold office in this city I have held a 
position the greater part of the time. I was a sergeant of the police, 
captain of the police, administrator of police, administrator of public 
works, police commissioner, and some minor offices, but now I am the 
naval officer of this port. 

Q. Do you know a man named Bernard Williams?—A. I know him 
by sight, sir. 

Q. He has been sworn as a witness before this committee, and he tes¬ 
tified that on the 15th June last? 

Senator Hill. May, I think. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


62.0 


SeiLitor Cameron. Yes, it must be May; but it is June here (re¬ 
ferring to a newspaper report of tlie testiiuony previously taken)—no, 
it is May; that is right—that he made a bargain with you on the l.jth 
Maj'last, in substance to this effect: That he would watch the State- 
house particularly, to see who went iu or out of .Mr. Cavauac’s ollice, 
and report the facts to you, and that he had commenced to waich the 
State house, and that from time to time he reported to you; tliat sub¬ 
sequently he made an agreement with you to go to Washington, and 
that you paid him three twenty dollar bills; that the agreement in 
regard to going to Washington was to look after Governor Kellogg’s 
interest there, but that you instructed him to register himself under an 
assumed name, and to report to anybody who inquired what he went there 
for that it was for the purpose of looking after a claim that he had for a 
pension—a claim that he has made for a pension. Xow, you can state 
if any of these statements are true.—A. 1 state, sir, and I am under 
oath, and I know what the obligation of an oath is, that 1 have never 
myself, or authorized any man for me to speak with ]Mr. Williams about 
going to Washington, and never gave him a cent in my life; but if the 
committee will permit me, I have a copy of the Democrat here, and 
I see the testimony in it as taken down. 

Senator Hill. That is not otTicial, Mr. Lewis. 

The Witness. It is not the best authority, I know. Senator. 

Senator Hill (to the witness). State the facts. Senator Cameron 
has recapitulated the essential facts, and you can answer yes or no. 

The Witness. Then I emphatically deny giving him a cent of money, 
or ever conversing with him on money matters or on any matter about 
Senator Kellogg, or anything of the kind. I never conversed with 
the man at all; never did. I never mentioned Mr. Cavanac to 
him, or watching liim, or sending any one to Williams to conte to see me, 
nor did I ever have any arrangement with him; but 1 have rather 
shunned that man altogether, and I have told my ofiicer at my ollice to 
watch him if he came about there and I was not in there. 

Q. (By Senator (A^ieron.) Now you can go on and make any state¬ 
ments with regard to the testimony so far as it concerns you yourself. 
—A. This testimony that I have here in the paper ‘I 

Senator Hill. Senator Cameron has asked you a question, and he 
wishes you to answer it.—A. This testimony, that is, Williams’s testi¬ 
mony; is very lengthy, but I desire to go through it and deny every¬ 
thing in it that ought to be denied. 

Senator Cameron. Go on. 

The Witness. (Reading from the report in the New Orleans Democrat 
of Bernard 'Williams.) “ The bargain 1 made with Jim Lewis was made 
on the 1.5th May. He sent to my house on Franklin street for me. He 
sent a nigger Tdon’t know, but who I have seen about the custom¬ 
house. 1 went to the custom house and saw .Tim Lewis, and he said, 
‘ Williams, there is trouble with the Republican party, and if Kellogg 
is moved the Republicans will be hung.’ He told me he wanted me to 
go to Charles Cavanac’s olli(;e and watch who went in and out.” 

1 deny all of that; 1 deny it in toto; it is a falsehood from beginning 
to end. 

(The witness resuming:) 

“1 saw one Levi, a countryman of mine. I do not know Levi’s first 
name, and he lives on the corner of Toulouse and Burgundy streets.” 

That is a falsehood. He does know Levi, because when I w as a police 
commissioner this same Barney M illiams was arrested by Levi. He is 
a countryman of his, and he does know him. 

40 s K 


€26 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Yance. I do not know, Mr. Chairman—I have not compared 
it—but I tl)ink the public record may not be correct according to the 
official record, and I do not know whether the testimony of this witness 
will be as effective as the Senator desires uuless his denials are made 
in accordance to the statements in the official record. 

Senator Cameron. I would greatly prefer that the official record be 
read. 

The Witness. Well, up to this jmiut, all that has been asked me by 
Senator Cameron I most emphatically deny. 

Senator Hill. I understand Mr. Lewis to say that he does not know 
Barney Williams except by sight, and did not speak to him on these 
subjects. 

The Witness. No ; I said I knew him, but had no conversation on 
these matters. 

Senator Hill. I believe you said you knew him only by sight. 

A. Yes, sir j 1 said I knew him by sight, and it is down, I suppose, as 
I said it. 

Senator Hill. I understand that it is down, Mr. Lewis. 

Senator Cameron. It is all down in the record. 

The Witness. 1 thought that my reputation as a man and a gentleman 
was fixed in this community, and I desire to fix it on the record also. 

Senator Hill. I believe no question has been asked you about that yetc 

The Witness. I want to show on the record that I am an honorably dis¬ 
charged captain in theUnited States Army. Thereit is(producing a paper 
which proved to be the discharge of the witness as captain in the United 
States forces). 1 might go further and show that I was awhile in the Con¬ 
federate service. I was one of the first to go out to the army with the 
Shreveport Greys. I was pretty much of a rebel until the promise of 
emancipation. Then I got away and into the Union Army. After I 
lett the United States Army with an honorable discharge, I served on 
the police in this city. I was once in the custom house before. I was 
one of the first colored men who held office. While I was administrator 
of the jmlice, our best conservative citizens investigated my affairs as an 
officer, and here is their rei)ort. Here you see it is—their report of the 
department of which I was an officer (producing paper, which proved to 
be the report in question). I have also papers whilst 1 was administra¬ 
tor of i)ublic works. The Hon. Lewis A. Wilcox, the present candidate 
for governor of the Democratic party, was then mayor. 

Senator Hill. Perhaps it is my duty to say to you, Mr. Lewis, that I 
do not wish to limit you, but I do not wish you to take any unnecessary 
latitude in your statements to the committee. You may, of course, have 
any necessary time to vindicate your character when it has been at¬ 
tacked. 

The Witness. The newspapers, Mr. Chairman, by their rei)orts- 

Senator Hill. Well, never mind, Mr. Lewis; we cannot vindicate the 
character of men against the newspapers. 

Senator Yance. No, not by any means. That would keep us here a 
hundred j ears. 

Senator Hill. But I say that whilst the witness testified to things of 
that sort, which I see you desire to contradict, 3^011 can do so, though 1 
do not think it is necessary. 

Senator Cameron. It was necessary for him to show what positions 
he has held, because it might, under certain circumstances, affect the 
credit of his testimony. 

The Witness. That is the reason I have given several statements that 
I have here; but here where I live, where I was born and raised, and 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 627 

anioii" peo])le I know, it is not necessary that I should take up the time of 
this committee or of any other body to vindicate my character. 

Senator Cameron. Tlie committee say, Mr. Lewis, tliat you can refer 
to the testimony in the Democrat, and make such statements in regard 
to it as the truth and the circumstances warrant. 

The Witness. I shall only quote the testimony as reported by the 
Democrat wdiere it refers to me. 

Senator Cameron. That is right. 

The Witness (reading from the report). ‘‘Lewis sent for me and said 
now was the time to help the Itepublicau party, and he gave me three 
820 bills, and told me to go to Washington. 1 went and bought my 
ticket, paying 857.20 for it. This was Friday, and Lewis wanted me to 
go off that day, but I did not go until the next day. Lewis, Badger, 
and Anderson told me to say I was going to Washington about my pen¬ 
sion, and not to say that I was going in the interest of Kellogg. "l had 
a letter from Jim Lewis to Governor Kellogg, and one from Anderson 
also.” 

Well, I deny this statement as a complete tissue of falsehood. I 
made no such proposition, gave him no such money, and nothing of the 
sort ever passed between us. 

Senator Vance. That paper report is not correct. To show you that 
it is not, the witness said he paid 857.20, but that was a ticket to go to 
Washington and return. 

Senator Hill. I think, Senator, that he said that afterwards. 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir; he stated it first just as it is reported. 

Senator Vance. Well, then, I was mistaken in the paper. 

Senator Cameron. (To the witness.) He said he had a letter to Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg, sent by you and Badger. 

Senator Hill. Wait a miniTte, Mr. AVitness. Another i)oint may as 
well be corrected here before we go any further. What Williams said 
about Levi was not that he did not know Levi, but that he did not know 
his first name. 

Senator AAnce. I suppose the paper misled Mr. Lewis. 

The AVitness. (Continuing his reading.) “The doorkeeper of Badger’s 
office, Kick or ]>ick ”- 

That does not refer to me, but I may right here state that I know 
something of the circumstances that transpired about this Dick or Kick. 

Senator Hill. Q. Does that have any relation to this matter?—A. 
Y^es, sir ; it was when this man Williams came to the office and asked 
me to pass him in to see Badger. 

Q. Who was that ?—A. This man AAYlliams stated to me that he 
wanted to see him and that the messenger would not admit him to see 
Badger, and I simply said to him that I was not the messenger of Col¬ 
lector Badger. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Williams stated that he was in Kellogg’s room in Washington and 
that he heard him read four separate telegrams from you. 

Senator A^ance. I do not think. Senator Cameron, that he said all of 
them were from him. 

Senator Cameron. 1 remember it that way. Aly recollection is that 
he was referring to Jim Lewis in his testimony at the time he mentioned 
these telegrams. 

Senator Hill. Y’es, sir; that is my recollection, too. 

Senator Cameron. He said the first was to the effect, “ I am in the 
car witli the witnesses.” 



628 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOG(^. 


Senator Hill. He can say first whether he sent any telegrams. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Did you send any ?—A. I did not send any Irom here. I can send 
to the telegraph oftice and see. 

Q. Did you send any on your way to Washington ?—A. Yes, sir j I 
sent one from Lynchburg. 

Q. To whom did you send that telegram ?—A. To Governor Kellogg. 

Q. And was that the only one that you sent to him while en route ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you please state to the committee what it was about?—A. I 
disremember, Senator, what the language was. It my memory serves 
me right, it was that I was on the train to arrive that night, and 1 had 
letters and papers in my possession for him, and I wanted him to have 
somebody there to get them. 1 do not remember the exact language. 
I know 1 j)aid 40 cents or 45 cents for sending it. I had not written or 
telegraphed to him before that. 

Q. That was the only one you sent to Governor Kellogg ?—A. Y^es, 
the only one. 

Q. When did you arrive in Washington ? I am referring now to the 
time when you went there in iVIay or June last.—A. I do not remember j 
1 think it was on the 2d or 3d of June. 

Q. Do you remember what was the time in the day when you arrived 
in Washington ?—A. Ko, sir; I remember arriving there in the evening, 
at 9.6 or 9.45 at night. 

Q. Where did you first see this Barney Williams after arriving in 
Washington f—A. I saw him j5tanding before the hotel I stopped at, 
the next morning after my arrival. 

Q. W^hat conversation had you with him. at that time, if any ?—A. I 
had none on my own part. He came u[) to me and three or four 
of the witnesses as we were coming ont of the hotel. They were 
going to the Capitol, and I was going to Willard’s Hotel. He spoke to 
me and to them—“ How do you do, boys ? How do you all do ?” and 
some of them said, “Well,” or something of that sort. I had no con¬ 
versation with him. It was merely the salutation of the day, and that 
is all the conversation we had at ail. 

Q. State any conversation you may have with him at any time during 
the time you remained in Washington.—A. I have had no conversations 
with him. He would come uj) to our friends from Louisiana and speak 
to them, but I entered into no conversation with him at all. He came 
up to the Capitol one day, and said he was waiting to see General But¬ 
ler on some business—that he was an old detective officer under General 
Butler. I know the most of our men there shunned him. I did not want 
to be seen with him. 

Q. He stated in his testimony that on the morning of the day that 
Johnson was called as a witness, which was the day after the witnesses 
arrived in Washington, that he was taking breakfast with you and those 
colored witnesses from Louisiana, at the time when a messenger came 
from the Capitol and requested the presence of the witnesses at the 
Capitol, and that when it was stated to you and those who were present 
that they wanted the witnesses, you all had a great laugh, and that you 
told the witnesses to go on and give it to them in the neck. W^hat is 
the fact with regard to that statement!—A. It is false, sir; absolutely 
and unqualifiedly false from beginning to end. 

Q. And that you as a matter of fact took breakfast with him or he 
with you at that time !—A. It was an hotel where we breakfasted, and 


SFOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


629 


be mi^ht have taken breakfast there at the same table, but I do not 
remember that he did. White and colored people board there ; but he 
never took breakfast or dinner with me. We came as we pleased, and 
were never all of us at the table at one time that I remember. I never 
made use of any such expression at all. They knew that they had to 
report to the Capitol, and at what time, and they told the landlord the 
night before to give them an early breakfast so that they could go and 
report. So I heard them say myself. 

Q. What witnesses accompanied you, or what witness did you accom¬ 
pany to Washington, as the case may be, at that time ?—A. You do not 
mean me accompanying them or they me on the train ? 

Q. Yes. I mean what witnesses went to Washington on the same 
train that you were on ?—A. Well, sir, I believe there was Malon, Se 
veignes, J. J. Johnson, W. John De Lacey, Thomas Murray, and Jere¬ 
miah Blackstone ; I believe that is all. 

Q. Did George Sweazie go with you on that train ?—A. No, sir; he 
did not. 

Q. Where did those witnesses go—to wdiat hotel or stopping place in 
Washington when they arrived there?—A. They went with Mr. George 
W. Williams, the proprietor of the Philadelphia House, upon the Avenue; 
it is an hotel, sir. 

Q. Where did they remain on the night of their arrival in Washing¬ 
ton?—A. At the hotel, sir. We were all very much broken down by 
our long journey. 

Q. Barney Williams has sworn that on that night when the witnesses 
arrived, between 12 and 1 o'clock, he took five of those witnesses, and 
has designated as those De Lacey, Johnson, Blackstone, Sweazie, and 
another black man, whose name he has not given, and from that hotel, 
the Philadelphia House, they went, by way of Seventh street, to the 
Patent Office, and then by F street to Willard's Hotel and to Governor 
Kellogg’s room. What, if anything, do you know as to whether those 
men or either of them went away from the hotel where they were stop¬ 
ping to Willard’s Hotel or elsewhere that night?—A. They were all in 
different rooms in the hotel, but I do not think a single man left there 
that night, except Tom ^Murray. Tom Murray told me, as I was delayed 
there, as my trunk had not come, and 1 had a good many i)apers in it, 
that he was going out; but Johnson, of De Soto, I know did not leave 
the house. 

Q. What was it that Murray said to you ?—A. He said that he was 
going to see ^Ir. Cavanac at his hotel. 1 do not think the rest of them 
left the hotel at all. 

Q. Where did you see these witnesses the next morning?—A. They 
were all of them there at the hotel; every one of them got up and came 
down to his breakfast. 

Q. Do you know what the custom of that house was as to closing its 
doors at 12 o’clock at night?—A. I know the customs of that house well, 
and they were very strict. There is a coffee-house attached to it, and 
belonging to the proprietor, and he closes at 12 o’clock every night, and 
no one can get in afterwards unless he comes and lets you in or out him¬ 
self. 

Q. Williams also testified that when those witnesses were leaving 
Washington to leturn to New Orleans that you were dead drunk, and 
had to be brought to the depot in a wagon. What is the fact in regard 
to that ?—A. It is a falsehood, that is all. I do not believe there is a 
gentleman on the other side who would believe it. They all know what 


630 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Walker will tell them if they do not, for he has known me for years, 
that nothing of the sort ever happened to me. 

Q. Are you in the habit of drinking to excess—A. l!^o, sir; and 
whilst I was in Washington I was there on business with the departments 
where the heads of the bureaus are, and 1 certainly would not get drunk 
while there upon business of an official character. I never was known 
to get drunk or go into an improper place there in my life. I had too 
much respect for myself and my family that I am raising. 

Q. Do you desire, Mr. Lewis, to say anything more with regard to 
what he said in his testimony as to yourself !—A. I do not know all that 
he said. 

Q. The substance of it you have got before you on paper?— A, Xo, 
sir; I believe not. 

Q. For what purpose did you go to Washington at that time? I be¬ 
lieve you have just stated something about it.—A. I went there, sir, on 
official business. I wanted to see the Secretary of the Treasury about 
my department. There had been a reduction of salaries, and not only 
that, but a reduction of my force, and I thought it was too great; and 
as I could not get there in May, because June was the closing month of 
the fiscal year, in June was as early in the year as I could get there; so 
I went there at that time. 

Q. I will pass from that and go back to the election by the Packard 
legislature of Senator Kellogg to the Senate. Where were you when 
that election took place?—A. I was here in the city. 

Q. Were you a candidate for anything at that time ?—A. Yes, sir; I 
was. 

Q. What for ?—A. I was a candidate for election to the United States 
Senate for the short term, and was elected, too, I think; but General 
McMillen raised his point in regard to it. 

Q. When were you there in the legislature during that period ?—A. 
I was present every time there was a joint session ; on every one of those 
occasions I think I was there. 

Q. What can you state as to whether there was a quorum present at 
the time of the election of Governor Kellogg ?—A. I believe there was 
a quorum present. 1 think there were some 68 members of the house 
who answered to their names. 

. Q. Did you at that time know Mr. Walker, of Tensas ?—A. Walker, 
do you say ? 

Q. Yes, sir; I believe that was his name.—A. Eobert J. Walker, was 
it not ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Some question has been raised here as to whether he was present 
during those joint conventions?—A. Yes, sir; he was. 

Q. Do you know that positively?—A. Yes, sir; for I was there and 
saw him. 

Q. The same question has been raised as to whether Thomas, of Bos¬ 
sier, was present.—A. 1 was personally acquainted with Thomas, of Bos¬ 
sier. My knowledge of those gentlemen was such that I can testify with 
regard to them. I canvassed the State twice and knew them well. The 
first time was in 1876, with Governor Packard, and I knew those men 
first during that canvass, as I was personally acquainted with Tliomas, 
of Bossier. 

Q. Was he present or not ?—A. He was present; I saw him there. 

Q. Was there any opposing candidate to Governor Kellogg ?—A. No, 
sir; Senator Kellogg was elected; he was the only candidate who was 
voted for. Governor Warmoth was a prominent candidate, and I think 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG, 


631 


there was a combination of friends who were warm supporters ot him. 
Thomas was for him, and my friend Sweazie. A combination was made 
on the election of Michael Ilahn, who carried Warmoth’s friends. War- 
moth was a candidate for speaker, and his election would carry, as they 
thought, the election of Warmoth to the Senate; but the election of Hahn 
carried with it the election of Kellogg for the long term. 

Q. Is it a fact, that from the time of the election for speaker there 
was substantially no opposition among the Republicans for the office of 
Senator ?—A. Yes, sir; that is my recollection. Most of these colored 
men came out to my house. It is a sort of rendezvous for colored men 
from the country. 1 keep what might be called open house for them, 
and had them out there; as they treated me very ki«idly in the country, 
so I treated them kindly in the city. 

Cross-examination by Senator Hill : 

Q. ^Ir. Lewis, you say there was a reduction of salaries of the officers 
in your department ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the date of the reduction ?—A. I think I can accom¬ 
modate you to those dates, sir. April, sir, was the first communication 
that 1 had on the subject. 

Q. What day in ApriH—A. April the 21st. It is a communication 
from the department, and I will read it (taking the paper in his hand). 

Q. That is not necessary. Answer my question, if you please. What 
day was it that you and the witnesses in this case left here for Wash¬ 
ington ?—A. I think it was on the 2nd or 3rd of June. 

Q. The 2nd or 3rd of June, 1870 ?—A. Yes, sir; that is my present 
recollection. 

Q. Was jmur only object in going to Washington at that time to see 
the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of that reduction of sala¬ 
ries ?—A. No, sir, I cannot say it was that alone. 

Q. AVhat was it then, ]\Ir. Lewis ?—A. I wanted to go and see the 
Senate and the House in session. There was a contest going on there 
that interested my party—the contest there between the President and 
the Democratic party as to vetoes and so forth. 

Q. Then you went to see about the salaries of the officers in your de¬ 
partment, and to look at the Senate and House in session, and witness 
the contest over the laws as they were being passed, and generally after 
the interests of your party ?—A. Yes, sir; I suppose so. 

Q. Had you ev^er been in Washington before, Mr. Lewis ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. You had often seen the Senate and House in session before ?—A. 
AYs, sir; but I wanted to see them after their political complexion 
changed. I wanted to see the brigadiers, as they called them. 

Q. That was very patriotic in you, Mr. Lewis. You wanted to see 
the brigadiers, did you f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long had they been in charge of the two houses at that time 
—these brigadiers, as you call them ?—A. I cannot say, sir. 

Q. When had you been there before ?—A. I was there in 18G8 some¬ 
time, pending my confirmation. 

Senator Cameron. 1878 you mean, do you not ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. A^ou were there in 1878,you say?—A. A>s, sir. 

Q. Were you therein 1877 '?—A. I do not know. Senator, but what I 
was. 


632 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you there in 1870, Mr. Lewis ?—A. I do not know but what 
I was. 

Q. Were you there in 1875 !—A. I do not know ; I may have been. 

Q. Were there not brigadiers therein Congress during all that time ? 
—A. Yes, sir, but they were not so numerous as they were then. 

Q. You went then, Mr. Lewis, to see the brigadiers in Congress 7— 
A. No, sir 5 I do not say that. 

Q. That was the meaning of what you said, was it not ?—A. Y^es, sir, 
in part; but there were many other things that took me to Washington. 
There were very able debates going on there on law points, on ques¬ 
tions of principle. 

Q. And were those your only motives in going there?—A. No, sir; 
that I stated as among them. 

Q. Had you any others?—A. None others, 1 believe, than what I 
have stated. 

Q. Well, Mr. Lewis, to come to the facts now. Y^ou had no desire, 
had you, to help Senator Kellogg in that contest with Spofford ?—A, 
Not personally, sir. 

Q. Well, politically ?—A. Y>s, sir ; I am a party man. 

Q. Well, helping Senator Kellogg was no part of your motive in go¬ 
ing to AYashington in June ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. No part of it at all ?—A. No, sir ; not in the least. 

Q. Y^ou had no particular desire to go there with the witnesses ?—A. 
Not specially; no, sir. 

Q. None at all, Mr. Lewis?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You had no desire to control them in any manner ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not want to do so ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Y"ou did not select the same train that they went on, or the same 
route they went, for any such purpose?—A. No, sir; I went on that 
route by choice; but they had a special car, and I had a bunk in it. 

Q. If the witnesses had not gone that day would you have gone any¬ 
how ?*—A. I think I should, sir. 

Q. Do you know positively whether you would or not?—A. I repeat 
that I think I should. 

Q. Y"ou do not know, then, but what you would have gone anyhow ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Y^ou say that the fact that the witnesses in this case were going to 
Washington did not influence you in the slightest to go ?—A. I had 
made up mind to go- 

Q. Answer my question. Y^ou say their going had no influence in de¬ 
termining you to go that day ?—A. Well, Senator, I will not say that. 

Q. State what it had to do with your going.—A. I had made up my 
mind to go to Washington, and I was going there ; and as it was a party 
question and I was a, party man, I felt it was the duty of a party man to 
go to Washington and do all that he could honorably to aid his party. 

Q. You wanted to see after Congress, and the laws, and the briga¬ 
diers?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you did not want to help Kellogg in his contest with Spofford ? 
—A. No, sir; not particularly. 

Q. Then your patriotism was general and not speciflc ?—A. Yes. sir ; 
you might say so. 

Q. Well, Mr. Lewis, you sent a telegram to Mr. Kellogg from Lynch¬ 
burg?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. What was the language of the telegram ? Will you please repeat 
it?—A. I have forgotten the exact language, I think. 

Q. Well, to the best of your recollection.—A. To the best of my recol- 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


633 


lection I telegraphed to Senator Kellogg, I think, for him to send Swea- 
zie—or if he had seen Sweazie—let me see what was the exact language. 
I do not know tlie exact language which I used, but I think I said to 
him, “Senator, if you see Sweazie tell him to meet me.” I think that 
was th(‘. language. “ I will arrive to-night.” I do not know the exact 
language, but I think that was about all. 

Meet you where ? At the depot ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Why should he meet you there ? What reason did you have for 
asking that he should meet you there ?—A. I wanted to see him. 

(»). What for ? Was it business of your own, personally ?—A. Y.es, 
sir. 

(>). He had ])receded you at Washington, had he not ?—A. Yes, sir; 
I had heard that he had. 

Q. Did you know what business he had gone on ?—A. Ko, sir. 

(,>. Did you kno\v how long since he had left New Orleans ?—A. I did 
not know how long he had been gone. 

(}. Did that telegram that you sent to Senator Kellogg that you have 
referred to have any reference whatever to the witnesses on board the 
train ?—A. None whatever, Senator. 

Q. Then the meaning of it was not that Sweazie was to meet the 
witnesses ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did it notify Kellogg or Sweazie that the witnesses were on that 
train ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you make any provision for the witnesses whatever?—A. 
What sort of provision do you refer to. Senator ? 

Q. Where they should stop, or anything of that sort.—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do >ou say that you did not mean to notify Governor Kellogg by 
that telegram that the witnesses were on. the train, and that provision 
should be made for them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. A^ou would have sent the telegram if the witnesses had not been 
on that train ?—A. Yes, sir; I think I would. 

Q. And you would have needed Sweazie to meet you at the depot 
just the same ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you stop in Washington?—A. At George Williams’s. 

At the Philadelphia House ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you all stoj) there—all the witnesses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Vou come to the house with them ?—A. That is, went to the 
hotel, and I went to the same hotel, but we did not go together. 

Q. What hotel was Sweazie at?—A. That’s where Sweazie was at. 

Q. A'ou were both there, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you generally go to the hotel with the witnesses ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did they go there first or you ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Did you talk with any of them that night ?—A. I don’t know 
whether I did or not. I don’t remember any conversation with them. 

Q. Did you remain there all that night yourself?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. You "did not leave the hotel after you got there?—xV. 1 don’t re¬ 
member now whether 1 left the hotel or not. 

Q. Did you stay by yourself or did you have a room-mate ?—xV. I had 
a loom-inate, sir. 

Q. Who was it ?—xV. J. J. Johnson, of De Soto. 

G. A^ou did. He was one of the witnesses, wasn’t he?—A. A>s, sir; 
I believe he was. 

(,). Did he sleep in the same room with you—in the same bed ?—xV. 
There was not room in the hotel to accommodate them all. 

Q. That is not answering my question, Mr. Witness. Did you sleep 
in the same bed with Johnson?—A. AYs, sir. 


634 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Dhl you all stop there iu that house while you were in Washing¬ 
ton ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see them all the time that they were there ?—A. I was 
usually up at the Senate iu the morning. I was with them at the hotel, 
and we ate together. 

Q. Then you ate together, roomed together, talked together, and 
slept together?—A. Yes, sir, at dilferent times. 

Q. And you went together to the Senate room?—A. Xo, sirj they 
went by themselves. 

Q. Were not you in the witnesses’ room and listening to them all 
when they were testifying?—A. jS^o, sir. I was there from time to time, 
however. 

Q. Didn’t you hear all of them testify ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. AYell, which ones didn’t you hear ?—A. I heard them testify from 
time to time, and may have heard all of them testify in part. 

Q. Generally, were not yon there all the time ?—Yes, sir, generally ; 
if you say generally, I was there. I answer you yes. 

Q. Didn’t you speak to the witnesses about their testimony ?—A. No, 
sir; except after the testimony was over. 

Q. Did you say anything to them on the train about what they would 
testify ?—A. No, sir. While I was on the train 1 spoke to them and to 
Mr. Cavanac and others. 

Q. As to what they were going to testify in Washington ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you say anything to them about standing up to their party, 
not going back on their party ?—A. I remember only wdiat I said to 
Tom Murray. He said that they were there in the interest of the other 
party, and I said to him to let them tell the truth, and that was all I 
asked. 

Q. Did you say anything to them about standing up to their party, 
the Republican party ?—A. 1 don’t know that 1 did. But the party was 
involved in it. 

Q. Did you or not, Mr. Lewis, tell them that they ought to stand up 
to their party, and that it was wrong for them to go back on their 
party ?—A. I might have said so. 1 am a party man and stand to it 
myself. 

Q. But why should you say so to the witnesses ?—A. I don’t know 
why 1 should say so to the witnesses more than to anybody else. 

Q. What time did you leave Washington?—A. The 15th or 16th of 
the month, I think. 

Q. Did you get pass with the-?—A. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Q. You staid there then until the testimony was all over ?—A. Y^es, 
sir, and longer. 

Q. O, you staid longer, too ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And didn’t you go home with some of the witnesses ?—A. Yes, 
sir; some of them were on the train. 

Q. With whom did you go back ?—A. I can’t remember who. 

Q. How many of them were there, four, five, or six?—A. I can’t say ; 
there were a great many people on the train. 

Q. There were not many witness summoned, I don’t think.—A. There 
were six for Senator Spoflbrd, 1 think, and others for Senator Kellogg. 

Q. Well the record shows how many.—A. Very well. 

Q. But you left New Orleans the same day tlie witnesses did ?—A. 
Yes, sir; part of them. 

Q. You staid at the same place with the witnesses in Washington?— 
A. 1 stopped at the same hotel. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 635 

Q. You slept in the same bed with one of them ?—A. One of them 
had no room and he slept with me. 

Q. And you went with them to the Senate Chamber and heard them 
all testify ?—A. 1 didn’t say that, Senator. 

Q. Well, you went to the Senate Chamber and you heard them ?— A, 
' Yes, sir. I attended the sessions of the committee. 

Q. And you staid in Washington until the testimony closed?—A. 
YTes, sir. 

Q. And then you came back with four or five of the witnesses ?—A. 
Yes, sir; they waited until I got through and came back, as they were 
friends of mine. 

Q. How long did it take you to get through with your business there 
with regard to the salaries of the ofiicers in your department ?—A. Some 
two or three days, 1 think. 

Q. When giving your best attention to the witnesses which part of 
your object in going to Washington was you attending to? Were you 
watching the witnesses, or looking after the salaries, or seeing briga¬ 
diers ?—A. Well, sir, I didn’t say that I was looking after the witnesses; 
I didn’t say that I was going to hear the witnesses testify; but I was 
not attending to them. 

Senator Ca^ieron. I object to that mode of questioning the witness. 

Senator Hill. Well, Senator, what he said is down in the record. 
Whether he said he was attending to the witnesses or not it is down 
there. He went there with the witnesses ; staid at the hotel with them ; 
went to hear them testify; slept w ith one of them ; came back with 
them ; that is all. Whether that was attending to them or whether he 
thinks it was not, is immaterial. 

Senator Cameron. I accept the explanation. 

Senator Hill. There is no explanation about it. It is only w hat is 
there. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) understand you to say this telegram sent from 
Lynchburg was the only one sent to Kellogg by you ?—A. That is all, 
sir. 

Q. Did any other person on the train send him one ?—A. Ko, sir; not 
that I am aw’are of. 

Q. And that one I understood you to say did not refer to the wit¬ 
nesses ?—A. Not in the slightest. 

Q. Was Swazie employed at the custom house at that time?—A. 'I 
don’t know, sir. I know' he had been previous to that time. 

Q. Was he or not in the pay of the custom-house then ?—A. I say I 
don’t know' that. 1 think he asked for a leave of absence. 

Q. Was his pay running on while he was absent ?—A. I don’t know, 
sir. 

Q. Was not yours A. Yes, sir, I was getting my full pay. 

Q. Do you know' what his business w'as there in Washington ?—A. No, 
sir, I don’t know 

Q. Did you tell him what your business was ?—A. I don’t know but 
that I did. 

Q. You say that you said nothing to the witnesses about the testi¬ 
mony that they were going to give until after it was all over?— 
About what that testimony should be, no, sir. 

(^). Didn’t you talk to them any about it at the hotel?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you at Governor Kellogg’s room while you were in Washing¬ 
ton ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long after you got there w’as it before you w’eut there; the 
first day ?—A. The next day, sir. 


^36 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Who did you go to see first, Kellogg or Sherman, Secretary ot the 
Treasury ?—A. I think I went to see Kellogg and to give him some let¬ 
ters and papers; and I would have gone that night that I got to Wash- 
ington if I had got my baggage. The next morning I went to his room 
and caught him before he got out of bed and then gave him the pa¬ 
pers. 

Q. Did he ask you anything about the witnesses?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he ask you for your good office in the matter of his contest 
with Spofford ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t he ask or request you to assist him in any way while you 
were in Washington ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t you say on the train on the way to Washington in the hear¬ 
ing of Mr. Cavanac and others, that Governor Kellogg was a friend of 
yours and you felt bound to go there to Washington and assist him ?— 
*A. No, sir, I did notin the presence of the witnesses. You ask me what 
I said, and I say that was in a conversation with Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Did you say that to Mr. Cavanac or to the others ?—A. I may have 
said so to Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Did you go there then to assist Mr. Kellogg ?—A. No, sir; I may 
have said that anyhow that it was the duty of a Kepublican to stand by 
Kellogg and his party. 

Q. You said awhile ago that you did not say anything of the sort ex¬ 
cept with regard to your party.—A. Well, I said it in a general way. 

Q. I asked you what you said on the train!—A. Well, sir, I might 
have said it. 

Q. Did you use any language which might imply that you were going 
to Washington to assist Kellogg!—A. No, sir, I don’t think I did. 

Q. Did you go for that purpose !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did his case have anything to do with your visit!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any purpose, directly or indirectly, in going to Wash¬ 
ington at that time to assist Kellogg !—A. No, sir. 

Q. And in point of fact you say you did not assist him !—A. Well, I 
do not know what assistance I was to him. 

Q. You do not know then whether you did or not !—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you don’t know whether you attempted to or not !—A. Well, 
whether I attempted to assist him or not is another matter. 

Q. Yes, I know it is, but I want you to say whether you did attempt 
to assist him or not ?—A. Well, sir, I don’t know, Senator, whether my 
presence there was of any assistance to him or not. 

Q. Could your presence there be of any assistance to him !—A. I 
don’t know, sir. I should say not. 

Q. Did you have any influence with the witnesses or over them !—A. 
No, sir, not during that trip. Mr. Cavanac was the State registrar of 
voters in this city, and as I had a status as a Republican in the State, 
and as he had consented to be the sergeant-at-arms to carry the wit¬ 
nesses to W'ashington, and as I w'as a Federal officer myself, I took 
occasion to talk with him on the trip. 

Q. Well, did that assist Kellogg any !—A. I don’t know as it did. 

Q. Well, that is what I am talking about now. Was it j^our purpose, 
Mr. Lewis, to assist him !—A. I don’t know that it was, specially. 

Q. Did you attempt to assist him !—A. I don’t know as I did. 

Q. Don’t you know whether you attempted to do so !—A. My pres¬ 
ence might have been of some assistance to him. 

Q. Your presence, you think, might have had a hallowing effect on 
the situation.—A. Yes, sir, I will answer you that. 

Q. Did you see Mr. Cavanac, and did he go as sergeant-at-arms of the 
■committee!—A. I don’t know, sir. I saw him. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


637 


Q. You stated that lie was sergeant-at-arms. 

Senator Cameron. I think he said. Senator, that Mr. Cavanac had 
consented to act as sergeant-at-arins. 

(lly Senator IJill.) Q. Did he act as sergeant-at-arms ?—A. I don’t 
know, sir ; I heard he had consented to have charge of those witnesses, 

hen I left New Orleans they had a car and they were all by them¬ 
selves. The car I was in had a great many white parties and children 
in it, and the conductor put me back there with the colored people. 
But 1 djd not go in there with them. It was a Pullman palace car. 

Q. Well, that is all astray from my question. I asked you if he con¬ 
sented to act as sergeant at-arms ! —A. 1 think Mr. Cavanac told me 
that he had charge of those xiersons. 

Q. Did you know before you left New Orleans that these witnesses 
were going to Washington in the Kellogg-Spotford case ?—A. I did. I 
knew they had that intention for I was aboard the train. 

Q. Didn’t you know about it before ?—A. Xo, sir, I didn’t know they 
were aboard the train. 

Q. Well, that is a species of quibbling. Didn’t you know they were 
going to be aboard the train ?—A. 1 knew some of them were summoned 
to go to Washington, but 1 don’t know that I knew they were going to 
be on that train. 

Q. Didn’t you know of those particular witnesses, who they were and 
when they were going, till you got on to that train ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Then you did not know that any of the witnesses were going on 
that train ?—A. I heard they were going to Washington. 

Q. But you mean to say that you did not get on the train with that 
knowleilge?—A. Xo, sir; I heard it. 

Q. When did you hear it ?—A. Well, I can’t say exactly. 1 heard it, 

Q. Did you say anything to them before they took the train ?—A. 
Xo, sir. 

Q. Did you know anything of their having given affidavits before go¬ 
ing on to Washington I—A. Xo, sir ; not until after 1 got on the train. 
Yes, sir, I believe I did hear it in the newspai)ers, too. 

Q. Did you hear on the train that they had given attidavits in this 
case ?—A. I heard it from Mr. Cavanac. I do not like to repeat what 1 
heard from him ; but he stated in substance that these witnesses had 
made affidavits, and that they were going on to Washington, and that 
the testimony of these Kepublican witnesses was going to put Kellogg 
out of the Senate; that they had made affidavits with him, and I said 
to him that I thought not—that is to say, that I thought they were not 
going to put Kellogg out of the Senate; he said, yes, he had to go. 

Q. Why did you think it would not i)ut Kellogg out ?—A. I thought 
that he had a case on which they could not put him out. 

Q. And you thought that without regard to what the witnesses were 
going to testify ?—A. Xo, sir; 1 never believed they would put him out, 
and J don’t believe it now. 

(,). Xo matter what the testimony may develop, Mr. Lewis ?—A. I do 
not say that. Senator, but I do not believe it. I do not believe there is 
testimony of a character that will justify the American Senate in })ut- 
ting him'out; but if it goes on as it is going here now, there is no tell¬ 
ing where it will end. There is such brazen falsehoods being told. 

Senator Cameron. If you are going to enter into a controversy with 
the witness, 3Ir. Chairman, 1 object to it. 

Senator Hill. When your witness undertakes to give his opinion 
about what the Senate is*going to do, I have got a right to know on 
what he bases that opinion. 


638 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Cameron. I object to it nevertheless. 

Senator Hill. Of course you do. You have better charge of him 
than you have of me. He took occasion to introduce it and 1 took 
occasion to question him on it, and I hope now we understand each 
other. 

Senator Cameron. I do not know whether we do or not, and I have 
no hope about it. 

Senator Hill. Well, never mind, Senator, we will go on with the tes¬ 
timony. 

Q. (By Senator Hill). How many times were you at Kellogg’s room 
in Washington while this testimony was going on before the Senate ?— 
A. While I was there I think I was in Kellogg’s room three times. 

Q. And the first time was the day after you got there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A^ou were the first man there. I believe I understood you to say 
that you got there before he got up.—A. I do not pretend to say I was 
the first man there that morning, but he was not up when I got there. 

Q. But you found nobody else there?—A. No, sirj but I met two or 
three friends on my way there. 

Q. How long after that was it before you saw him the second time ?— 
A. I saw him every day after that up at the Senate. 

Q. When was the second time that you were at his room!—A. I 
think the second day after that. 

Q. When was the third time!—A. I think it was on—but 1 don’t 
know the date—it was the day he went over to the department with 
me. I mean the Treasury Department. He told me to meet him 
there. 

Q. Hetoldyou to meet him overthere!—A. Y"es,sir; I went to his room, 
and he told me he had some business to attend to, and I wanted him 
to go with me to the Treasury Department, and he said if I desired 
him to go with me he would do so, and for me to meet him over there. 

Q. Do you know of any of these witnesses sending any money home 
from Washington while they were there !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know who paid their expenses while they were in Wash¬ 
ington ?—A. They paid their own, 1 think. 

Q. Did they ride about in any carriages !—A. I think they did the 
second day after they arrived. 

Q. Did you go with them !—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Do you know ^^ho paid for those carriages !—A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know what sort of horses drew those carriages !—A. I do 
not know, sir. 

Q. Do you remember whether they were fine gray horses or not ?—A. 
No, sir j I was not there. I did not see them when they went to ride,, 
but some of them told me they had been. Mr. Cavauac gave them 
money while they were going on. 1 think he advanced them some part 
of their per diem and mileage. 

Q. You say Mr. Cavauac gave them money. How do you know that! 
—A. I say money, was advanced to them. I suppose he did it, but I 
won’t say that he did; but there were advances, for they had money 
when they got to Washington. They had no money to go there unless 
it was advanced by somebody, and that they had money I know. 

Q. Well, Mr. Lewis, I want to ask you sometldng, about Mr. Williams. 
How long have you known him !—A. George Williams! 

Q. No, No; Barney Williams.—A. I suppose—well I may—I did not 
know him; I did not know him at all until since the legislature was in 
session. The first time I ever saw Mr. Williams to know^ him or that he 
was Barney Williams, was the day that he came into my office and asked 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


639 


me for Mr. Gla—Senator Gla—and asked me if be bad been in tbe office 
that morning. I said no ; I did not know bim .in anj’ manner until I 
was in tbe naval office. 

Q. And you say that yon never employed liiin to watcb Cavanac ?— 
A. I never called bis name to bim. 

Q. Yon never made any bargain with bim of that kind ?—A. ^^o, six ; 
never in ray life. 

(*>. And you never gave bim any money?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor ever advanced bim any ?—A. No, sir. 

i}. Did you ever see bim in Kellogg’s room in Washington ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Did you ever see bim in tbe hotel where Kellogg stopped ?—A. No, 
sir; I saw bim in front on tbe banquette. 

Q. Did you ever see bim talking to tbe witnesses in this case?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know what name be went under while be was in AVasbing- 
ton ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know what name be registered at tbe hotel ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you never tell bim what to register; to register himself 
when be got to Washington as M. Davis?—A. No, sir; I never did. 

Q. And you never beard it until you beard it here?—A. No, sir; I 
never did. 

Q. Do you know who paid bis expenses in AVasbington ?—A. No, sir; 
I do not know anything about bim. 

Q. Do you know whether be is a poor man or not ?—A. I do not know, 
sir, anything about bis financial condition. 

Q. lie got back here about the same time that tbe rest of you did ?— 
A. He did not come with me. Tbe fact is we all scattered somewhat 
from AA^asbington. 

Q. Did you bear anything either in AVasbington or here about bis 
being employed in tbe interest of Kellogg ?—A. I never did, sir. 

Q. And all that story about bis being employed by you you know to 
be false ?—A. I do. 

Q. And as to bis being employed by Kellogg or by anybody in tbe 
interest of Kellogg, you never beard of it before it was developed here 
in this committee ?—A. Never, sir. 

Q. Had you any information going to show that be was in tbe interest 
of Kellogg?—A. 1 never bad. 

Q. Well, now, when did you first bear of it ?—A. I first beard of it since 
you gentlemen have been here. 

Q. You never beard of it, then, until tbe day before yesterday?—A. 
No, sir ; I never did. 

Q. Did you bear of it in tbe custom-house last week ?—A. No, sir. 

(J. Did you bear of bis arrest?—A; No, sir; I did not know that be 
was arrested. 

Q. Did you bear of bis being advised to bide out and avoid an arrest 
by tbe sergeant-at-arms of this committee ?—A. No, sir; not a word 
of it. 

Q. Have you not been at bis bouse within tbe last week ?—A. No, 
sir ; I do not know where it is. 

(^. Have you not sent to ids house ?—A. No, sir; I have not. 

il. Y'ou never did?—A. No, sir; I do not remember that 1 ever went 
to his house in my life. 

(,). At no time?—A. At no time, sir. 

Q. You never had any business transaction with bim in your life ?— 
A. Never, that I can recollect. 


640 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Neither for Kellogg nor for anybody else!—A. Never, for nobody. 
1 stated all the circumstances of every transaction I ever had with him. 

Q. Ihat was when he went to the custom-house, you say ?—A. Yes, 
sir; he came there and came into my office and wanted me to take him 
in to see Collector Badger, and I simply replied to him that I was not a 
messenger for Badger. 

Q. And he said to you on that occasion that he had a letter from 
Kellogg, did he not?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you say that you never paid him any vouchers ?—A. No, sir; 
I never paid him any vouchers or promises of any kind. 

Q. You admit, though, that you saw him in Washington !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did it occur t) you, Mr. L?wis, to know what his business was 
there?—A. No, sir; it did not. 

Q. Y'ou met him up in the Capitol ?—A. Yes, sir; in the committee 
room. 

Q. Did it not occur to you to know why he was there aud what at¬ 
tracted him to the committee room ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And yet you admit that he was there and that you noticed him 
nearly every day ?—A. Yes, sir; I do not deny that 1 was there aud 
what I saw. 

Q. I do not suppose, Mr. Lewis, that you will deny either that you 
were there or that jmu saw him, but I want it to go down on the record. 
—A. I am glad to have it there myself. 

Q. 1 also want it to go on the record that you are a colored man; 
you are?—A. Yes ; that is what they class me; lam half and half; my 
mother was a colored woman and my father a white man. 

Q. Yes, but that is what we call a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And I will say that you are very good-looking.—A. That is what 
my wife says, Senator. 

Q. I w’ant to ask you another question. Did you, while you were 
mingling with the witnesses in Washington, know of their determina¬ 
tion to change their testimony ?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Y^ou slept with Johnson ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was Johnson of De Soto?—A. Y"es, sir; Johnson of De Soto. 

Q. He was introduced to the witnesses?—A. Y"es, sir; he was put on 
the stand as a witness. 

Q. That was in this Kellogg case ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear him testify ?—A. I heard him, I believe, in part. 

Q. You slept with him all the time he was in Washington ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I did. 

Q. Did he tell you anything about his affidavit?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Or say anything to you about his going back on his affidavit ?—A. 
No, sir ; I do not think he went back on his affidavit. He made an affi¬ 
davit, but it w'as not true, and when he testified to what was the truth, 

I do not think that was going back on his affidavit. 

Q. Well, you know w hat I mean, Mr. Lewis ; did he not go back on 
it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Why, what do you call that sort of transaction ?—A. I have just 
told you what I thought of it. He made an affi lavit and knew it was 
not true when he made it, and he told me the party who took it knew it 
was not true at the time. 

Q. Well, now, did he say anything to you about his making that affi¬ 
davit?—A. I do not think I did have any conversation with him par¬ 
ticularly about that. 

Q. And you say he did not advise with you on the subject ?—A. No,, 
sir; he did not. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


641 


(}. Did you bear any discussion as to the determination of their going 
back on their aftidavits ?—A. From the witnesses f No, sir. 

Q. Whom did you hear it from ?—A. Mr. Cavanac. 

(c>. Did you ever hear anybody in Kellogg’s room ?—-A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear anything said about it by Sypher ?—A. No, sir; 
1 did not. 

(^. Or by Conquest Clarke ?—A. No, sir; I did not see Conquest 
Clarke in Kellogg’s room while I was there. 

Q. Nor did you hear any of it from witnesses 1 —A. No, sir. 

Q. You remember what day of the week it was you left New Orleans ? 
—A. 1 do not now recall the day. 

Q. Was it the afternoon of the second or third day of June last ?_A. 

I think it was on Monday afternoon; but I am not positive. 

Q. Well, Monday was the seconci (hiy^ was it not!—A. Monday, I 
think, was the second day of June. I have the Secretary’s leave of ab¬ 
sence, and I think it was dated that day. 

Q. Did you have any detention e?i route from here to Washington; 
any delay of the train?—A. Any detention, Senator ? 

Q. Yes; any misconnectiou or anything of that sort?—A. I do not 
know, sir, that we had. 

Q. And you got to Washington what day ?—A. I do not know the 
schedule time, but I believ’e it is about forty-eight hours between here 
and Washington. 

Q. Did you get there on Wednesday, the 4th of June ?—A. I think 
so; that is about the night. 

Q. And the testimony of Johnson began the next day ?—A. I believe 
so. 

Q. lie went before the committee, then, the next morning after he 
arrived ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He had not been in the city, then, twenty-four hours ?—A. No, sir; 
1 did not know where the committee was sitting, or anything about it, 
until the next day after I got there. 

Q. And you say Johnson testified that he had given an affidavit and 
that he said to you it was not true ?—A. I heard that part of his testi¬ 
mony. 

Q. Did he say anything to you about the parties who took it knowing 
it was not true?—A. 1 read that in his testimony ; that is all. 

Q. You say positively you never saw Governor Kellogg until the 
morning after your arrival ?—A. No, sir; 1 did not see him that night 
of iny arrival. 

Q. A"ou went to see him next morning?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are sure you went there?—A. A'es, sir; 1 think it was the 
next morning. 1 am almost positive that it was, for I went there to 
give him a package of papers. 

Q. You did not see him that night of your arrival, and you swear to 
that?—A. I will state. Senator, and rejieat it, we did not get to the 
hotel until some time after nine o’clock, and my trunk did not come un¬ 
til an hour and a half afterwards. ]\1 array and myself, 1 think, walked 
on up to the hotel together, and Murray said he was going over to meet 
Cavanac, who was at the hotel. I said to him that 1 was waiting for 
my trunk and wanted to deliver that package of papers that night, but 
we were very dirty and tired from traveling, and I concluded to take a 
bath and go to bed. I had no idea at that time that the Senate com¬ 
mittee was going to meet the next day. 

Q. You were very intimately acquainted with these parties who be- 
41 s K 


642 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


loDg to what is called the Eepublican party of Louisiana A. Yes, sir ; 
very well. 

Q. And yon were acquainted a long time with Mr. Kellogg % —A. Yes, 
sir; a very long time. 

Q. And with Louis Souer?—A. General Louis Souer? Yes, sir. 

Q. You were also very intimate with the Packard legislature “?—A. 
Yes, sir; that was the legislature of the State of Louisiana. 

Q. You see you have so many legislatures down here we have to name 
them, so that we can tell which we are talking about.—A. That’s the 
legal legislature, sir. 

Q. You were much more intimate with it than you were with the 
Nicholls legislature ?—A. Yes, sir; the Packard legislature was the 
legitimate one, in my judgment. 

Q. Well, you were very frequently with it from the beginning to the 
end?—A. Yes, sir; I was there very frequently from the beginning 
until its unfortunate end. 

Q. How long was it in session ?—A. I cannot tell, but I think three 
or four months. 

Q. What did it do all that time ?—A. Passed laws, I suppose. 

Q. It did pass laws, how many?—A. I didn’t keep the run of it, but 
there were four or five bills, I think, passed. 

Q, Will you find some one of them, and tell us what it was?—A. I 
cannot tell you. 

Q. You think there were four or five of laws?—A. Y^es, sir; I think 
the propositions were passed, but I never kept any record of them. 

Q. Do you think they passed any law whatever?—A. Yes, 1 think 
they did; I am not positive however, Senator, on that point. 

Q. And you think in three or four months, they only passed three or 
four laws?—A. I do not know, sir, what they did in that time. I say 
that they did pass some laws. I say I think they passed some four or 
five bills; some of them passed the first and second reading and some 
were on the calendar, and business went on pretty much as usual in leg¬ 
islative routine. 

Q. Do you know how many bills were introduced?—A. A great 
many, sir. 

Q. Will you find us the record of them ?—A. I could get it, I think. 

Q. We would be glad if you would. We would like to have the 
record of the bills passed, and laws enacted. W"e w ould like to see it. 
You were there very often you say ?—A. Yes, sir; I was there off 
and on. 

Q. Did the Packard legislature meet in Mechanics’ Institute ?—A. Ko, 
sir; it was down on St. Louis street, at the State-house. 

Q. Where was it?—A. At the State capitol. 

Q. Did they stay there day and night ?—A. Well, sir, I think some 
went out at night. Some did not. It was an old hotel, and the men 
from the country were very poor, and they were given lodging in the 
State-house. 

Q. Were yon there during the balloting for United States Senator? 
—A. Yes, sir; I was. 

Q. Did you hear the roll called ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know that Mr. Thomas was there?—A. Thomas of Bossier, 
do you mean ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Do you mean in his seat? 

Q. I don’t know whether I mean in his seat or not. Did you see him^ 
there at all ?—A. Yes, sir; he was in front of the speaker. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 643 

Q. \\ as tbero any trouble with him that you know of?—A. He was 
sick, and laying down on his desk. 

Q. Was that body orderly or not ?—A. Well, sir, it was like all legis¬ 
lative bodies, they were calling the roll, and members were rising auel 
speaking. 

(J. When did you first see Thomas that morning?—A. 1 suppose about 
the time the vote w'as going to be taken. I was there about the house, 
and I was looking out for the short term election to come up, and I 
wanted to see that all the members were present. 

Q. Were you actively engaged in promoting the election of Kellogg? 
—A. Well, sir, I was a candidate myself, and that made me anxious 
about a quorum. 

Well, did yon help him, and he help you ?—A. I dou’t know as to 
his helping me. 

Q. Were you both immediately engaged on that occasion ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did they ballot for you that day?—A. No, sir; I expected they 
would, but they did not. 

Q. Did they ballot for you at all ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And elected you, I suppose?—A. Yes, sir; for the short term. 

Q. Y'ou never presented your credentials, diil you ?—A. No, sir; I had 
a certificate of election. 1 didn’t present it. 

Q. Did you know or hear of any man being used to promote the elec¬ 
tion of Governor Kellogg to the Senate ?—A. No, sir. Rumor had it 
so; and if you will put the question so I can explain it, I will do so. 
There was a rumor to that effect, but I do not know anything about it. 

Q. You say there was a rumor ?-^A. Y"es, sir; it was rumored and 
told about four or five days, or more. 

Q. How many members of that legislature were charged with having 
been bought up ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Did any of the members ever charge anybody that they had been 
bought up?—A. No, sir; not that I know of, 

Q. Didn’t anybody get up in the Packard legislature and tell them 
that all of them had been bought, and they knew it ?—A. I never 
heard of it. 

Q. How' long have you known Johnson ?—A. J. J., you mean ? 

Q. Yes; J. J. Johnson, of De Soto.—A. About eight or ten years, 
sir. 

Q. How long have known De Lacey ?—A. Twelve or fifteen years, sir. 

Q. How lo^g have you knowm Seveignes ?—A. I hav^e only known 
Seveignes since 1874, or, probably, ’71?—’72, I think it was, I first got 
acquainted with him when I went over the State in the canvass. 

Q. They are all intimate friends of yours, are they not ?—A. I know 
them. 

Q. Well, Johnson, of De Soto; and the other Johnson is of what par¬ 
ish ?—A. Terre Donne. 

Q. Do you know' him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it Martin Johnson ?—A. No, sir; 1 think his name is H. M. 
Johnson. 

Q. Well, do you know Milton Jones?—A. I am acquainted with him. 

Q. Were they all in the habit of coming to your house when they 
came to the citv ?—A. Every one of them, sir. 

Q. Well, they are all of them honorable, truthful men, ain’t they ?— 
A. Well, Senator, 1 am not vouching for the honesty of anybody. I 
believe they are honorable men, though. 


644 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You believe they are honest, don’t you?—A. Yes, sir; but I be¬ 
lieve they might, under certain circumstances, divert from the truth. 

Q. What sort of circumstances do you mean ?—A. Well, sir; to save 
their lives, for instance. 

Q. But tor nothing less than to save their lives, you think?—A. I 
think they would, for that purpose. 

Q. Don’t you think thej^ would tell an untruth for their party ?—A. 
I don’t think they would. 

Q. Don’t you think Seveignes would?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you believe that either one of thorn would?—A. For their 
l)arty, do you mean ? 

Q. Yes; for their party.—A. I don’t believe they would. Senator; I 
don’t think but what they might lie under certain circumstances ; but 
I don’t believe they would do so simply on account of their party. 

Q. Well, 30 U know them all, Mr. Lewis; they come to your house, 
and you are a leader of your party?—A. Yes, sir; I believe they are 
honorable men. 

Q. And you believe they would tell the truth ?—A. Yes, sir; but as 
I explained to you, there are circumstances where I think they 
wouldn’t. 

Q. What are those circumstances?—A. Well, sir, there is J. J. John¬ 
son, from De Soto. He has been driven away from his home and cannot 
go back, and I think he would tell a lie in order to get back there and 
see his wife and children. That’s what I call telling a lie under duress. 

Q. And you think that’s all he would tell a lie for?—A. Yes, sir. I 
don’t think he would tell a lie unless it was under duress. 

Q. Do you think the same of Seveignes ?—A. I don’t know, sir. 

Q. Do you think he would make an affidavit, and then, swear he did 
it purposely to deceive the party ?—A. Well, sir, I don’t know so much 
of him as 1 do of Johnson. 

Q. Do you know John Clark Miller?—A. ITes, sir. 

Q. Do you believe he would tell a lie ?—A. I don’t know, sir. 

Q. You would believe him, wouldn’t you ?—A. Yes, sir; if he were to 
come to me and say a thing was true 1 would believe him. 

Q. If he were to say a thing, he would swear to it, wouldn’t he?—A. 
Well, sir, a great many people say things they wouldn’t swear to. 

Q. How is it with you ?—A. Well, sir, that’s the understanding and 
rule about people down here; it’s the same here as elsewhere. 

Q. But is it the rule down here, Mr. Lewis, among any considerable 
portion of the citizens that they would say a thing and yet not svvear 
to it ?—A. I think there are some down here who would. 1 think there 
are some people who would swear to what they said, except in duress; 
but you asked me what I would do; I would not make a statement or 
affidavit and then swear it wasn’t true, I wouldn’t for my own sake do it. 

Senator Cameron. I am glad you have certified to your own character. 

Senator Hill. You gave your opinion, Mr. Lewis, about the charac¬ 
ter of other people, and I assumed that you would have no objection to 
stating your own rule of action. 

The V^Ttness. No, sir; 1 had no objection, and I say that I would not 
make an affidavit or state seriously to a gentleman anything that I won’t 
swear to. You asked me about Johnson, and I say if he said a thing to 
me, I would believe it. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Doyou kuowMr. Cornog?—A. lam acquainted 
with him, yes, sir. 

Q. Do you believe Mr. Cornog is a creditable man ?—A. I don’t know, 
sir, so much about that. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 645 

Q. AVell, yes or no, wliat is your opinion of him ?—A. Well, sir, I 
don’t like to ])ass an opinion of the kind upon other men. 

Q. I would like to ask jou if you would believe him on oath in a 
court of justice ? 

Senator Cameron. And that would be a proper question. 

Q. (Senator Hill to the witness). Well, you would believe him on 
oath in a court of justice ?—A. I think his reputation has been very good 
from what 1 have seen of him. 

Q. That is not answering the question. Would 3 ’ou from your own 
knowledge of his general character believe him on oath in a court of 
justice ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. That’s pretty hard to say, is it ?—A. A^es, sir, it is. 

Q. AVell, that’s pretty manifest itself, it’s a hard question to answer 
whether you believe him or not on oath. Mr. Charles F. Brown, do you 
know him ?—A. He was examined in Washington; Mr. Brown, of Jetfer- 
son, a member of the legislature? 

Q. Yes.—A. I know Brown, and if he was to tell me anything I would 
believe him. 

Q. Hid you hear his testimony?—A. ^^" 0 , sir; I didn’t hear it. 

Q. Are you positive about it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, you would believe him on oath ?—A. Well, sir, if he were 
to tell me a thing I would believe it; I have just this much coutidence 
in him that if he came to me and asked me, I would indorse his note. 

Q. Well, this is indorsing his business, isn’t it? Would you indorse 
his character; would you believe him on oath in a court of justice?—A. 
Well, sir, he is a man who tells his jokes and things of that sort; but 
certainly I would. 

Q. AVell, do you know Brooks?—A. Brooks, of Saint Mary’s? 

Q. A^es; that’s the same man ?—A. A^'es, sir; and if he came to me 
and told me a thing I would believe him. These men are all colored 
men, and our relations are different from mine with the man named 
Coruog; they are colored and he is white; he used to drink a great 
deal and was dismissed from the force. 

Q. Well, what of He Lacey; you know him well?—A. A^es, sir; I 
know him well. 

Q. Is he creditable—would you believe him on oath ?—A. AYs, sir; 
if he tells me a thing I believe him. 

Q. Is he a fri^iid of yours ?—A. AYs, sir. 

Q.. An intimate associate ?—AYs, sir. 

Q. Then, I understand you to be intimate with Kellogg, Packard, 
Badger, Souer, Morris Marks, and all of these prominent Bepublicans ?, 
—A. AYs, sir; most of thetn ; they are men of character and standing 
in the community; there are some Republicans who are bad men, and 
I would not believe them. 

Q. Well, R. B. Johnson, what about him ?—A. R. B. did you say— 
Johnson of Terrebonne, you mean, don’t you ? 

Q. AYs, of Terrebonne, a member of the Packard legislature.—A. I 
know but little about him ; he is a white man. 

Q. He is put down here as colored.—A. Which one is that. Senator? 

Q. Robert B. Johnson, of Terrebonne, is put down here [referring to 
testimony taken in Washington] as a colored man, called by the sitting 
member, Mr. Kellogg.—A. Well, sir, you called on me to speak of John¬ 
son ; there were two, one white and one colored ; I thought you si)oke 
of the colored man. H. M. is a white man, and Robert is a colored man. 

Q. You know him?—A. I saw him in the parish, when I was in it, 
canvassing; my relations with him were not intimate. I only saw him 


646 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


at the legislature, aud I don’t know much about him. He stands high 
in the estimation of the people, both white and colored, where he lives. 

Q. Did you hear the testimony of and these other witnesses 

in Washington ?—A. Yes, sir; the most of it, but not all. 

Q. Was it credible aud trustworthy testimony, in your judgment?— 
A. I don’t know so much about that. Senator. 

Q. Well do you believe they testified to the truth ?—A. I don’t know, 
sir; I haven’t gone over that testimony, and 1 don’t know what it is.v 

Q. Well, Mr. Lewis, I want to go back to another question. I don’t 
want to misunderstand you; but it is important that we should have 
the fact. You say, as a matter of fact, that you never employed Wil¬ 
liams in the interest of Kellogg. Did anybody else?—A. I never did, 
sir ; that is my constant answer. 

Q. You never employed anybody in that interest?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Did you ever ask anybody to assist him in this case ?—A. I never 
did, sir. 

Q. Y^ou never assisted him yourself?—A. Ko, sir; not particularly 
that I kuow^ of, unless my being there at the time was some assistance 
to him as a party man. I would do anything honorable to assist the 
party, and I would do for the party what I would do for Kellogg. 

Q. I am not asking you about that; 1 ask you if you did assist 
Kellogg?—A. I did nothing, sir, except as my presence may have done 
it. 

Q. Y^ou did no act, I mean, that had for its object the assistance of 
Kellogg in this case?—A. No, sir ; there was no act of mine that I can 
recollect. 

Q. Y^ou didn’t attempt to influence anybody one way or the other ?— 
A. I didn’t. As I told you, I conversed with Mr. Cavanac, and he kept 
the witnesses from me. 

Q. You didn’t go to Washington because the witnesses were going, 
you say ?—A. No, sir ; I was going independent of the going of the 
witnesses. 

Q. And 5 "our going and stay and return hadn’t anything to do with 
the Kellogg witnesses ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you would have gone anyhow, whether they went or not ?— 
A. Yes, sir; I went to Washington to see about the reduction of sala¬ 
ries in my office, and the reduction of the clerical force. Having sent 
one or two communications to the department requestiyjg an additional 
clerk, and to have the salaries of the officers under me raised to where 
they were originally, and failing, I concluded to go to Washington my¬ 
self. I also wanted to see the Senate then in session, and I went to 
Washington for that and nothing more. Those things are what caused 
me to go, and I didn’t go especially in the cause of Mr. Kellogg. That 
was generally in my mind, and of course as a party man I would render 
him any assistance that I could. 

Q. But you have testified that you took no interest in the case at all ?— 
A. No, sir; none, except so far as the Bepublicau party would naturally 
feel it. 

Q. But you did no act, .you say, in that behalf?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you took no intetest in it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. AVho is Du Mont?—A. He is the chairman of the Republican State 
committee. 

Q. Is he a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is he also deputy collector of the port ?—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. Was he then ?—A. I think he was. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 647 

Q. Did he fjo to Washington ?—A. I think he did. I saw him in 
Washington, and he didn’t go with me. 

Q. This redaction that you speak of, did it relate solely to the officers 
in your department ?—A. No, sir; it was generally all over the custom¬ 
house. 

Q. Did you see Du Mont there in Washington at the sittings of the 
committee ?—A. 1 think I did ; I know I did; yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know wijat his business was there?—A. I don’t, sir. 

Q. Did he have as much interest in that reduction of salaries as you 
had?—A. In my department? Not particularly. 

Q. 1 understand you to say it was general?—A. Yes, sir; generally, 
he did ; but he may have been subpoenaed by the committee. 

Q. Did the Secretary of the Treasury write for you to come on ?—A. 
No, sir; but I had a leave of absence. 

Q. Did you succeed in changing that redaction ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And the Secretary would not change it?—A. No, sir; he had ad¬ 
hered to his former decision. 

Q. Did you write or telegraph to any one in Washington that you were 
going there?—A. I didn’t. 

Q. Did you cause anybody else to do so ?—A. I didn’t. 

Q. You spoke of one telegram, and you stated that you sent it from 
Lynchburg, and, if I remember correctly, it was to tell Sweazie I am 
on the train and to meet me at the depot.”—A. O, no; I didn’t say that. 
1 knew that he would know, if I was at Lynchburg*, 1 was on the train. 
I think it w’as something like this: “If you see Sweazie, please tell him 
to meet me to-night.” 

Q. Did you say to Sweazie, “ I am on the train”?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not say in ^mur dispatch, then, “ We will arrive to-night”? 
—A. No, sir; I never said that. 

Q. Nor in your direct examination ?—A. No, sir; I think not. 

Q. Did you get a dispatch from Louis Kenner?—A. No, sir; the con¬ 
ductor of the train got one. It was re^iorted here that I was thrown off 
the train, and the conductor came into the car at Atlanta, Ga., and said 
he had got a dispatch, asking to know whether I was hurt. I did not 
get it myself. It was several days afterwards, in AVashingtou, when I 
got a letter from him. 

Q. Who is he ?—A. lie is the deputy naval officet of this port. 

Q. Was he a member of the returning-board?—A. \es, sir. 

Q. Is he a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I want you to tell me how many members of the Packard legisla¬ 
ture are in the custom house.—A. I do not know, sir, exactly; we have 
got a good man 3 'of them there. Alost of them are men from the country, 
who were driven from their homes and had been given employment in 
the custom-house. 

Q. How do you know they h id been driven a v iv fr i n th ^ir homes? — 
A. Well, sir, I took their word for it, and from the reports we had of 
the facts. 

Q. A good many of them live in this city, do they not ?—A. Yes, sir; 
they are compelled to. A good many of them were elected here and 
round about here. 

Q. Put do 3 ’ou know whether any of them have been home since— 
these fellows from the country ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether there are anj’^ of them there who are draw¬ 
ing pay and who do not work ?—A. No, sir; not in my department. I 
do not know what takes place in the collector’s department. 

Q. Kenner, you say, is deputy naval officer?—A. Yes, sir. 


648 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Anderson is the collector of the port?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long has Kenner been there ?—A. He has been there since I 
went in, or, rather, shortly after I went in. 

Q. When did you go in?—A. I went in in 1878. He has been with me 
for years. He was superintendent of streets under me as administrator 
of public improvements. 

Q. Did you know Wells ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is the surveyor of the port, is he not ?— A. Yes, sir. 

• Q. Has he been in there since the Packard legislature disbanded ?— 
A. Yes, sir, all the time. 

Q. Is J. J. Johnson in there?—A. Yes, sir; I think he is a laborer. 

Q. How much pay does he get ?—A. I do not know, sir, how much. 

Q. You do not now what he gets a month?—A. No, sir, I do not; he 
is not in my department. They work some of them by the hour and 
some by tbe week. 

Q. Has Johnson been put in there since he gave his testimony in 
Washington ?—A. I think he was in there before, sir. 

Q. Is De Lacey in there?— A. Yes, sir. A great many of our 
country members of tbe legislature who were driven away from their 
homes are iu there. We took them in and provided for them. 

Q. Well now, Mr. Lewis, just answer my questions without making 
any argument. You are so impartial a witness you have nothing 
more to do now than just to answer my questions. Is Dumont in there ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is Gla in there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Is he represented iu there by anybody ?—A. No, sir, not that I 
know of. 

Q. Is Cage in there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Is he represented by another party ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Is Burch in there?—A. Burch from Baton Kouge? Yes, sir. 

Q. Is he getting a salary of $1,800 a 5 ear?—A. I do not know his 
salary, sir. 

Q. Well, Bryant, who is he?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Was there a senator by that name?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is he in the custom house ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Is he on the time-roll ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What Bryant is he that is on that roll ?—A. There is a Bryant in 
the city w'ho is a very active republican, and I think it may be him. 

Q. Senator Breaux, is he in there?—A. He was in the Nicholls 
legislature ; that is, he was in both legislatures. He went over among 
the first who went from Packard to Nicholls. I think he is in the land- 
office or in the revenue-office or something of that kind. 

Q. Is he not in the internal-revenue department ?—A. I do not think 
he is. 

Q. Well, Blunt of Natchitoches ?—A. Yes, sir, he is there. 

Q. T. T. Allaiu, is he there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Is he not represehted by A. J. Allain ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Is not A. J. in there ?—A. I do not know, sir; he may be. He 
has got an uncle in the city, and he may be there. 

Q. Do you not know whether he is receiving a salary or not ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Well, C. 0. Antoine, the ex-lieutenant governor, is he in there ?— 
A. From Caddo ? Yes, sir^ he is in there. 

Q. Is Harper in there ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Well, there are a good many put down here on this list (referring 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 649 

to a list) as being represented by somebody ?~A. Well, sir, I do not 
know anything about that. 

Q. Well, Kelso of Tensas?—A. He is there. 

Q. Senator Landry ?—A. He is not there. 

Q. Is he represented by somebody.—A. I think he maj" be represented 
by his son. I think there is a Landry in there. 

Q. Stamps?—A. T. B. ? He is a commission merchant on Union 
street. 

Q. Is he represented in there by any of his brothers ?—A. He had a 
brother who lived up in Carrollton. 

Q. Hid he represent him in the custom-house ?—A. I think he 
represented himself. 

Q. He was in the custom-house though ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, Sutton ; how about him ?—A. Sutton of St. Mary ? 

Q. O, I do not know—any Sutton ?—A. Well, sir, if it is Sutton of 
St. Mary. 

Q. Is he not on the time-rolls of the custom house ?—A. No, sir, I do 
not think he is. 

Q. How about Twitchell ? I see lie is put down here as consul at 
Kingston, Canada?—zV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, Charles T. Browu?—A. He is in there. 

Q. Brewster, how about him ?—A. He is in the land-otTice. 

Q. That is right—$1,800 a year ?—A. He was in there before he was 
elected. 

Q. R. J. Brooks, tell us about him ?— A. He is from the parish of 
St. Mary I believe, and he is now a night-inspector in the custom 
house. 

Q. Carville, how about Carville ?—A. He is not in there. He is in 
Iberville Parish. He was in there a while and was discharged. 

Q. Then he is not there now ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Como ?—A. Yes, sir, Como of St. James, he was there. 

Q. Is he there now ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, is he represented there ?—A. I do not know, sir. I think 
you put a man down there on your list as being represented when he 
was only recommended. 

Q. Hrury, how about him ?—A. No, sir, he is not there. 

Q. He Lacey ?—A. From Rapides ? Yes, sir. 

Q. Dinkgrave?—A. He was there. 

Q. Hesmairais ?—A. He is in the parish of Saint Landry, and is post¬ 
master, I think. 

Q. Emile He Tiege ?—A. From Saint Martin's? 

Q. Is he there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Is he not in the revenue service ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Never was?—A. I do not recollect that he was. 

Q. Well, how about Aristide He Joie?—A. He is there. 

Q. He was a member of the house of representatives, was he not ?— 
A. Yes, sir; from the thirteenth and fourteenth wards. 

Q. In the Packard legislature?—A. Yes, sir; he was in the Packard 
legislature, and he is now in the custom-house in the gaiigePs depart¬ 
ment. 

Q. Gardare, he was a man from the seventh ward ?—zV. No, sir; he 
is not ill there. 

Q. He was in the post-office department, was he not ?—zV. No, sir. 

Q. He is not in the post-office department now ?— A, No, sir. 

Q. I see you have got a man named Hill in there, how is that?—A. 
I do not know, sir. We have got several named Hill. 


€50 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Hill of Asceosion, is he in there?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Vance (to Senator Hill). Are you trying to get a quorum 
there? 

Senator Hill. I think so; 1 think I could find one there. 

Q. (By Senator Hill:) Oscar Holt?—A. Yes, sir; he is thei^. 

Q. .Well, Johnson; there is another Johnson besides the night in¬ 
spector?—A. Yes, sir; and both of them are at work there. 

Q. Gracien, is he there?—A. I think he is in the revenue office. 

Q. Keeting, how about him ?—A. He is there. 

Q. Well, Leonard; he is United States attorney, I see?—A. He is 
from Natchitoches. 

Q. Who was he? Was he a member of the house, of the Packard 
legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. W. J. Lane?—A. He is United States commissioner. 

Q. Well, A. E. Milon?—A. He is a black man. 

Q. He is there, is he not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. W. J. Moore, tell us about him, or rather something more about 
him. We have heard a good deal.—A. Yes, sir; W. J. Moore is there. 

Q. Was he turned out a while—suspended ?—A. Not that I know of, 
sir. 

Q. Do you know whether he was removed during July and then rein¬ 
stated ?—A. I do not know, sir. He is in the revenue department, and 
Mr. Marks discharges men very often and hires them over again. 

Q. Do you know that Moore threatened to tell something if he was 
not put back ?—A. No, sir. . 

Q. How about McMillan?—A. He is postmaster. 

Q. Was he a member of the Packard house?—A. He was. 

Q. Romero ?—A. He is from Iberia—yes, sir. 

Q. Is he not in the internal-revenue office ?—A. I do not know. You 
are speaking of people here who were in the legislature, and some of 

em may be home in the country. 

Q. Well, Raby?—A. He is in there. 

Q. L. J. Souer, of Avoyelles?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he a member of the house ?—A. Yes, sir; he has been a mem¬ 
ber all the time. 

Q. How about Sweazie ?—A. He was from West Feliciana; he is in 
there. 

Q. He went to Washington, did he not?—A. Yes, sir; he was the 
man that I wms telegraphing to to meet me. 

Q. Well, Snaer?—A. I do not know whether he is there or not. 

Q. Do you know whether he is on the time-roll ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Well, Seveigres?—A. I believe he is there. 

Q. Is he a night inspector ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was a member of the legislature?—A. Yes, sir; he was elected 
a member of the lower branch. 

Q. Stewart ?—A. From Tensas ? 

Q. Is he there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. R. J. Watson, is he there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He was a member of the legislature, was he not?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You say he was not a member ?—A. No, sir. I think there was a 
Watson from Madison Parish. 

Q. You say Watson was not a member; was he in the custom-house 
when he went to Washington ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Is he not a man who said he would not have any office?—A. I 
think that was Johnson of Terre Bonne. Watson was in the custom¬ 
house before he went and is now. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


651 


.(}. riiis man A^'atson is the man who was charged with inakiii" an 
afiidavit and i)eisonating Thomas of Bossier?—A. Yes; 1 beard of 
that. 

Q. You say he is in the customhouse now?—A. Y'es, sir; I believe 
so; 1 am not positive. 

AVell, Milton Jones: how about ^lilton ?—A. Tie is connected with 
the building, lie is from the parish of Boint Coupee, and is there now, 
1 believe. 

Q. He is there now, you say ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. How many employes are there in your department ?—A. I think 
I have got six. 

Q. Oidy about six ?—A. That is all, sir. 

Q. AYhat are their names?—A. Myself, Louis Kenner, as deputy; 
\Yilliam Starr, chief clerk ; P. O. Labatut, ho is warehouse clerk; Jo¬ 
seph Presus, entry clerk; John Weber, manufacturers’ clerk; and a 
messenger, John I^eeke. 

Q. Did we understand you to say that you and Johnson slept all 
night that first night that you reached Washington?—A. I say John¬ 
son slept that night in bed with me. He went to bed before twelve 
o’clock, and I fastened the door myself. 

Q. Did Johnson go to bed before you did?—A. Yes, sir; I think he 
was gone to bed when I came in. He was a gentleman 1 knew, and I 
said to him to fix himsef uj) a room, and when 1 got there Johnson had 
no ])lace to sleej), and so 1 showed him my room and gave him the key 
to it. 

Q. Do you know what time it was when he went to bed ?—A. It might 
have been l)etween ten and eleven o’clock.' I went to bed early myself, 
as I was tired. I got no rest on the train. They i)ut us in a Jim Crow 
car after we left Lynchburg, and it went hard with us from there here. 

Q. Did I understand you to say positively that you did not go out 
that night after you got there ?—A. 1 did not say that. 

That is what I want to know, though.—A. 1 may have gone out. 
jMy trunk did not come up right away, and I may have went to look 
after it. 1 know it did not come in time so that I could get out the let¬ 
ters for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Did you not take a bath that night after you got there ?—A. 1 
think I did. 

Q. Did you dress up and go out?—A. I do not think I did, but I may 
have done so. 

Q. You say you may have done so ?—A. 1 may have went out with 
Sweazie, but I am not positive. 1 will not say that 1 did. 

Q. Do you know John IL Wood, the member from the Washington 
Parish ?—^A. John K. Wood, I do not; I do not remember him now. 

Q. Do you know P. C. Heath, of Webster ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

(^. Do you remember seeing him in the house the day of the Senato¬ 
rial election ?—A. I do not know, sir; but 1 think I did. 

Q. Are you positive about it?—A. I say 1 believe I did, but I will 
not say positively that he was there. I was very active seeing alter all 
of them, both me and my friend Sweazie. Sweazie nominated me for 
United States Senator, and we were very active getting them in there 
to vote. 

Q. Did you say that Guerin was there?—A.. 1 do not think he was 
there wheii the vote was being taken. 1 think he came in afterwards, 
and there were three or four of them who came iu the next day and 
asked to record their votes. 


652 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Was it the same day or the next day ?—A. It was the next day, 
the morning when the journal was being read. 

Q. Yon say tliat there were two or three who came in —A. There 
may have been two or three or more of them ; I do not remember how 
many there were. 

Q. What was the entire number recorded as present in the joint ses¬ 
sion ?—A. We had in the house, I think, 08 members ; I am not positive, 
but I think there were 68 members of the lower house, and I do not 
know whether there were 17 or 18 senators present. I can refresh my 
memory about that, but I can’t say positively now. 

Q. What was a quorum ?—A. i think it was 79 j 78 or 79; I do not 
remember which. 

Q. What was a quorum of the house —A. Sixty one, I think, but I 
am not positive. 

Q. Sixty-one of the house and 18 of the senate?—A. Yes, sir; I think 
that is it. There were 36 members of the senate, and 19 of the senate 
was a quorum. 

Q. Then it required 80 members to be a quorum of the two houses ?— 
A. 1 am not positive, sir, that I am correct in the count. It may be 
that there were only 34 senators. Mr. Walker has the record there and 
can say, but I think there were 36 senators and 120 members of the 
house. 

Q. Thirty-six senators jmu say?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That would make 156 in all, would it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it wmuld take 79 to make a quorum of the joint session ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Cameron). There was one statement made by the wit¬ 
ness Williams to which I did not call your attention. I will not state it 
with perfect accuracy, because my memory is not very distinct. My rec¬ 
ollection is that he stated that when the witnesses who returned to l^ew 
Orleans at the same time that you did were about to leave Washington 
the proprietor of the hotel refused to surrender their baggage until his 
charges against them were paid, and that Senator Kellogg advanced 
$186, or rather furnished $186, which were placed in your hands, and 
you paid the account. Is that true or not ?—A. Ko, sir ; it is not true. 
There were two or three of the men who had spent all the money they 
had there, and they had not the money to pay their bills. I paid their 
bills for them. I loaned them the money, and most all of them have paid 
me back. I believe there were three of them who were not able to set¬ 
tle their bills at the time, and I said to Mr. WTlliams—this is Mr. Wil¬ 
liams, now, of the hotel, not Barney Williams—and Mr. Brown, of Jef¬ 
ferson, w^as one to whom, I think, I loaned some money, for I paid part 
of his bill myself as he was going over to Philadelphia on a diiferent 
route—I said to Mr. Williams that I would j)ay their bills for them, and 
I did so. 

Q. Was or was not the money furnished by Kellogg ?—A. I got the 
money from him to pay those bills. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. How is that?—A. I say I got the money from him to settle those 
bills with. 

Q. Prom Governor Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Cameron. 

Q. What was the amount ?—A. I do not know, sir. I cannot remem¬ 
ber now how much it was. 

Q. Senator Hill has called over a list of names of persons who were 


spot FORD VS. KELLOGG. 


653 


members of the Packard legislature, and inquired of you whether or not 
they are now employed in the custom-house in this city, and you have 
answered that some of them were and some of tliein were not ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. State the reasons generally why they are employed in the custom- 
liouse, referring now only to those members of the Packard legislature 
who are now employed there.—A. Well, sir, most of those men have 
been employed there since the fall of the Packard legislature, or Pack¬ 
ard government rather. These men were here in the citv at that time, 
and because of their connection with that body they co ild not return 
home. Many of them were warned not to do so; for instance, Blount, 
Ellis, and Jtaby, members from Xatchitoches, were told not to return. 
Blount was a property-holder up there, and was not t)ermitted to go back 
liome, and under those circumstances it was considered to be the duty 
of the Republican party to take care of them, just as the Democrats did 
with the senate when they got possession of it and turned out the Re¬ 
publicans to put Democrats in ; and naturally, as we had those places 
in the custom-house, we put them in. Some of them got work in town 
here, but very few of them did, though, and hence they were employed 
by the heads of dei)artments in the custom house. We were Republi¬ 
cans, and I understand the Democratic doctrine to be, “To the vic¬ 
tors belong the spoils.’’ Consequently these fellows are in there. Some 
of them went in a month after, and some of them two months after, the 
fall of the Packard legislature, and so on up to very recently. 

Q. Senator Hill called the nameof W. L. ^lacmillan for the purpose of 
ascertaining, 1 suppose, what otlice he now holds. It seems that he is 
at ])resent postmaster ?—A. Yes, sir; he is. 

Q. To what ottice was he elected by the so-called “fusion legislaTire” 
that you had here?—A. Well, sir, they took him out of our party, and 
elected him United States Senator. 

Q. Did he or did he not antagonize Governor Pinchback ?—A. Yes, 
sir; they sent him up to Washington, and the Re[)ublicans sent Gov¬ 
ernor IMnchback. 

Q. Senator Hill has called your attention to the names of (piite a 
number of persons, and asked you whether they were rei)utable or not, 
and whether you would believe them on oath. Now, while 1 <lo not 
think that is ])roper testimony, 1 will follow his exam))le, and ask you 
some questions on the same line. Do you know Tom ^Murray ?—A. Y^es, 
sir. 

Q. You would believe him on oath ?—A. I know Tom very well; he 
has worked with me in the department of public improvements. 1 
know him about as well as I know anybody. 

By Senator Hill : 

(}. Who is that you are talking about ?—A. Tom Murray, sir. I be¬ 
lieve if Tom were to tell me anything 1 would believ'e him, but he is a 
man, of course, who, if he is engaged in any business, will look after it; 
he is like some men whom 1 know who will take care of what they are 
about at any odds. I would not say that I would not believe him on 
oath, but 1 would not say that [ believe he would tell the truth, for that 
would be owing to the circumstances under which he was placed. 

Jjy Senator Cameron : 

(,). Then you mean to say that it, would depend on circumstances 
whether you would believe him or not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why would you not believe him unless you knew the circum¬ 
stances ?—A. Well, sir, Tom is a professional man. 


654 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. AVbat do you mean by that ?—A. Well, sir, I would believe him 
if he were to tell me anything. 

Q. Yes ; but you say he is a professional man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVhat do you mean by that; do you mean to say that he gets his 
living by his wits?—A. Well, sir, he is a pretty shrewd fellow, sir. 

Q. You stated, I believe, Mr. Lewis, that Mr. Cavanac is the only 
gentleman whom you heard say that it would be dangerous for those 
witnesses, who made affidavits here in IsTew Orleans, to go back on 
them when they got to Washington ?—A. No, sir; Mr. Cavanac said to 
me on the train, “Lewis, what are you doing on here?” I told him I was 
on my way to Washington. He asked me what for, and I think I told 
him i was on business; that I was going on to see the departpient; that 
I had business there and was going there to attend to it, and he said 
to me, “ Now, Lewis, you know you are a man whom we all respect; 
we know you are a Eepublican, but we don’t intend to have you tamper 
with those witnesses on the train. They have made statements to me 
which have been witnessed and sworn to by them, and I don’t want you 
to interfere with them. It is best not, for it is in reference to Kellogg, 
and he is going to be put out. It is no use now to fool with them, for 
he was not elected; he had no legal legislature, and he is going to go 
out.” I differed with him, and we argued all along pleasantly and like 
gentlemen, and we had no difficulty. Ho said he had charge of those 
fellows, or was looking after them, and he did not want me to mix up 
with them. But the train people put me in that car, and told me to go 
back where the rest of the darkies were, so, as they put me in there, I 
staid there. I sat with Mr. Cavanac, and I conversed with Johnson, 
Murray, and De Lacy, for wherever we stopped we had to go together 
to do our eating, and go put in the kitchen and try to get something to 
eat. The first night, at Bay Saint Louis, they would not give us anything 
to eat, and I went back to the car and had a basket of lunch that my 
wife had fixed up for me, and Milton Jones, a good friend of mine, came 
in, and we took our supper. VVherevmr I could buy anything on the 
road I did it, and gave it to them for lunch. They were going away 
from home, and were my friends, and I tried to treat them well. 

Q. Did not Mr. Cavanac accompany them?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was on the cars with them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was the only white man in there with them ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
there were gentlemen getting off and on all the time, but he had a seat 
there, and I think he slept in there most of the time. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You say you had a large lunch-basket, Mr. Lewis?—A. Y'es, sir;, 
my wife fixed up a lunch-basket for me. 

Q. And you say you gave them plenty of your lunch ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
they eat it nearly all up the first night. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When did you borrow this money that you spoke of, or rather get 
it from Senator Kellogg?—A. I think the day they left I went to him 
and told him the circumstances. He said he had no money, and I said 
they have been here some time, and they want to go home. Some of 
them had plenty, but they had gone to houses and other places where 
they ought not to have gone and spent it, or drunk it all up, and I said 
they had no money to pay their bills and get home with. They had 
staid several days over their time in order to come home with me.. 
They wanted to go round and see the country, for they had been states¬ 
men down here, and they wanted to know and see the country. They 


SP0FF3RD VS. KELLOGG. 655 

tliouglit a man could not be a statesman and not see the country some¬ 
what. 


By Senator Vance : 

Q. T)o you mean they were Louisiana statesmen ?—A. Yes, sir; Louis¬ 
iana statesmen. It was a sort of convulsion down here, Senator, and 
they had come to the surface. 

Senator Hill. It is such a convulsion as never was seen before. 

Tlie Witness. Yes, sir, quite true; and I hope we will never see the 
like of it again. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You mean, Mr. Lewis, that you got the money from him for that 
purpose, as you have stated it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Has Kellogg ever paid it back ? 

The Witness. That is not the question. The question is whether I 
paid him. I think there is a balance of about .$j 0 still due. 


TESTIMONY OF JOHN FITZPATRICK. 

John Fitzpatrick, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. 370 Custom-House street. 

Q. What is your business'?—A. Now, sir? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. I am engaged at present in the registration office. 

Q. Will you please look at that writing and say whether you ever saw 
it before or not (handing the witness a paper). 

The Witness (after examining the paper). Yes, sir; that is my 
writing. 

Q, Did you write that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Look at the signature to that writing.—A. I saw this signature 
placed on this paper. 

Q. AVhose signature is it ?—A. W. J. De Lacy. 

Q. Mr. Fitzpatrick, you state that you w rote this paper ?—A. I wrote 
it first from a memorandum book handed to me by De Lacj". From that 
I wrote this affidavit out, and after writing it I turned it over to him and 
asked him to read it and asked him if it was correct, and he said yes. 

Q. Did he seem to read it?—A. He did read it, and not only once, but he 
took the book and we exchanged the book and the affidavit twice or 
three times, and I asked him it there was anything in it that was not 
right to correct it, and he said that everything in it was just as he 
wished it. I then w^ent with him to the justice of the peace and saw 
him swear to it after its being read over to him, and he told them that 
it was correct. 

Q. And you saw him sign his name to it ?—A. Yes, sir. The paper 
never left my possession from the time we left the office until we got to 
the justice of the ])eace. 

Q. Was that at the time it purports to have been given ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Do you know of any constraint that was on him at the time to in¬ 
duce him to make the affidavit ?—A. None, sir. 




656 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. AYas that memorandum wbicli be gave you in bis bandwriting ?— 
A. Yes, sir; be said it was. He said be gave it instead of dictating it. 
He bad made tbe memorandums to refresh bis memory, and be told me 
to take tbe statements from that. 

Q. Do you know from Mr. De Lacy that be denied ever signing it and 
said tbe signature was forged ?—A. I have beard so. 

Q. You beard that be did so at Washington ?—A. Ye^, sir, I have 
beard so. I have beard that be said be did not sign it. He did, and be 
said be never signed, and not only that, but be never signed bis name 
in that way. 

Q. Did you ever state to him anything about that reported denial of 
bis signature.—A. Yes, sir ; be was in tbe registration office. I didn^t 
see him at first, but a gentleman pointed him out, and I remarked to 
tbe clerk to swear him on the Bible, and made the remark at tbe same 
time that I did not think it made much difference with him whether it 
was a Bible or not. He said be was registering now, and 1 said nothing 
more to him except to denounce him as a scoundrel. 

Q. He said nothing to you himself then ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not ask him if be made tbe affidavit and then denied it ?— 
A. I asked him if be swore falsely about that affidavit in Washington. 
He said be was the man that I was referring to, and he was registering 
now, and be did not think I bad any business to bother him. 

Q. Was anything said then as to whether that affidavit was true or 
not f—A. No, sir. 

Q. He never said, then, whether it was true or not ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you write any of tbe other affidavits that were taken ?—A. I 
think I did make tbe copy of one of them. I could recognize my writ' 
ing if it were shown to me. 

Cross-examined by Senator Cameron : 

Q. How long have you resided in New Orleans ?—A. I was born here. 

Q. What is your present occupation !—A. 1 am clerk to tbe registra¬ 
tion office. 

Q. From whom did you receive that appointment?—A. From Mr. 
Cavanac, tbe registrar of voters for Orleans Parish. 

Q. Mr. Cavanac is tbe State registrar, is be ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have 5^011 had tbe appointment ?—A. Forty days. 

Q. What was your occupation at tbe time you wrote that affidavit ?— 
x\. Nothing, sir ; I was not in any business. 

Q. Wliat else bad you done before that ?—A. I was secretary for two 
different committees of tbe constitutional convention. 

Q. From whom did you receive that appointment ?—A. From tbe 
members of tbe committees. 

Q. Were a majority of them Democrats ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did you bold those positions ?—A. During tbe time that 
tbe convention was in session. 

Q. How long was that ?—A. I do not now exactly remember. 

Q. Can you state whether it was a month or two months ?—A. It was 
six or seven weeks, I think. 

Q. Now, Mr. Fitzpatrick, fix tbe time as near as you can, and tell me 
when the constitutional convention adjourned.—A. Well, some time in 
September, sir. 

Q. How soon was it after tbe adjournment of the constitutional con¬ 
vention before you obtained other employment ?—A. Well, sir, I do not 
remember that exactly. 

Q. Well, about bow long?—A. I think I went to work about the 2d 
of September. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 657 

Q. Then the constitutional couveution must bave adjourned on the 
1st ?—A. I do not remember when it adjourned, sir. 

Q. Can you state to the best of your recollection when it adjourned?— 
A. My memory is in fault about that, sir. 

Q. Well, now, just state as near as you can the time it did adjourn ?— 
A. 1 do not know, sir. I remember that it convened in April, but 1 can¬ 
not remember when it adjourned. 

Q. Will you state the month in which it was convened?—A. It con¬ 
vened in Ai)ril, sir. 

Q. In April last?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And cannot you state the month when it adjourned ?—A. That, 
sir, 1 cannot remember. It is very extraordinary, too, that I cannot, 
but it is the truth. 

Q. I agree with you that it is very extraordinary. What was your 
occupation between the time of adjournment of the constitutional con¬ 
vention and the time when you went to work in Mr. Cavanac’s office ?— 
A. I cannot remember. I know I went across the lake for two or three 
weeks and came back tirst. 

Q. Were you employed while you were over there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You had none whatever ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you were out from the time of the adjournment of the con¬ 
vention until you went into Cavanac’s office?—A. Yes,-sir. 

How long had you been acquainted with De Lacy?—A. I never 
saw him before to my knowledge in my life until I saw him in the office 
where he made the affidavit 

Q. What was your business in the office at that time ?—A. I was en¬ 
gaged in there, sir. 

Q. How came you to be there ?—A. I was requested by Mr. Cava- 
nac to copy out of De Lacey’s book. 

Q. Y^ou were engaged, you say, by Mr. Cavanac to copy out of the 
De Lacey book ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was that?—A. I think it was in April. 

Q. Can you fix the time any more definitely than that ?—A. Well, 
sir, it was the fith of April. That thing states it (the witness re¬ 
ferring to the paper), for it is in my handwriting. 

Q. Have you any impression aside from the date on the paper as to 
when it was?—A. No, sir; I cannot say that I have; but seeing that 
it states there it was on the 9th of April, I take it to be true. 

Q. When did Mr. Cavanac ask you to copy from De Lacey’s book? 
—A. It was the same day the affidavit was made out. I do not sup- 
l)ose there was five minutes elapsed from the time Mr. Cavanac asked 
me until I started on it. 

Q. Do you know, or did you know at that time, that Mr. Cavanac 
was engaged in working up the Spoftbrd case?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. How long had you known that at the time ?—A. I cannot exactly 
state how long I did know it. 

Q. According to your best recollection will you state it ?—A. I can¬ 
not exactly state, sir. 1 heard Mr. Cavanac often say that he was 
deeply interested in seating Judge Spotford, because he thought he was 
fairly and squarely elected. 

Q. That is a voluntary statement on your part, Mr. Witness. I asked 
yon when you first heard him say he was engaged in working up Judge 
iSpofibrd’s case ?—A. I do not remember, sir, for I was a great deal with 
him. 

Q. What was your business with him ?—A. I had been employed in 
the registration office with him before. 

42 s K 


658 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. At that time what business bad you with him?—A. Nothing 
special, sir. 

Q. What business did you have with him in general ?—A. Nothing, 
except that I was with him just as I was with other gentlemen. He 
simply asked me to write out that affidavit, and I did it the same as I 
would do it for you. 

Q. Was it in Mr. Cavanac’s office that you wrote it out ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Who were present besides yourself, De Lacy, and (hivanac?— 
A. Mr. Cavanac was not in the office all the time, but a colored man 
named Harper, I think, was present. He was formerly a member of the 
legislature, 1 think. 

Q. Well, now, what occurred after you copied that affidavit off of De 
Lacy’s memorandum book? W’hat next occurred after that?—A. I 
gave him that affidavit which I copied from the book, and he read it 
over and stated that it was correct. 

Q. Did you copy it verbatim from the book ?—A. No, sir; there 
were slight alterations of errors, but 1 did not alter the facts at all, as 
I explained to him at the time. 

Q. Well, after that what occurred ?—A. After he had read it care¬ 
fully two or three times, we went to the justice of the peace. 

Q. That is, you and De Lacy went?—A. Yes, sir j and this other 
man, Harper and De Lacy took a-solemn oath that it was the truth. 

Q. How solemn was it? You say he took a solemn oath ?—A. I do 
not know how exactly to understand you. I think when a man raises 
his hand and swears to Almighty God, it is as solemn as can be j so I 
was taught to believe. Senator. 

Q. Do you not know that that was no oath at all ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you not know that perjury could not be predicated on it ? 

Senator Hill. That is another •question, Senator, and it is not legal. 
I do not think that you can ask the witness for a legal opinion unless 
you first prove that he is a lawyer. 

Senator Cameron. Do you rule it out, or will you let this man say ? 

Senator Hill. Go on. I think the witness understands what you 
are after, and will answer you. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you know that he cannot be indicted for perjury on account of 
swearing falsely that that affidavit was true ?—A. I do not know. Sen¬ 
ator, whether he could or not, but I think he ought to be. 

Q. Will you answer my question ?—A. Put it to me again, please. 

Q. Well, sir, did you not know, and do you not now know, that De La¬ 
cy could not b(? indicted for or convicted of perjury for swearing to that 
paper, even if every word were untrue?—A. ]No, sir; I never saw any 
man swear to a paper falsely in any case before Almighty God that I 
did not think the laws of the country could punish him for it. 

Q. You do not think that a man in any case could swear a thing was 
true when it was false?—A. Yes, sir; I say I do not think he could in 
any country in the ^orld. 

Q. Suppose he had called on you to write for him that the moon was 
made of green cheese, and he should then go to some justice of the 
peace and swear to it, do you think he could be indicted and convicted 
for that?—A. Well, I do not think Mr. De Lacy or anybody else 
could get me to draw up a paper of that sort, that the moon was made 
of green cheese, and get me to go to a justice of the peace and make 
a farce of an oath in that way. 


SPOFFORD KELLOGG. 


6oi) 


Q. No\y, Mr. Witness, after liiakiii^ that statement, will you answer 
my (jiiestion ?—A. What, about the moo!i and the "reen cheese ? 

Q. Von saiil that you thought in any ease he could be proseeut^^d 
for it ? 

Senator Hill. I make the poirit that that is illegal. Ft is not a(jues- 
tion of fact, or of testimony, and if you desire it we will take the t)oint 
under consideration and have it settled now. 

Senator Vanc.'E. 1 believe, Mr. Chairman, before we take the opinion 
of a man on any point, scientitic, legal, or otherwise, we should not d<> 
it without his being (pialified tirst as an expert. I think we had better 
settle first about his (pialification to answer the question. I siq)i)ose 
brother Cameron is only killing time with these questions. 

Senator Cameron. 1 believe we have examined one or two witne.sses 
on the (jiiestion of morals without their being ([ualified as ex|)erts. 

Senator V^VNCE. But, Senator, we. had information that they were 
members of the customdiouse of New Orleans, and we thought that was 
very satisfactory without (jualifying as ext)erts. 

Senator Cameron. ^ly question is just as competent as those asked 
by Senator IIill of Mr. Lewis. 

Senator Hill. 1 am not aware that I asked the witness you refer to 
any question about a matter of law, or whether the moon was made of 
green cheese. If 1 did you should have objected to it, and I would 
have apologized pronqitly. 1 asked him about a (juestion of morals, 
because he .said several of those witnesses had sworn against their atli- 
davits, because they thought it was not improper to lie for their jiarty. 
1 thought it was light to see how far that jirinciple went with this cla.ss 
of witnesses. 1 think 1 ought to notify the witnesses on the subjects, 
particularly a subject like thi.s, where the^^ have a right to answer or 
not. Two of us vote here that it is an inijiroper question that you have 
asked the witness, and the question is overruled and the objection sus- 
tained. 

Examination resumed by Senator Cameron: 

Q. How many times have you conversed with Cavanac on this Kel- 
logg-Si>ofTord case if—A. I could not state the exnict number of times. 
1 have lieen with him in the same otlice and asked him many times how 
the case was getting on and if there was any news about it. 

Q. You stated that Cavauac said he took a deep interest in it, and 
wanted to see Spofford seated ?—A. Yes, sir. 

il. Hid you take a deep interest in it your.self ?—A. Yes, .sir. 

i,>. Wa.s it deej) or shallow ? What was the degree of your intere.st 
—A. It was a very deep interest. 

Q. What was it at the time you drew that pajier ? I will not call it an 
aflidavit, for it is not.—A. My interest in the Kellogg-Siiotford case was 
just as deep when 1 drew it up as it is now. It has been the same all 
the time. 

It has continued the same, then, from the beginning up to this 
time?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Upon whose recommendation were you employed as a clerk an 
Cavagnac^s othce?—A. No person’s, sir. 

When did you apply to him for the position ?—A. I never applied 
to him for the jiosition at all. He voluntarily offered it to me. 

Q. When did he offer to give it to you ?—A. Away last summer, sir. 
He said that if 1 desired to go back and take my same place in the reg¬ 
istration office w’ith him 1 could do so. 

Q. Will you fix the time when he said that?—A. I cannot fix the 
tme, sir. 


660 


SPOFt^OIlD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How afterwards was it before you accepted bis invitation 
and went back and took tlie office?—A. 1 went back, sir, forty days 
ago. 

Q. When did you hold that same position before?—A. Last elanuaiy, 
sir—rather in 3878, the last election for members of the city council. 

Q. AVhen was that?—A. Over a year agoj a year ago in*January, 
1879. 

Q. How long did you hold it at that time?—A. Sixty days. That is 
what the law allows; it allows him to employ his clerk’s and keep the 
office open for sixty days. 

Senator Cameron. That will do, sir. * 


TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN BLOOMFIELD. 

Benjamin Bloomfield, a witness heretofore examined, reappeared 
and was examined as follows : 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Does that bundle contain the rolls we asked for (referring 
to a roll) of the employes of the New Orleans custom house ?—Answer. 
Yes, sir, for the months that you asked for. 

Senator Hill (to the stenographer). Just say that Mr. Bloomfield 
appears with the rolls of the New Orleans custom-house, and delivered 
them into the custody of the committee. 

The Witness. I would prefer to retain them in my possession, and 
return to-morrow. These are the vouchers of the collector of the port 
and his bondsmen, who are responsible for them. It would be better for 
me to keep them, as they are safer if they are in my possession than in 
his. 

Senator Hill. How much do we want, Mr. Walker, of those pa¬ 
pers ? 

Mr. Walker, counsel for the memorialist. We want a list, ]Mr. Chair¬ 
man, of the names of all the parties employed in the custom-house during 
those months (May and June), and the amounts paid them. 

Senator Hill (to the witness). Can yon make out a shorter list that 
will show those things, and save us the trouble of taking care of all 
those vouchers ? 

The Witness. It will be impossible, Mr. Chairman. I will let you see 
them, and you can understand the difficulty in the way. 

Senator Vance. T suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we take a good clerk, 
and let him go over them and make out the list from them. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Mr. Bloomfield, do you know the number of employes in the cus¬ 
tom-house in the month of June?—A. No, sir; it is impossible tor me 
to tell the number without going through all these papers. 

Q. Do they all appear in those papers ?—A. Yes, sir; all that were 
employed in June appear there. 

Q. bo you mean the names of the parties, who they are, what posi¬ 
tion they hold, and the pay allowed them ?—A. Yes, sfr ; it all appears 
in these papers. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Walker will suggest the name of some party, and 
you and he can get it ready together, and bring it in, and hand \t to the 
reporter, to be included in the report of the committee. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


6G1 


Q. Do you know anytbinjj of the sum of 80,000 or any other sum 
sent here recently to 1)8 distributed by General Badger or anybody else 
in the custom-house for extra labor?—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Who would know it if such a thing had been done ?—A. If it were 
sent for that purpose I would know it. 

And you say none has been sent?—A. Not that amount. Every 
month there is some sent for that purpose. 

Q. If sent here and disbursed for that purpose, would it appear on 
ihe pay-rolls ?— A.. Yes, sir. 

Q. Does Mr. L. E. Selles know anything about it?—A. No, sir; 1 
think not. 

Q. Does Mr. Tomlinson know ?—A. I do not know, sir; I would 
know if it was sent to pay for extra work, for it would appear on these 
rolls. 

Q. Do you know of any extra labor that has been done there recently’ ? 
—A. That I would not know until pay-day comes. 

Q. You would not know that until pay-day ?—A. I would not. The 
appointing power would know it, but 1 would not. 

Q. The appointing power is Collector Badger, is it ?—A. Yes, sir; in 
the customs department. 

Examination of witnesses was here suspended for the day; and on 
motion the committee adjourned to Monday, November 1?4, 1879, at 10 
o’clock a. m. 


New Orleans, Monday, yovember 24, 1879. 

The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment at 10 o’clock a. m. 
Present, all the members; Mr. C. H. Walker, counsel for the memorial¬ 
ist; the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford; and the sitting member, Sen¬ 
ator William Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. Let us have a witness now ; we are ready to go to 
work again. 

Senator Cameron. Wo desire, 3Ir. Chairman, that Mr. Clark, who is 
a short-hand writer, should be in here. M e nl'^o expect to call him as 
a witness. Under the strict rule we cannot do so, but I desire as a per¬ 
sonal matter to have him in here. 

Senator Hill. Do you want hitn in here during the entire examina¬ 
tions? 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir; there is only one point that we expect 
to examine him on. 

Senator Hill. Mr. who is it ? ' 

Senator Cameron. 3Ir. H. Compiest Clark. 

Senator Hill. 1 think there will be a pretty considerable cross exam¬ 
ination of Mr. Clark, and if there is any witness that we do not want 
him to hear we can say so. He can. stay in unless it should become 
necessary tor him not to hear a witness testify. 

TESTIMONY OF LEWIS F. BAUGNON. 


Lewis F. Baugnon, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Are you a resident of this city ?—Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you here during the year 187G ?--A. Yes, .sir. 

Q. And during the winter of 187G ?—A. Yes, sir. 



662 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you have any position in the Packard legislature ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; I was assistant sergeant-at-arrns. 

Q. Then you were at its sittings quite regularly ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You mean to say that you were there quith as often as it met !— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And saw the body in session regularly ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will get you to state what you heard stated, if you heard any¬ 
thing stated by different members, or any number of them, about get¬ 
ting mone^’for their votes. What was done or stated there at the 
time?—A. Well, sir, it was generally rumored that every man who 
voted had been paid for it. 

Q. That, you say, was the general rumor ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear one of the members say anything about bis getting 
any money? Did they say they were going to get money?—A. I did 
not. 

Q. You did not hear them talking together about it ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. But there did not seem to be any secret with them ?—A. They all 
seemed to have money, and it seemed to have come from the election ; 
that is, each man casting his vote had received his pay for it, and it 
was generally understood that that thing had happened. 

Q. What was that understanding, that every man who voted for Sen¬ 
ator got something for it?—A. Yes, sir; either that he had got money 
or would get it. 

Q. Where were you at the time the vote was being taken ?—A. I was 
from the house to the telegraph room ; that was about two doors from 
the house. AVe were generally kept between the telegraph-office and 
the house. I was assistant sergeant-at-arms, placed at one of the doors, 
and the others were at the other doors. My position was generally at 
that one door—the telegraph-door—and I saw everything that passed 
between the governor’s room and the house through this telegraph- 
office. 

Q. Do you know anything about whether there was a quorum present 
that day ? Do you know whether there was anybody wno was not there 
but who was represented to be there?—A. About the quorum, no sir; 
I know nothing about a quorum being present. 

Q. Do yon know anything about the clerks answering to the names 
of members?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know there was not one there then or several days before 
and several days after the election ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you didnT pay any attention to the question of a quorum ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Cross-examined by Senator Cameron : 

Q. AYhere do you reside?—A. On Miro, between Du Maine and 
Saint Ann. 

Q. How long have you resided in New Orleans?—A. Ever since the 
election of 1876. 

Q. Where did you reside prior to that time ?—A. In the parish of 
West Baton Bouge. 

Q. Which political party were you connected with at that time ?—A, 
The Republican party. 

Q. AVhat is your present occupation ?—A. I have nothing to do, sir. 

Q. How long have you been out of employment ?—A. Since the first 
of July. 

Q. What was your occupation prior to that time ?—A. Then I was 
night inspector at the custom house. 



SPOFFOKD Vi5. KELLOGG. 


G63 


Q. When were you discharged f—A. The first of July. 

Q. How long has it been since yon were night inspector ? Since yon 
liave had aify otlier position?—A. I think on the 2(Jth of May I was 
.appointed night inspector. 

Q. What position did yon have before then ?—A. I was then in the 
cigar r<M>ni—in the laborers’ room. 

(). When were you api>ointed in that ?—A. 1 think I was appointed 
in April, 1877, as day inspector. 

Q. Were you or were yon not in the custom-house ni» to July last?— 
A. Yes, sir; 1 was oft’ and on; on the laborers’ roll after being day in- 
spectoi'. 

Q. Did yon hold any office or position under the Kejmblican party 
j>rior to your appointment as assistant sergeant at-arais of the Packard 
house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was it ?—A. Sn|)ervisor of elections in West Baton Rouge. 

Q. W hen was that ?—A. That w as before the election in 1876, in 
November. 

Q. When did you enter upon your duties as sergeant-at-arms of the 
]*ackard house ?—A. j think it w as in January—the moment the mem¬ 
bers took their i)laces. 

(y WTiat w’ere your duties generally as assistant sergeant-at-arms ?— 
A. To remain at the doors ami notice what was going on, to keep cards 
out, to let members in, and had to send in cards, and generally to see 
that the rules were complied with. 

(.). Where were you on the night prior to the election of Senator 
Kellogg?—A. I was in the State-house. 

Q, Did you remain there during the entire night?—A. Yes, sir; I 
remained there until Packard surrendered the State-house. 

Q. W’heie were you the day before he was elected ?—A. I was there, 
sir. 

(,>. Do you know’ of your ow n know ledge of any member of the legis- 
ture receiving money in consideration for his vote for Senator Kellogg? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You do? Now y()u stated it was generally rumored that all of 
them were paid for their votes ?—A. Yes,vsir; I did. 

(y WluHii did you state that they were.—A. They were mostly of the 
colored element. 

Q. Give the name of one of them.—A. That I cannot do. I could 
not give any name, but it was generally rumored about there. 

Q. That you have told us. Now come dow'ii to i)articulars and give 
the name of any member of the legislature who told you that.—A. 
There was no member of the legislature, I think, w ho tohl me that. 

Q. Yon say there was no member of the legislature w ho state<l it to 
you ! —A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you i)ay any of them for voting?—A. No, sir. 

(}. Did you see any one i>aid ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(). Now, w ho did you see i)ay it or who did you see it paid to ?—A. 
To Senator Twitchell. 

(,>. Who i)aid him?—A. Governor Kellogg. 

<y When ami where did he ])ay him ?—A. I do not remember the 
date, but it was during the session and in the telegraph oftice. I think 
Mr. Flynn was telegraph operator and he was sitting in there at the 
time. 

(,). Tell what occurred now at that time and ])lace.—A. Governor 
Kellogg came in there and si)oke to Senator Twitchell, and he saitl to 
him that he wanted his vote and he had understood that he was for Mr. 


664 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Antoine. He said that he wanted this thing settled, and that it he 
would vote for him he would make it all right and give him one of the 
best positions under the government. 

Q. Is that all he said ?—A. That was all that was done except to pay 
him. He gave him some money, and 1 think the amount was $300. 

Q,. What did Twitchell say !—A. He didn’t say anything, I think, 
but the money was accepted. 

Q. Are you sure that Twitchell did not say anything !—A. If my 
memory is correct he said, “All right.” I never looked any more to see 
what was done. I walked off in the room. 

Q. What day did that occur!—A. I do not know the day, sir. 

Please fix it as near as you can.—A. It would be impossible to do 
that right now, but I could do so later. 

Q. How long before the day on which Kellogg was elected did that 
occur!—A. A very few days. 

Q. Well, how long!—A. I cannot say exactly how long. I did not 
keep any note of all this. 

Q. You say that Mr. Flynn was present and that you were present !— 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Governor Kellogg and Mr. Twitchell!—A. Yes, sir; besides Mr. 
Harrison, a man who was always with Twitchell. I believe he was 
called his “ bouncer.’’ 

Q. What was Harrison’s first name !—A. I do not know. 

Q. Do you know where he is now!—A. I think he is up in Coushatta. 
I think he is interested with Twitchell in some place up there. 

Q. What has become of Twitchell!—A. I think he is in Kingston, 
Canada. 

Q. You think he is holding a position there !—A. I think so. I think 
he is United States consul. 

Q. Have you ever communicated the facts you now swear to to any 
one!—A. Nor, sir; I don’t know that I have. 

Q. I ask you if you have ever communicated these facts to any one !— 
A. No, sir. There was one or two parties whom I wrote to in Washing¬ 
ton that I knew something of this matter of Kellogg’s. 

Q. To whom did you write !—A. To Jewett and Pitkin. 

Q. When did you write to Pitkin !—A. Well, sir, after I was dis¬ 
charged as day inspector, and I was then in the cigar room, and I wanted 
my place back. 

Q. Did you write to him that unless you got your position back you 
would come before the committee and swear to what you now swear 
to!—A. No, sir. I said I knew something about this matter, and I 
wanted my position back. I think that was all. I guess they have got 
the letters. 

Q. When did you write to Jewett ?—A. About the same time. I think 
both of them were there in Washington about the same time. 

Q. What did you write to Jewett !—A. Well, sir, I could not express 
each word. 

Q. What was the substance of them ?—A. It was in regard to my 
position as day inspector. That is what I wrote about. I wanted to be 
reinstated. 

Q. When did you last write to Jewett or Pitkin in regard to the mat¬ 
ter!—A. I could not give you the date; but it was the last time, I think, 
that Pitkin was in Washington. 

Q. Was it during the last summer !—A. I think it was. 

Q. Well, fix the time as near as you can. Fix the month.—A. I have 
letters here from both of them, and can give you about the time I wrote 
them (producing letters). Here is one of January 11,1879, from Jewett. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


66^ 


Q. ^yllat time is that ?—A. January 11, 1879. 

Q. Yes. Now, wbat is the other ?—A. Pitkin’s is dated Januarv 25. 
1879. 

Q. When were yon subpcenaed as a witness before this committee »— 
A. On the 20tli of the month. 

Q. Whom did you communicate with as to what you would testify 
before the committee prior to the date of your subpmna ?—A. 1 went to 
see Mr. Walker, and told him I could be of some service to him. 

Q. When did you do that?—A. Some two or three days before I was 
8ubp(enaed. 

Q. At whose sufrgestion did you go ?—A. No one’s. I met a friend 
of mine and told him of it, and he walked with me. 

By Senator Kellogg : ‘ 

Q. You say that you saw me give Senator Twitchell several dollars 
before he mentioned money. What amount did I give him ?—A. 1 heard 
you mention $300. 

Q. How do you know I gave him 8300 ?—A. I do not know it. I 
heard you say so. 

Q. Y"ou say he was in the telegraph otlice?—A. Yes, sir ^ the simdl 
room. 

Q. You say there were a number of people about?—A. There was 
this man Harrison, Twitchell, the telegraph operator, yourself, and 
myself. 

Q. How did I hand it to him ?—A. You just put it in his pocket. 

Q. Which pocket?—A. I cannot remember exactly. 

Q. Was it his coat or his vest pocket?—A. It was his vest pocket, 1 
reckon. He had his coat mostly buttoned up. 

Q. Are not both of his arms shot off ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Please state again what 1 said to him about his vote.—A. Y'ou 
stated that you understood he was unwilling to vote for you, and yon 
arranged it by giving him this money and fixing this position that, I 
think, he stated. 

Q. AVas there anything said about Antoine ?—A. Y^es, sir; I think 
you did say something about him ; that he was the man who had nomi¬ 
nated Antoine. 

Q. Was he the man who had nominated Antoine?—A. Ido not know, 
sir; but it was generally rumored that he was the man. 

Q. Do you know that Antoine was a candidate for the short term ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. What day was that ?—A. I answered generally that I could not 
tell. 

Q. \"ou only know it was several days before the election for Sena¬ 
tor?— A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Have you said to Air. Jewett, or Air. Pitkin, or written to (leneral 
Sypher, or any other persons, requesting them to say to me that you in¬ 
tended to tell it if you did not get a position in the custom-house ?—A, 
1 had nothing to do with Sypher. 

Q. Well, did you say that to anybody !—A. The only parties were 
Pitkin and Jewett. 

Q. Did you tell them that ?—A. I said I wanted my position, and 
they were satisfied that 1 knew something. 

Q. What did you say to them to make them know that you knew 
something!—A.‘I said this thing to Jewett before his going to Wash¬ 
ington. 


666 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Have you not threatened to tell them you knew something, and 
requested them to come to me?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you not told parties that unless you were given a place in 
the custom-house you would come here and tell something?—A. I may 
have mentioned something about my coming before the committee. 

Q. Have you not said, time and again, once or more, that unless you 
were given a place in the custom-house you would come and tell some¬ 
thing to my detriment ?—A. I think not. The only parties to whom 1 
have spoken were Jewett and Pitkin. The fact is, when the committee 
was here before, Pitkin asked me to keep quiet if I knew anything, and 
1 did so. 

Q. Have you not told them that 3 011 had some documents against 
me?—A. No, sir; none at all. 

Q. Have you not told me that you had some proofs against me ?—A. I 
think not. 

Q. Did jmu mention this matter of the payment of mone^" toTwitchel, 
to either of those persons?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never mentioned it up to to-day.—A. I think not. 

Q. Did you ever mention it to Mr. Walker?—A. No, sir. 

Q. To Mr. Pitkins?—A. No, sir; nev^er until I came here to day. 

Senator Kellogg. That will do. 

Re-examination by Senator Hill : 

Q. I knew nothing of this thing until you have just told it, and I will 
see if you know anything more. Do you know of his paying money to 
any other party ?—A. No, sir ; I do not. 

Q. I do not know what 3011 know, but state all you know about it, if 
there is any other case that you know of.—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. You never saw him pay money to any others except this senator ? 
—A. I did not. 

Q. Has Mr. Twitchel had the position since Mr. Kellogg was Sena¬ 
tor?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What position?—A. I have always heard that he is American 
eonsul at Kingston, Canada. 

Q. Well, sir, the records will show that; you say he is a man with 
both arms off?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was this conversation that you heard in the small room of the 
telegraph office in a light or moderate voice ?—A. It was in a moderate 
voice. 

Q. Do you know whether the other gentlemen in there heard it ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. You know that you did ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And 3 'ou testify positively that you did ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Yance: 

Q. Was Twitchel a soldier, and did he lose his arms in the war ?—A. 
No, sir; 1 think not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Hav^eyou had any conversation with Kellogg about being a wit¬ 
ness and has he offered you any inducement not to be a witness?—A. 
No, sir ; he has not. I have bad parties to ask me to come and see him 
before doing anything, but I did not do it. 

Q. Who were those parties ?—A. A man named Inglelield, working 
with Morgan on the Morgan Railroad. 

Q. Then you say nothing at all has transpired between you ?—A. No, 
sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


G67 


By Senator Cameron : 

Senator Vance asked you if Twitcliell was a soldier and lost his 
arms in the war. State liow he did lose them.—A. He was not a 
soUlier at the time. I always understood he lost them durin" the pol¬ 
itical excitement in 187(). I heard of it only. 

i}. IJow <lid he lose them f—A. fie was crossing some river, some 
parties tired on him and he lost both arms, and was wounded in other 
]>arts of the body. 1 think he was wounded, too, during the war, in the 
face with a sword cut. 


TESTIMONY OF GEOKOE J. ANTZ. 

George J. x\ntz, a witness calleil for the memoralist, sworn and 
examined. 

J3y Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Antz ?—Answer. No. 190 Poy- 
dras street. 

Q. Mr-Antz, how long have you lived at New Orleans?—A. About 
twenty-two years. 

Q. I lave you ever been employed in the custom-house?—A. I have. 

Q. When were you discharged, if you have been discharged ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I think I was discharged about four or five months ago. 

C^. Who was ])ut in your place?—A. IMr. William Green. 

Q. Who was he ?—A. He held several positions. Ho was State as¬ 
sessor, was a member of the legislature. 

Q. Was he known as a member of the Packard legislature ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. When did that take place?—A. The first of July. 

Q. What reasons were given for turning you out and putting him in ? 
—A. f do not know. 

Q. Ho you know Mr. Green personally ?—A. I do. 

Q. Hid you ever have any conversation with Mr. Green on this sub¬ 
ject ?—A. No, sir. 

Hid you ever talk with him about the Packard legislature and 
the vote for Kellogg?—A. No, sir. 

(}. Hid you ever liear him in conversation with anybody else on the 
subject?—A. No, sir; I have not. 

Q. How long have you been acijuainted with him ?—A. Since the 
latter.])ait of 1875. 

Q. i)id you have any connection with the Packard legislatuie?—A. 
J was emjiloyed as a clerk on the enrollingcommittee. 

Q. Was that an orderly or a disorderly body—that house of repre¬ 
sentatives; what were they saying and doing ?—A. I never i)aid much 
attention to the jiroceedings of the house. 

Q. Hid they ever jiass any laws?—A. Well, sir, I enrolled two or 
three bills while 1 was there. 

Q. Hills that had been passed orsimtily introduced ?—A. Introduced. 

Q. Ho you know anything about there being a (piorum there the day 
Kellogg was elected?—A. 1 do not. 

Ho you know anything about the clerks answering to the names 
of members when they were called ?—A. No, sir. 

We ask you these (piestions because we don’t know what you do 
know about it.—A. Certainly, sir ; I understand you. 


668 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. I take it for granted, Mr. Antz, that you would tell if you knew. 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know anything of a common rumor of members being paid 
for their votes?—A. It was generally rumored around the building that 
they were. 

Q. Wasn’t it the general understanding that the colored members es¬ 
pecially were paid for their votes!—A. I cannot say that it was the 
general understanding, but it was the general rumor. 

Q. Was it notin fact simply notorious?—A. Yes, sir 5 I suppose it 
might be called that. 

Senator Cameron. I have no questions for the witness. 


TESTIMONY OF B. DREIFUS. 

B. Dreifus, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and exam¬ 
ined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. How long have you lived in New Orleans?—Answer. I 
don’t recollect, sir, but it has been since 1838 or 1839. 

Q. Were you here during the sitting of wiiat is known as the Pack¬ 
ard legislature, which elected Kellogg to the Senate ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know some of the members of that legislature ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Who did you know ?—A. I knowed two members from Saint 
James Parish. 

Q. Who were they ?—A. Mr. Dickison and another called Simmes. 

Q. Were they colored or white?—xV. They were colored. 

Q. Did you know anything of their pecuniary condition before they 
came here ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What w'as it ?—A. They hadn’t a cent. 

Q. How was it after they voted for Kellogg ? — A. All I can tell you 
is that they were boarding in a block or so from my house. There was 
a grocery kept by a inan by the name of Cargrave, and he advanced 
money to them to live on. I think one of them owed him $87, 
and he had not a cent of money until after the day Kellogg was elected 
Senator by the Packard legislature. 

Q. Did he have any money the daj' after his election ?—A. Each one 
of them had a package of money and paid their bills. 1 saw them, and 
one of the bills was marked in red ink 8250. 

Q. Two hundred and fifty dollars was marked on it?—A, Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ask them anything about how they got that money ?—A. 
I did, sir. 

Q. You say you did ask them ?—A. Yes, sir; I said, “ You are 
flushed ”5 and they said, “ Kellogg is elected now a United States Sen¬ 
ator.” 

Q. You say they said so ?—A. We was there with him. I think Mr. 
Cargrave showed me the bill himself, where it was marked 250, and I 
think he can testify to the same fact. 1 think he is present in the city, 
on the corner of VVashington and Laurel streets, if lam not mistaken. 

Q. Was that written on the bill of money or on the strap that went 
round it?—A. I think there was a strap around it, and this was marked 
on the back of one of the bills. 

Q. That is, it was marked $250 ?—A. Yes, sir. 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


GG9 


Cross examined by Senator Cameron : 

Q. You have told all you know about it?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. When did you first make the acquaintance of those members from 
St. James ?—A. 1 didn’t know them before the time they came here to 
the session. 1 was introduced to them by the man who kept the gro¬ 
cery, and he was the man who advanced the money. I don’t think 
either one of them had a nickel, and they wanted something out of his 
store which they were sending home to t'h^ir families, and he advanced 
it for them. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What was the size of the bills of money that they had ?—I think 
they were tens. 

Q. Was there a large number of them ?—A. I could not tell you. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What is your nationality ?—A. I am a German by birth. 


TESTIMONY OF FKEDEKICK J. STOKES. 

Frederick J. Stokes, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where is your j)resent residence ?—Answer. My residence 
is 400 White street, between Josephine and Jackson. 

Q. How long have you been in this city?—A. Since 18G5. 

Q. Where were you during tue election of 187(3 ?—A. 1 was voting 
in Grant Parish, or rather I was supposed to be. 

Q. Were you there during the election ?—A. No, sir ; I was not. 

Q. Did you have any conversation between j^ourself and Governor 
Kellogg, who was governor, as to the election in that parish ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Now, what parish was that ?—A. The parish of Grant. 

Q. What did Governor Kellogg say to you about it?—A. I would 
have to—if you gentlemen will allow me—make a statement of all the 
facts, and if I go wrong you can correct it. 1 came down here from 
.Grant Parish on the Kith of October, on the steamer C. IT. Durfee. 1 
was parish judge of Grant Parish at the time, and I was calculating to 
go back in time for the election. I was sitting in the railroad ofliee 
talking to a gentleman, a lawyer, and while I was there Mr. Hobbs 
brought in Mr. Ward, who was supervisor of elections of that parish. 
Ward told me that he had been driven out of the parish, and told me of 
the circumstances. He wanted to go to see Kellogg, and asked me if I 
would go with him. I told him I would, and we went into the gov¬ 
ernor’s ofliee and saw him. He told the governor what the trouble 
was. I think this was, as near as I can tell it, in my judgment, about 
the 2()th, a few days before the election. I cannot say exactly the date. 

Q. Wliat was the trouble in that parish ?—A. He claimed that he 
had been bulldozed and driven out of the parish. He left surrepti¬ 
tiously and nobody knew that he had gone. He had hidden his books, 
and tnere was no election except what they held of their own accord. 
He told the governor what he had done, and he said that if the people 
there didn’t want an election we will throw the parish out. The gov¬ 
ernor said that. 



670 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you uiiderstaud, Mr. Stokes, that this bulldozino: was real or 
pretended ?—A. There was no bulldozing there at all. He bad gone 
through the parish and registered all the names until he came to regis¬ 
ter a young man who lived there, and he refused peremptorily to register 
him. A number of people came to see him and certified that the young 
man was 21 years old, and lived in the parish, but he still refused. They 
said that he must do it, that it was not more than his right, and they 
required him to register him i but it was all done with moderation ami 
firmness. There was no harshness whatever, and that all took place 
before I left the parish; that they had so complained ; that he gave to 
the governor after he came down, in my presence. I don't think that he 
saw the governor afterwards. While talking the governor said to me 
to go and see Mr. Blanchard and Jewett about it. Blanchard was in 
there, but Jewett was not, and Ward made the same statement to them 
about the dulldoziug in that parish at that time; just what they had 
said to Governor Kellogg. If Mr. Ward testifies before the committee 
1 think he will say the same thing. 

Q. Why didn’t Governor Kellogg call for an election up there ^—A. 
Governor Kellogg asked me how the parish was, and I said to him that 
the man who could carry that v^ote, some eighty-odd, up in the big hills, 
could carry that parish. 

Q. Was anything said about the parish being Democratic or Repub¬ 
lican ?—A. It was Democratic. That was those votes up there in the 
hills which made it so, and any man who could carry them carried the 
parish. Whenever the people of the parish was voting the Democrats 
carried the parish. 

Q. Was that the reason why he didn’t call an election there ?—A. 
Yes, sir; I think it was. The whole thing was put up that way. I 
didn’t go back myself, because there was no use in it. We could not 
hold the election any way. But they did hold an election up there, and 
left the management of it to a gentleman named Randolph, who was 
the candidate. He came here and took his seat in the Kicholls legis¬ 
lature. 

Q. Was this man’s appointment the supervisor of registration ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he appointed by Kellogg ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Who appointed you judge of that parish A. Governor Kel¬ 
logg. 

Q. And you were judge at that time?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know anything about whether Ward was paid any to go 
back to the parish ?—A. I could not say. I never saw any money given 
to him. 

Q. Did you hear him say anything about it ?—A. I went down to bis 
house several times to see him, but he never said anything to me to the 
effect that he was paid. 

Q. Do you know that he staid away at anybody’s instance ?—A. It 
was Governor Kellogg’s. I went there with"him, and he didn’t want 
the election held. He said that he would throw the parish out. 

Q. Were you ever required to advance any money to any officer in 
Grant Parish ?—A. I did once, but he wasn’t" an officer then. It was 
Judge W. B. Phillips. 

Q. For what purpose did you advance him this money I— A. He had 
been elected parish judge of Grant Parish, and Governor Kellogg would 
not give him his commission. 

Q. What transaction took place, and what understanding was entered 
into about that payment ?—A. Senator Alexander went to Governor 


8P0FF0RD VS. KELLOGG. 


fill 

Kellogg to get biin commissioned as i)arish judge. I had never seen 
Governor Kellogg about it, or said anything to him about it. But Sen¬ 
ator Alexander said to me that it was the request of Governor Kellogg 
that I should give Phillips an interest in the office. I was to give him 
two orders for 8-50 out of the second quarter of my pay, and the other 
$250 out of the last quarter of the year. I went to see Governor Kel- 
logg about it, and he said that was the arrangement; that I was to give 
it to Phillips. I said that 1 wanted cash for my warrants, and he said 
he would give me a memorandum to the auditor, lie gave me a pencil 
memorandum, and I took it to Clinton and he tore it up. lie said that 
Governor Kellogg had been there a moment before, and had no right to 
send me to him with any such message. 1 then got the other warrant 
back. 

By Senator Vance: 

Q. Was Grant Parish represented in the Packard legislature f—A. 
No, sir ; she was not. 

Q. You say there was a gentleman representing her in the Nicholls 
legislature?—A. Yes, sir; Mr. Kandolph. She was not represented in 
the other legislature because the Packard legislature didn’t recognize 
that there was any election held in the parish. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Cameron : 

Q. Was there any member sent to the Packard legislature from Grant 
Parish f—A. I think not, sir. 

Q. Why did not they recognize the election that was held up there ?— 
A. Well, sir, they threw out the parish. 

Q. Did an^ffiody present himself to the legislature as a member?—A. 
No, sir; I think they threw out the parish. 

Q. Did anybody apply to the Packard legislature for a seat, from that 
parish ?—A. No, sir; I think not. 

Senator Vance. Senator, allow me just a moment. Did anybody ap¬ 
ply to the returning board ?—A. I do not know anything about that, sir. 

Q. Who threw out the parish ?—A. The Republicans. 

Q. Was that the returning board ?—A. Yes, sir; the returning board 
and Governor Kellogg. There was no supervisor up there, and they 
held that it was no election. 

Q. What was the name of the man who was elected ?—A. Randolph. 

Q. Was his name and cre<lentials presented to the returning board ?— 
A. 1 think they were. They were presented with the evidence, but they 
were thrown out. 

Q. You think the most of the returns were presented to the returning 
board?—A. Yes, sir. 1 answer your ([uestion correctly; there was a 
man, Judge Richardson, who brought the returns, and I was talking to 
him about them. 

Q. You say no man applied to the Packard legislature, but one man 
did apply to the Nicholls legislature and was accepted ?—A. Yes, sir; 
Judge Richardson brought the returns, and went to see Burke what to 
do with them. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You do not know of your own knowledge anything about the elec¬ 
tion ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know that they ever were presented to the returning board ? 
—A. 1 only know what that gentleman said to me. No man could get 
before that board except its clerks. 


672 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you try to get before the board ?—A. I tried to see a geutle- 
iiiaii who was in there. 

Q. You say you tried to get before the board ?—A. I tried to see a 
parry there, and could not. 

Q. AVhen did you become a resident of Grant Parish f—A. 1 only 
went there as parish Judge. 

Q. When was that?—A. March, 1875. 

Q. Was Grant Parish the scene of the Colfax massacre ?—A. Y^es, 
sir; but that was before I went there. 

Q. I did not ask you that.—A. Well, sir, 1 answered your question. 

Q. Y^oii did not. Was it the scene of the Colfax massacre ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. When was it?—xV. I do not know, sir. 1 was in Red River Parish 
at the time. 

Q. Cannot you tell me the year?—A. Y'es, sir; I think I can, but I 
would not be positive. I think it was in 1872. 

Q. From your best information how many persons were killed in that 
massacre ?—A. I could not tell you. 

Q. Have you no information on that subject ?—A. I have heard a 
number of things stated about it. Some stated that forty were killed, 
and some fifty. Some of the reports were very conflicting. Some said 
twenty, but I could not tell you how many. 

Q. Were those persons who were killed white or colored people?—A. 
They were both, I believe, but principally colored. 

Q. How many whites were killed ?—x4. I could not tell 3 ’ou. 

Q. Have you ever heard that there was a single white person killed ?— 
A. I cannot say that I did or did not, for I was not there, and had 
nothing to do with Gratit Parish at that time. I was in a section of 
country where we did not get a paper in one or two weeks, sometimes 
three, and where you had to send to the river for it. 1 was in Coushatta 
at the time of that massacre. 

Q. How long did you reside in Grant Parish ?—x4. I think pretty well 
on to two years while I was parish judge. I was there and here in the 
city off and on. I never went out of the city except when 1 went, or 
rather was run, out of the State. 

Q. When was that ?—A. 1875. 

Q, AYho run you out of the State?—A. The Republican party. 

Q. AVhere did they run you from !—A. From here to Texas. 

Q. That was out of this State, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did they charge you with ?—A. AVith being a defaulting tax 
collector in Texas. 

Q. A'ou were here then, and they ran you from here to Texas because 
they said you were a defaulting tax-collector in Texas ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did they run you out ?—A. P>y requisition from the governor 
of Texas. 

Q. AA^ho was the governor of Texas at that time?—A. 1 cannot re¬ 
member who he was. 

Q. AAbis he a Democrat or a Republican ?—A. I cannot tell you. I 
never resided in Texas in my life. 

Q. AA'ell, what did the Republicans have to do with it ?—A. They 
wanted that parish judgeship; they wanted that two thousand dollars a 
year paid in warrants. 

Q. And so they induced the governor of Texas to make a requisition 
for you in order to get your position ?—A. 1 beg your pardon- 

Q. Now stop, I am asking a question.—A. Yes, sir; and I corrected 



SPOFFORl) VS. KELLOGG 


673 


(^. \()ii have stated that the Republicans ran you out of the State?— 
A. I have, sir. 

(,?. And you stat(‘d you were taken on a re(|uisition from the governor 
of Texas?—A. I say so still. 

Q. And that is tlie way the Republicans ran you out of the State?— 
A. Yes. sir; but you have not asked me wliy they done it. 

Q. Well, I do as I please about what I ask you.—A. And I say that 
you should ask me that. I want you to*ask me tlie other question. 
They done it by writing an anonymous note to Texas, and I have got it 
here now in my poe.ket. 

Q. And did a jury in Texas indict you on an anonym »usnote from New 
Orleans ! — A. Yes, sir, tiiey did, suie. 

Q. That was pretty slim testimony.—A. 1 think .so, myself, sir. 

Q. What did yoitcome to New Orleans for trom (rcant Parish at the 
time you have mentioned ?—A. I had no court, and 1 came to see about 
selling some of m\ wjirrants. 

Q. What time ciid yon leave there ?—A. The Ibth of October. 

Q How long did you remain in NewOileans?—A. 1 retJiained some 
time. 1 never went back to Grant Parish. 

Q. When did yon see (lovernor Kellogg?—A. On what occasion, sir? 

Q. I mean on what occasion.—A. I never went to .see him until Ward 
came in. 

There is no use, Mr. Stokes, in volunteering these statements. I 
ask you when yon tirst saw Governor Kellogg?—A. 1 saw him when I 
went with Mr. Ward. I think it was the 2()th or the 22d or the 23d of 
the month, or thereabouts. 

(^. Do you know where Mr. Ward resides?—A. 1 tidnk he is in the 
city, but 1 eainnot tell >()U where he is living now. 

(^. What is his tirst name?—A. I cannot say. I think he was a cap¬ 
tain in the Artny, though. 

Q. In the Federal Army ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. State what took place when you and Ward went in there to see 
the governor.—A. 1 have stated it. He said that he had been bulldozed 
and driven out of the parish. 

Q. AVhat else was said ?—A. Governor Kellogg said if the peoi)le did 
not want an election he would throw out the i)arish. 

Q. What else was .said ?—A. The Governor told me to go with ]\Ir. 
W'aid and see Rlanchard or Jewett. 

Q. Which did you .''ce ?—A. Wdien we tirst went in, Mr. Jewett ; a 
few moments afterwai’ds Blanchard came in. 

Q. State the conveisation you had in there.—A. It was the same as 
I have tohl you m»w. 

Q. You may lepeat the conversation.— A. He told Governor Kellogg 
that he nad been ludldozed and driven out of the parish. 

(^. Go on.—A. Tell me what you want me to say, and 1 will tell ^’ou 
all 1 can. I will start over and say it again. We went in and saw 
Governor Kellogg, either on the 2()th- 

Q Well, stop. iMr. Witness; you have stated that; I want the con¬ 
versation with Blanchard and Jewett.—A. I am going over it all again 
just to ])lease you. 

Q. 1 do not want you to.—A. Then 1 will state the conversation. 

(,). Well, state the conversation between Blanchard and Jewett, and 
yourself and Ward.—A. Well, sir, Mr. Ward turned in and tohl JMr. 
Blanchard and Mr. Jewett that he had been to see Kellogg with me; 
that he had been driven out of the parish, and stated how, and said he 
had been bulldozed; he said how he took a conveyance and came 

43 S K 




674 


SPOFFORD VS. KKLLOGG 


away, and bow lie put the books away and they could not tind tlieni. 
If 1 am not mistaken, he said he came across the country to the mouth 
of Ked liivef in a conveyance; 1 will not be positive, but I think he 
did tell Mr. Blanchard and Jewett that. 

Q. And is that all A. That was all that was said with Kellogg, or 
with Blanchard or Jewett, and it was all that I heard there. 

Q. What is your present occupation?—A. Nothing, sir; lam doing 
nothing. 

Q. How long is it since you have been out of employment ?—A. I 
have done nothing for three years, sii’. 

Q. Have .\ou been an ajrplicant for any position in the custom house! 
—A. Yes, sir; 1 applied to Kellogg twice, and he said to me to write 
to him in Washington. 

Q, When was that!—A. When he was here; I have no data, and 
could not tell when it was exactly, but he told me he would give me a 
position. 

Q. Has he ever done so !—A. He never has. 

Q. Have you ever ajrplied to any one else to help you to get a posi¬ 
tion !—A. Yes, sir; 1 asked Governor MciMillan for a position. 

Q. When did you ask him !—A. A number of times, and he would 
put me off, and finally he said he would ; he told a gentlemen in the 
city that he would, and I staid there five days, and of all the mean¬ 
ness and iniquity ever ]>ut into a man, it was made and put into Mr. 
McMillan; he took a nigger and put him in right away; he told my 
friend to come and see him, and 1 said to him to go, and he went, and 
McMillan said he would give me work sure on Friday ; 1 went on Fri¬ 
day, and then he said Saturday; I went Saturday, and he said Tuesday; 
and on Tuesday he called me into the house, and said, “Mr. Stokes, I 
am going to give you one of tln^ most important offices in my power; 
will you takeit F 1 said “Yes.’^ He said it was night watchman at $500 
a year. 1 said, That is only about $40 a month.” He said, “ Will you 
take it !” 1 said “Yes;” for 1 had a wife and children and I had got 

uothing to do. He said that the man wdio took it must be in every w^ay 
expert. He came back iu the office and said to me, “You must pass 
an examination.” I said, “Is it a physical examination !” And he said, 
“ Don’t you interrupt me; come back to night and see me.” I did come 
back to see the Hon. W. L. McMillan, and he had three sheets of 
jraper, on which there were questions. The first was, “Who discovered 
America!” The next was, “AYhat was the caiiital of the United 
States,” and things like that, that he could uotansw^er himself; I think 
another one was, “ What were the five luincipal rivers of the world !” 
Now', after 1 had stated the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the North 
and East rivms, and the Hudson Kiver, he just sat there. He said to 
me, “Suiipose a State should secede from the American Union, what 
would be the first duty of a citizen then !” 

Q. Did you answer that last question !—A. Pardon me one moment. 
Another- question w^as, how' was Louisiana acquired, whether by pur¬ 
chase or gift, and the next, how Louisiana was bounded, and that a 
I’hiladelphia lawyer could not answ^er ; and then he got on to division 
and multiplication, and had little sums in them, and then lie asked me 
for the three principal parts of grammar. 

Q The three princiiial parts of grammar!—A. Of grammar; and 
then he w-anted me to add a third, a fourth, and an eighth. I read the 
questions, and went and told him 1 had been parish judge for tw'o years, 
tax collector of Red River Parish, supervisor of registr ation three times, 
and general suiierintendent in the quartermaster’s department in the Ai iny 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


675 


and that these were the questions he was patting to me, and 1 did not an¬ 
swer them, and he said, because I did not do it the thing was off. A re¬ 
mark was made, and now I am going to answer another question. You 
asked if I applied for a place in the custom-house. There is a gentle¬ 
man there named Ray, tfohn Ray, who wrote to Mr. Sherman, the great 
American financier, for a position for me. He wrote back and said I 
could get it, and to go and see Badger, and I went there humbly to see 
him. A negro went in, but I could not get in, and he said he had got 
a letter, and for me to come back again. I went on two or three days, 
but I found that a negro could get in where a white man cannot. I 
never could get in to vsee him. If you want to see what the custom¬ 
house ring is, go down there about four o’clock and see the niggers, and 
you can count the noses of the Republican party. I suppose probably 
after this contest is over a white man can get in there. Now, you see, 
every man must grind Kellogg’s ax. 

Q. Well, now, Mr. Witness, you hav^e gone into a question of num¬ 
bers j what is the relative proportion of white and colored, in Louisiana? 
—A. I could not tell you. • 

Q. Do not you know ?—A. I could not say ; I think the colored pre¬ 
dominate. I could not answer the question positively, but I think they 
do. But I would like to have you inquire into Texas matters a little 
further. That is a subject I desire to have ventilated. 

Q. Well, you can do that in the newspapers.—A. Yes, sir; but I want 
you to do it. 

Q. When and where were you ever supervisor of registration ?—A. In 
Catahoula, in 1870. 

Q, Catalioula Parish ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You stated that you divided your salary as parish judge with a 
man named Philli[)s?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is Mr. Phillips ?—A. He is in the city. You can get the 
banker, too, who cashed the warrant, Isidore Newman is his name. 

Q. I do not doubt you, Mr. Witness.—A. No, sir; but I was just 
giving you where you could get the proof. 

Q. How much did you pay him?—A. I paid him $250 only. I with¬ 
drew the other warrant. 

Q. You stated that you saw Governor Kellogg and spoke to him with 
reference to what Alexander claimed in the matter, and he said that was 
the arrangement. When was that?—A. It was in March, 1875. 

Q. Here in this city?—A. Yes, sir; in the State-house, on St. Louis 
street. Now will you ask me one other question, why he wanted me to 
give him the money? 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I will ask you that question. Why did Governor Kellogg want 
you to pay that money to Phillips?—A. Mr. Phillips had been elected 
parish judge, and Governor Kellogg refused to give him a commission, 
but said that he must be taken care of; that he was a disreputable 
character, and he could not commission him as judge. So the money 
was given to him to heal his wounds, but he was elected judge of the 
parish of Grant. 

Q. You spoke of something that I want to ask you about. Senator 
Cameron dropped the subject. You say you were run out of the State 
on the charge of having been a defaulting tax collector in Texas.—A. 
I never lived in that country in my life, sir, and never saw it until I was 
taken there. 

Q. But you were actually carried there on that pretense ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 


6T6 


SPOFFORD VS. KEl.LOGG. 


Q. Do you know who was the Governor of Texas then ?—A. No, sir^ 
I am not positive; but it may have been Davis. 

Q. Do you know who gave the Texas authorities information, that 
there was a defaulting collector of your name,*here?—A. Yes, sir; it 
was J. Madison Wells. 

Q. You say you have got the note that he wrote?—A. Yes, sir; in 
my pocket. 

Q. W^ill \ou show us that note t —A. I can, sir. 

Q. What was the name of the county where this tax collector had 
defaulted ?—A. It was named after Governor Davis, of Texas. 

Q. It was then, you say, called Davis County ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(The witness here produced a note, which was handed to the chairman.) 

Q. Is that the handwriting of J. Madison Wells?—A. Yes, sir; and 
there is a letter (producing another paper) in his handwriting, which 
will show you that he wrote that note. 

Senator Hill (examining the two pai)ers). They are palpably in 
the same handwriting. 

Q. Is that date, the 9th of July, 1875, Correct ?—A. That is correct. 

Q. Do you know that name?—A. Governor Kellogg knows Howard 
McKnight. 

Q. Upon that information, you say they got a requisition from the 
Governor of Texas, on Governor Kellogg ?—A. They got an indictment, 
sir. 

Q. Were you the parish judge at that time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Appointed by Kellogg ?—A. A^es, sir. 

Q. And he granted a warrant for your arrest ?—A. No, sir; Governor 
Antoine did it; he was lieutenant governor, and Kellogg was in New 
York at the time. 

Q. Anbine, ;\ou say, was lieutenant-governor?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you say they arrested you, and carried you out to Texas as a 
defaulting tax collectt>r ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Couldn’t you have got out a writ ofcorjpi/s?—A. Yes, sir; we 
were going to do that, or rather they thought we were, and they told 
me to get into a boat, and they carried me out in the river and kept me 
there in the boat, and in irons. 

Q. They wanted to get you away before you could do that?—A. Yes, 
sir; and the^^ wanted Howard McKnight to be parish judge. 

Q. What became of you, after you were gotten to Texas ?— A. The 
first thing as soon as I got out of the wagon with the sheriff, his wife 
threw her arms around him and said to him, “ What a fool you have 
made of yourself, that is not the man you want.” A number of people 
came up there to his house, and among them two lawyers, one named 
Fall; and they commenced talking, and said, You can employ me for 
your lawyer; you are not the man we want here.” And citizens around 
there all said so. Some of them came in, examined me, and I took off 
my clothes. They wanted to see if I had a coat of arms on me, which 
would identify the man. They said, “You are not the man.” 

Q. And they turned you loose, then, because you were not the man ? ' 
■—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that notice, you say, was sent by J. Madison Wells ?—A. Yes, 
sir. A"ou can keep this [referring to the note], if you desire, and T. J. 
Manning, chief justice ot the supreme court of Louisiana, will swear 
to it. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. This note is not signed ?—A. No, sir. 





SPOP'FORD VS. KELLOGG 


677 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. You say that notice was given by J. Madison Wells!—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did Governor AiUonie know you?—A. Yes, sir; and sent for me, 
and I said to him that I was not the man. He said then he had seen 
Attorney-General Fields about it, and he said he must give me up. I 
had never been in Texas in my life; he saw an attorney, Mr. Whitta¬ 
ker, and he said I would be sworn out. He saw the board of police, 
and they pledged their words of honor that I would not be bothered 
with seeing hiip, and two of the imlice came to me on the corner of 
Common and Camp streets and said the chief wanted to see me, and I 
never had any liberty afterwards till I got co Texas. 

Q. Were you a Republican then !—A. Yes, sir; and have never been 
anything else. 

Q. Whom did the requisition call for ?—A. For W. J. Stokes, and my 
name is Frederick John. 

Q. You say that it was for W. J. or J. W. Stokes !—A. That it was 
W. J. or W. F., 1 do not remember now which. 

Q. And they insisted that you was the man ?—A. Y'es, sir ; and they 
got an order for my arrest from Governor Antoine. 

Q. Well, they all knew you here, didn’t they !—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. And they knew that you had not lived in Texas, but was the par¬ 
ish judge of Grant Parish ?—A. Yes, sir; and the Texas sheriff told me 
so himself. 

Q. You say they put you in a boat and got you away from habeas 
corpus f —A. Yes, sir. And the present judge of the criminal court 
here was my attorney. 

Q. Y"ou say they put you in irons?—A. Yes, sir; and when we got to 
Jefferson, Colonel Loughery, the editor of a Democratic paper there, 
came up and said I was the w rong man. He said to the sheriff, “ You 
have the wrong sow by the ear, and you had better turn him loose.” 

Q. In point of fact, then, you were the wrong man !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You never had lived there ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When was it you were carried to Texas ?—A. Tlie l?3d of Sep¬ 
tember, 1875. 

Q. When did you return to Grant Parish after that !—A. I got back 
in time to hold court by the first of October. 

Q. How long did you continue to discharge the duties of parish judge 
of Grant Parish alter your return from Texas!—A. I held court in Oc¬ 
tober, and I held one court afterwards. The election takes place in 
October. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Please state what year that was.—A. It was in 1876, the election 
took place a year and over. This was in Sei)tember 25 or 26, that 
they took me away, and I got to Colfax in October. When I left the 
State without the permission of the governor he could put another man 
in my place, and as soon as 1 got to Shreveport I telegraphed that I was 
here, and told him not to do it. 1 had been confirmed by the Senate and 
he eould not appoint another man until I got back. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Was any other man appointed by Governor Kellogg !—A. No, sir ; 
he was not in the city. 

Q. He did not get back, did he, until after your return ?—A. That is 
correct, sir. 


678 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Walker. There is another matter I would like to interrogate the 
witness about. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Mr. Stokes, take the stand again. 1 believe you have stated some¬ 
thing about Ward. How long did he stay in the parish?—A. He had 
been up in the parish a mouth and twenty or twenty-two days. 

Q. Was there any real danger to him in staying there ?—A. Not a 
solitary particle. There was no danger to any man in the parish if he 
staid there and behaved himself. They treated him very quietly and 
nicely as long as he staid in the hill country; and they paid his bills up 
there in the hill country. While in Colfax there was a hotel there and 
he paid his own bills. The only trouble he had was about that boy, and 
they settled before I left, and settled amicably. He was there register¬ 
ing voters the same day that Judge Spoftbrd, Governor Nicholls, and 
others were there speaking. If there had been any disposition to mo¬ 
lest him, that was the best place for it to have been done. There was a 
big crowd, and no one would know the hand that did it. That was the 
only case of trouble he had, that one about that boy. 

Q. Were you in the parish when Ward left it?—A. I was not. 

Q. How long was that prior to the time that you left?—A. I left on 
the 16th, and I think he got here on the 22d or 23d. 

Q. Were there any boats running on the river?—A. You might say 
there were. 

Q. How did he state he left the parish? Did he come on a boat?— 
A. No, sir; I think he said he came by teams to the river, to the mouth 
of the Bed Eiver. 

Q. What boat did you come on ?—A. The C. H. Durfee, the same one 
that sunk afterwards in the fall. 

Q. Have you testified before any of the numerous committees that 
have been in Louisiana ?—A. No, sir; I never testified before. 


TESTIMONY OF J. T. ALLEYN. 

J. T. Alleyn, manager of the Western Union Telegraph Company, a 
witness previously called on behalf of the memorialist, was reintroduced : 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. What about those telegrams, Mr. Alleyn ?—Answer. I am 
instructed to comply with the memorandum of the committee with 
reference to all the telegrams under the names specified. 

Q. You say you are instructed to comply with the subpoena of the 
committee ?—A. Yes, sir. And I will ask you to give me a receipt for 
the telegrams. You can check them off on this sheet and see that they 
are all there. 

Q. Let us see them. (After examining them.) Do you know what 
these things mean?—A. No, sir; I do not, any more than you do. 

Q. These are the telegrams that passed to Senator Kellogg ?—A. Yes, 
sir, within the time named, sent by the parties named in this memoran¬ 
dum. 

Q. Are there any dispatches there from Thomas Lewis?—A. I do not 
believe there are any. 

Q. Or from any other parties in the custom-house ?—A. I believe 
there is one in that batch from Marks; that is the only name that I see 
that I recognize. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 679 

Q. And you have complied, you think, with the subpoena of the com¬ 
mittee f—A. With the memorandum furnished me j yes, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. (Taking a dispatch from among the batch.) Is that the one from 
Marks?—A. Yes, sir; that is signed by him, but I do not know if he 
wrote it. 

Q. Y^ou can read that one, can’t you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Please read it. 

The witness reads the dispatch as follows: 

[Half-rate message.] 


To Hon. irm. Pitt Kellogg, Washington. D. C.: 
When will Congress adjourn? Shall I come? 


New Orleans, June 14, 1879. 
Answer by telegraph. 

M. MARKS. 


TESTIMONY OF EDWAKD LE LOUP. 

Edward Le Loup, manager of the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph 
Company, a witness formerly called on behalf of the memorialist, was 
reintroduced. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Mr. Le Loup, are you ready to comi)ly with the subpoena 
of this committee ?—Answer. I have examined the records of our office 
and I cannot find any dispatches at all of the character you have 
desired. 

Whereupon the witness was discharged from further attendance. 


TESTIMONY OF THOMAS K. FLANAGAN. 

Thomas K. Flanagan, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. How long have you lived in New Orleans?—Answer. From 
my boyhood, sir, for about forty-seven years. 

Q. Were you here during the winter of 187G, that the Presidential 
election was held?—A. Yes, sir; I have been here all the time since I 
came here, and have never been twenty miles away from the city. 

Q. Did you hold an}’ official position in the fall oi 187G?— A. No, sir; 
I did not. 

Q. During the time of the sitting of the Packard legislature and the 
returning board upon the returns of the Presidential election, were you 
not a clerk in one or the other?—A. I was a clerk for the returning 
board. 

Q. Did you frequently hear the returning board talking about the 
election or Governor Kellogg talking about it ?— A. I never heard Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg talking about it, for I had no chance to do so. 

Q. How did he say that the election went? 

Senator Cameron. I put in my objection to that question. 

Senator Hill. It is the same objection you have previously made, 
Senator. 


€80 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Seuator Cameron. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. Then, of course, you uuderstand it is overruled. 

Senator Cameron. I do. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Well, Mr. Flanagan, answer.—A. Well, the returning board re¬ 
turned it liepublican. 

Q. How do you say it really was ?—A. Well, sir; as regards bow they 
would say, they would say it went liepublican. 

Q. Have you ever heard bow it really wenti?—A. I have frequently 
beard the returning board talk, and they always said it went liepublican. 

Q. Did you never hear Governor Kellogg say anything about it f— 
A. I never have; 1 have never been in coaipauy with him. 

Q. Do you know W. J. Moore, formerly of the Packard legislature?— 
A. I know W. t7. Moore who is now a gauger in the internal revenue 
office. Is that the man you mean? 

Q. Yes, that is the man. He was a member of the Packard legisla¬ 
ture, wasn't he?—A. Y'es, sir; 1 knew him. 

Q. What did you hear him say about the election ?—A. Previous to 
Mr. Moore being appointed in the internal revenue office, I believe, I 
was on as night inspector. I know I was discharged ; the force was re¬ 
duced and 1 was turned out ratlier than dischargecl. I called to see 
him frequently, and on account of my being a gauger, he said, ‘‘ 1 am 
about getting an ai)i)ointmeut; in case 1 do 1 hoi)e you will as.sist me 
in using the tools a couple of weeks.’’ 1 met him afterwards and said, 
‘‘What are your chances ? ” He said, “ O, God damn the appointment; 
I do not think 1 will get it. They are all a parcel of thieves down there.” 
I said, “1 thought you were a Republic.an, and your friend. Governor 
Kellogg, would see that you got it.” He said that Governor Kellogg 
don’t care a damn for me or anybody else. 1 said, “He is Senator and 
ought to look out for you.” He said, “ He is Senator about as much 
as I am.” I said, “I do no tbelieve that”; and he said, TLiey are all a 
parcel of scoundrels.” 

Q. Well, what did he say about Kellogg being elected ?—A. He said 
be was no more elected than he was. 

Q. Did he give you any particular reasons ?—A. 1 never asked him 
for any. 

Q. Did you have any more conversations ?—A. I have met him fre¬ 
quently. 

Q. Did you talk with him after he was appointed ?—A. I never had 
any conversation again regarding that whatever, for I didn’t think I 
would ever be called here. I never thought anything of the kind. 

Q. Did you see any evidence, as clerk of the returning board, as to 
bow the election went, and what was done to make it Republican ? If 
so, state it. You were one of the clerks; now, how was the real fact 
about that election ?—A. Well, sir, you take me rather suddenly. If I 
had more time, I might tell .vou how the different parishes went. I took 
a memorandum and hied the returns. 

Q. Did you give that statement to a committee before ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You have never been before a committee?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Can you make it out, do you think ?—A. Y^es, sir; I think I can. 

Q. Will you be kind enough to get that and come before the commit¬ 
tee again ? 1 want to know whether the legislature was Democratic or 

Republican.—A. The only tiling that I could do would be to give you 
bow each parish went on the face of the returns. 

Q. That is, according to the real facts, or the adjudication of the re- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 681 

turning board?—A. Xo, sirj that was according to what was filed 
away. 

Q. Then, you mean the real facts?—A. I mean as they came from the 
retimiing board, as I got them from the returning board. 

Q. Then you never saw them until they came from the returning 
board?—A. iSTo, sir; we had another room. We had them first before 
they went before the board, and then as they came back we filed them 
away again. 

Q. Do you think, then, you can show the difference between them as 
they went in and as they came out?—A. No, sir; I do not know as I 
can, but I think the mo^t of them went Democratic. 

Q. Well, will you get that statement of those memoranda and bring 
them before us?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your recollection is, you say, that most of them went Democratic? 
—A. I believe they all did except four or five parishes. 

Q. Were you a Republican then?—A. I was, and I am an honest Re¬ 
publican yet. 

Senator Cameron. I desire to ask the chairman if he desires to go 
into the election in any parishes except those that Mr. Spofford makes 
a point on in his petition ? 

Senator Hill. I do not think he mentions any jiarishes specially. 

Mr. Spofford. The petition will show that, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hill. I thought it contained all that you desired to go into, 
and I thought if we could show that any parishes went Democratic in¬ 
stead of Republican, we could do so, especially as it had a bearing on 
the Senatorial election. 

Mr. Spofford. Senator Cameron will understand that in the first in¬ 
vestigation I objected until that seventh ward matter was gone into, as 
there had been no investigation of that. That has been done now. The 
resolution of the Senate marks out what this committee shall do, and it 
might be that I would be confined to that which was contained in this 
last petition, as it has been understood that all the rest has been adju¬ 
dicated. 

Senator Cameron (to the witness): 

Q. Where did you place this memorandum after you made it?—A. 
They are all home in my desk. I cannot say now that they are all there, 
for i moved some four months ago, and you know how everything is 
when you move. I have looked for them and could not find them, but 
I am positive that I can do so now. 

Q. Did anybody know that you put them away ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Please give us the name of the gentleman who put those things 
away with you?—A. Yincent Sheppard. 

By Senator Hill : * 

Q. Is he a colored man ?—A. He is like John R. Gla, or some of 
these men; you would not observe that he w^as colored, though I believe 
he is. 

Q. Have you seen this memorandum from the time you put it away?— 
A. From the time that I put away? No, sir; I did not know that they 
would be of any account or needed until I was caught in the street and 
brought here. 

Q. Who were the other clerks of the returning board?—A. There 
were Mr. Abel- 




€82 


SPOFFORD VS. kp:llogg 


Q. Give tlieir first names wherever you can.—A. I have to think. 
There were Mr. Abel, Mr. McCormick, a brother-in-law or son-in-law of 
Spearing—what his name was—let me consider nowf it was he who 
gave the testimony at Washington about Vernon Parish. What is his 
namef There were twelve clerks altogether. 

Q. Was the name of that man A. Ko, sir. He was a 

tall young man, and I know him well. For years and years he lived 
here. Then there was a brother to this man, who was the undertaker 
©n Royal street, Cassanave. 

Q. What were your special duties as clerks of the returning board ?— 
A. Generally, when the returns came there, tabulate them, and if there 
were any mistakes in them to put them down in pencil marks. 

Q. AVhat did you do with the tables you made from the returns as 
they came back from the returning board ?—A. What do you mean, the 
different tally-sheets'? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. put them away; each parish was put in the 

parish box where they belonged. 

Q. Were they kept in the imssession of the returning board, or did 
you take them and treat them as private papers ?—A. They were kept 
for the returning board, of course. That is all there was about it. I 
had no private papers. 

Q. AVhat were these memoranda of which you speak ?—A. They were 
some little private notes that I took. The clerks were all anxious to 
know how the State went, and we would make these little memoranda 
and put them in our pockets. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. AVhen were you discharged from the custom-house?—A. I think 
it was in June, 1878, on or about the first of June. 

Q. How long had you been employed at that time?—A. I think from 
January, but I could not exactly say; some time about January. 

Q. What occupation have you been in since then?—A. Clerking, and 
once in a while on the sanitary board; but now in the surveyor’s office 
at the city hall. 

Q. How long have you been there ?—A. About one month. 

Q. From whom did you receive the appointment ?—A. Henry C. Brown, 
the State surveyor. 

Q. Is he a Republican or Democrat ?—A. I believe he is a Democrat. 

Q. Don’t you know whether he is or not?—A. He is a Democrat. 

Q. Are there any Republicans employed there?—A. There may be. 
I do not know. 

Q. Do you know that there are any employed there ?—A. I could not 
say. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I would like to have you look at those memoranda and give the 
committee a list of the parishes that were Democratic before they.went 
to the returning board and those that were so as they came back. 

The witness was thereupon discharged for the present. 


SPOFFORD vs; KELLOGG. 


683 


TESTIMONY OF J. M. TOMLINSON. 


J. M. Tomlinson, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

(iiiestion. Where are you employed ?—Answer. In the custom-honse. 

Q. What are yonr duties there?—A. I am chief clerk. 

Q. Chief clerk of the custom-house?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Do you have or keep a correct list of the employes in the custom¬ 
house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Gan you make out for the committee a list of those employes ?—A. 
Yes, sir; with a little time. The book is here already containing the 
list, which you can have. 

Q. How many parties are employed there?—A. On the collector’s roll 
there are, perhaps, one hundred and fifty. There are about the same 
number in the surveyor’s office. 

Q. Does that include the laborers?—A. No, sirj it does not. 

Q. How many of the members, who were in the Packard legislature 
that elected Kellogg, are employed in the custom-house ?—A. I could 
not tell, sir, without looking at tlie list. 

Q. You can do so, though?—A. Yes, sir, after I examine it, or I can 
give you a list of them. 

Q. I want to know who are on the roll proper in any way as laborers, 
or in any other way employed there?—xV. Well, sir, the collector is the 
custodian of those things. I am only a subordinate. 

Q. You can make out that list, I understand you ?—A. Yes, sir j under 
his orders. 

Senator Cameron. I presume there will be no difficulty about that. 

Senator Hill. No; I suppose not. I take it a Senate committee is 
a greater body than Badger. 

Tlie Witness. I can furnish you the rolls in five minutes. It will be 
better and more convenient for me and the committee. 

Senator Hill. Bring it here, then, Mr. Tomlinson, and we will copy it. 

The Witness. It is a list, though, of the sworn employes onlj". 

Senator Hill. Well, I want them, and any other that you may know 
of. 

The Witness. Well, sir, they are the names and dates of employ 
and sworn otticers in the custom-house. 

Senator Cameron. I suggest that, in my opinion, the proper way to 
reach the result which the committee desires to reach is to subpoBiia the 
chief officer of the custom-house, who has charge of these things. It 
is true these gentlemen are subordinate to a certain extent to the con¬ 
trol of the collector. That is all. 

Senator Hill. I supposed the keeper of the records is the man from 
whom to get the information. Badger does not do it. If 3lr. Badger 
says not to do anything, Mr. Tomlinson, you will report it to the coni- 
mittce^ and we will take charge of it. 

The Witness. The collector’s orders are to give you anything you 
want. 


684 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Cameron. You liave been instructed by the chairman to pre¬ 
pare it in some way, so that you can testify in regard to the members 
of the Packard legislature who are in the custom-house. I wish you 
would also be prepared to testify where each of them then resided j and 
if you know their residences before their appointment, whether they were 
driven by political proscription to leave there and that was the reason 
of their being given employment. 

The Witness. That would only be hearsay. Senator. 

Senator Cameron. Of course 5 but I want the additional testimony. 

Senator Hill. That will be a matter to be considered in the cross- 
examination. You make out the names and where they were appointed 
from, and all that. And you can. Senator, ask any questions about any 
of those things. Ho you keep a record [speaking to the witness] of 
whose recommendations a man is appointed on?—A. Only in an infor¬ 
mal way. That is, somebody may recollect; it is not required by the 
department. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. 1 would also like to ask, how many of the so-called Mcholls legis¬ 
lature are employed in the Democratic government, city and State? 

Senator Hill. If he is knowing of that fact he can testify to it. 

The Witness. How many days will you have here, gentlemen, and 
allow me for this work. 

Senator Hill. I do not think I can allow you pay to make out a list 
not connected with a United States office. If you don’t know of the 
Mcholls government, and are not employed with it, I do not know that 
you are required to answer the question the Senator has introduced. 
I only want the list of employes in the custom-house, and when they 
were appointed.—^A. And the dates—dates you say? 

Q. Yes, sir. I want a separate list of the number of those who were 
in the Packard legislature, the date of their appointments, and the sal' 
aries they are getting. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Will that also show the place of their residence?—A. Ho, sir; all 
of them resided in Hew Orleans when they were appointed. 

Senator Hill. The records of the legislature will show that. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


685 


TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. SEYxMOUE. 

William II. Seymour, a witness called for tlie memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. How long* have you resided in Xew Orleans?—Answer. 
Twenty years, sir. 

Q. Are you a resident here now ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your occupation 1 —A. I am a notary and commissioner 
of deeds. 

Q. You are a notary and commissioner of deeds ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Will you look at that attidavit and say if you recognize it [hand¬ 
ing to witness a paper purporting to be an affidavit], that statement, or 
whatever it is! 

The Witness [after examining the paper]. Y^es, sir. 

Q. State what you know about it.—A. ]Mr. Milon called at my office 
in company with a Mr. Dicks, and proposed to me to swear him to this 
affidavit without making me familiar with the contents of it, and I re¬ 
fused to do it. 

Q. What was the date of it ?—A. It was some time in the spring of 
1878. 

Q. Of 1878!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Or was it 1879!—A. ’78, sir. 

Q. Did he swear to it ?—A. He came there for the purpose of asking 
to do it without informing me of the substance o? it. 

Q. Did he tell you that was his signature !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that he came to swear to it!—A. Y'es, sir; came with Dicks 
and said so. 

Q. He wanted to swear to it without telling you the contents ?—A. 
Y'es, sir; but I would not allow it. It was a matter of history that 
Anderson, Weber and company had played something on mo of the 
same sort, and I didn’t propose to be caught again. I had sworn to 
letters before the Potter cominitttee, and they got me into trouble, and 
I wanted to know what it was before I would swear him to it. 

Q. Did he say to you that that affidavit or statement was true?—A. 
Y'es, sir; Mr. Dicks was with him; he was a man I had done much busi¬ 
ness for and expressed his willingness to swear to it 

Q. Did Mr. Milon state that it was true?—A. Yes, sir; ho said that 
he was a resident of the parish of Plaquemines. 


686 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Walker. I would like, Mr. Ohairmau, to have it read. 

Senator Hill. I just tender the statement, Senator Cameron. You 
can read it. We propose to introduce it as a statement of a member of 
the legislature; it is an admission that he received money for his vote. 

Senator Yance. Where is the man now ? 

The Witness. He is in the custom-house. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When did you first see this paper, Mr. Seymour ?—A. When it 
was brought me by Dicks and Mr. Milon; Mr. Dicks was one of the sub¬ 
scribing witnesses. 

Q. When was that?—A. It was in the spring of 1878. I think it was 
in March or April. 

Q. Kow state the conversation that took place at that time between 
yourself and those two gentlemen, or between them in your presence.— 
A. Mr. Dicks had spoken to me several days before that he had an affi¬ 
davit he wished a party to affix his jurat to without my seeing the con¬ 
tents, and he brought this party. 

Q. What other conversation took place then ?—A. Mr. Milon was at 
the foot of the stairs. I was introduced to him by Dicks, and I said to 
him, “If you want to swear to this pai)er you must come upstairs and 
let me see the contents,’^ and the parties refused to do so. 

Q. Is that all you remember about it?—A. That is all I remember. 

Q. You read this paper over at the time?—A. Ho, sir. 

Q. How long did it remain in your possession ?—A. I saw it after¬ 
wards, sir; but not at that time. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Cameron). He stated, I believe, that they 
would not let him see it. 

Senator Cameron. Ho he has not stated that. What I asked you is 
whether you had this paper?—A. I cannot say I had it; it was exhib¬ 
ited to me by the parties. 

Q. By whom was it exhibited?— A. Mr. Milon. 

Q. By whom was it signed?—A. Mr. Milon. 

Q. Who were the witnesses to it ?—A. Mr. Dicks was one of them. 

Q. Who was the other ?—A. The other, I think, was a party inter¬ 
ested with him in the claim business; Maurin, I believe. He has since 
been at Baton Eouge. 

Q. Do you remember the names of all the witnesses ?—A. I remem¬ 
ber the names of those two but not the third. I am i^ositive of Dicks, 
and I think of Maurin. I am sure that was the other. 

Q. Did you place any mark on that paper then?—A. I do not think 
I did then. I think I did subsequently; some time afterwards. 

Q. I am speaking now of that time. But when did you next see it ?— 
A. I saw it next in the hands of EdAvard J. Ewart, who has a coffee¬ 
house opposite the French market in this city. . 

Q. Who Avas present Avhen you saw it there?—A. I have no recollec¬ 
tion of anybody being present except Mr. Dicks, Avho turned it over to 
me. 

Q. When did you next see it ?—A. I have seen it frequently since 
then in the hands of Mr. Ewart. 

Q. When did you last see it prior to to-day?—A. Last week. 

Q. In Avhose possession Avas it then ?—A. In the hands of Mr. EAvart. 

Q. When did you first read the paper ?—A. When did I first read 
it? 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


687 


Q. \es, sir.—A. It must have been some time after the parties coming* 
to my office to swear to it. Tliat would be in 1«S78. It was in ^lay or 
June afterwards that I read it. 

Q. Ill whose possession was it wlien you first read it ?—A. Milon’s. 

Have you ever talked with him about it since ?—A. Xo, sir; I have 
not. 1 have talked frequently with Blackstone, Imt not with Milon. I 
doubt if I would know him now, as it was so long ago. 

Q. Have you ever seen him since?—A. No, sir; he is a colored man, 
and I do not think I could })lace him. 

Q. You talked with lUackstone also?—A. Yes, sir; he is decidedly 
black, and J do not think Milon is near as dark. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I understood you to say that Milon was in the custom-house ?—Y. 
1 have been informed so, but I do not know. 

Senator Hill (presenting the affidavit). We propose to incorporate 
that as part of the testimony. 

Senator Cameron. I object to it. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Vance). What do you say. Senator? We 
propose to incorporate that affidavit in the testimony. 

Senator Vance. Oh, yes. 

Senator Hill (to the stenograiiher). Please incorporate that affidavit 
at this point. 

State of Louisiana, 

Parish of Orleans, ss: 

Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for the State and parish 
aforesaid, A. C. Milon, a resident of Platiueminc Parish, State of I.onisiana, who, 
being duly sworn according to law, discloses that ho was a member of the house of 
representatives in January, 1877; that he was elected from the parish of Plaquemine, 
State of Louisiana, to represent said parish, in conjunction with H. C. Warmoth. 

That on or about the 9th or 10th of January, 1877, ho was approaclied by Louis J. 
Soner, who, to intluence his vote for William P. Kellogg as United States Senator, did 
then and there otfer and pay unto him the sum of $500. 

That the said $500 w'as paid to him at the corner of Canal and Morals streets. New 
Orleans, La. Tliat no consideration was given or asked by the said Louis J. Souer ex¬ 
cept his own promise to vote for William P. Kellogg as United States Senator. 

That from his own personal knowledge he knows that money was paid unto 

; that his knowledge of this fact is derived from personal knowledge of the 
same and conversation with the aforesaid parties, he having been present at the time 
of the payment of the said money. 

That he Avas a member of a ring or combination which existed in the house of repre¬ 
sentatives, and which ring or combination was formed for the purpose of controlling 
the legislature. 

That this testimony is given without any promise of reward or compensation, and 
only from a motive to secure to the rightful claimant his seat in the Senate of the 
United States. 

A. E. MILON. 

Attest to signature: 

George Dicks. 

Petek Howard. 

C. A. MauriN. 

On this day of February, 1878, personally appeared before mo the aforesaid de¬ 
ponent, whom I certify to bo a credible person, and who, after having the contents of 
the same read over to him, acknowledged the same to be his act and deed. 

Tlic AVitnEvSS. I might say tliat he was very reticent about it. He 
hung about tliere for several days; there at my office or Dicks’, and was 
very desirous to make that affidavit. 


688 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. Here is another one. See if you can identify that one. 

The Witness (examining the paper). It is correct, sir. It was made 
by Benjamin Franklin in my presence. I am one of the witnesses to it, 
and it was made before James A. J. Lewis, notary public. I am one of 
the subscribing witnesses, and so was Mr. Hicks. It is dated I6th April, 
1878. 

Q. Hid Benjamin Franklin tell you that the statements were true?— 
A. Yes, sir; he came to my office and proposed to swear to the contents 
of this afifidaYit. Owing to the conditions I had been placed in by these 
gentlemen once before, I thought it would not be iiroper for me to take 
the aftidayit, so I took him to another notary. 

Q. But he read anew the contents of that affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir; it 
was carefully read and explained to him before he signed it. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Who were iiresent at the time it was read to him ?—A. George 
Hicks and myself; we were the witnesses. 

Q. By whom was it read to him?—A. By the notary, James A. J. 
Lewis. There was another affidavit made about the same time, the 
same day or the day before. 

Q. What did Lewis say?—A. He was particular to read it over and 
careful to explain the oath, and to see if the assertions were true and 
correct. The witnesses stated that they were, and made his mark, and 
they and Mr. Hicks and myself subscribed as attesting witnesses. 

Q. Who is Mr. Hicks?—A. He was in the claim business of the firr- 
of Hicks & Wilder, in Exchange Place, near Custom-House stre^ ' 
saw him last in Philadelphia last July. I was on my way to Hew 
and parted with him there. 

Q. Is he a resident of this city now?—A. Ho, sir. 

Q. Where is he now?—A. I have never met him since June or Jui^, 
1878, in Philadelphia. 

Q. What did he seem to have to do with this Kellogg-Spofford case? 
—A. He seemed to have considerable to do with it. 

Q. In whose interest?—A. As far as I could see it was in Spofford’s 
interest; that was the inference that I drew. 

Q. Hid he or did he not explain to you why he was at work in the 
case?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State what he said.—A. In the month of January, 1878, Mr. Hicks, 
whom I had done considerable work for in administering jurats for 
clients, said he had certain testimony that he wished me to take before 
me as a notary public. The Hicholls legislature at that time were in 
session, and he introduced me to Charles J. Boatner. Mr. Boatner was 
the chairman of the committee to investigate the title of Mr. Kellogg to 
the Senatorship of Louisiana. 

Q. Of which legislature was Mr. Boatner a member?—A. Of the 
Hicholls legislature, and chairman of the committee of investigation, as 
previously stated, of the title of Kellogg to Senatorship, as that title 
had been questioned. 

Q. Well, go on.—A. Mr. Boatner, chairman of the committee, who is 
now attorney at law in the Concordia Parish, Mr. Spearing, and others 
also of the same committee met at my office in January, 1878, and at 
that meeting was Jeremiah Blackstone, who had been a member of the 
Packard legislature. Blaekstone was present, and he stated that he was 


S POP FORI) VS. KELLOGG. 


fiS!) 

sii*k and tired ot this whole hnsiness, and he was ready to eominunieate 
any intbrination in his power on the subject ot‘ Ivello.ii’jn's election. ^Tr. 
iloatner told him he had no ])ronnses to make to him in any manner. 
It he saw i)rop(H‘ to divnl^e these thing's he would be happy to re(!eive 
it. The ^-entlemen met there on several occasions, and .AEr. lUackstone 
furnished an atUdavit, his own, and said he would •^et that also of .Mr. 
Milon and two corroborating- witnesses to prove what he asserted. The 
atlidavit ot Mr. lihutkstone was taken before* fjewis, a notary public of 
this city. It is now in the citv, and I have the sum and substance of it 
here. 

(»). Von seem to have lost si<^ht of my question. What di<l Mr. Dicks 
have to do with this case?—A. .Mr. Dicks introduced me to these j^^en- 
tlemen, who desired to take this testimony. He desired to employ me 
for a notary or commissioner for that puri)ose. 

Q. Was he aiding*- that committee ?—A. He was, as I understood it, 
aiding;- that i)arty. 

Q. J)o you know whether that committee ever made a report ?—A. [ 
am not ])ositive now, but I thiidv not. The matter was investi^’-ated and 
I have no knowledj»e of any report bein^^ made at that time. S(*veral 
meetings were had at my otlice, and .Afr. Boatner and these other j^entle- 
men I remember being- there. 

(^. Were the members of that committee Democrats or Kepublicans? 
—A. They were Democrats. I understood from Mr. Dumont that he 
was a member of that committee, and L did not think it was fair for this 
to be going- on without some knowledge to the other parties, and I ex¬ 
hibited to him these afUdavits. 

Q. Dumont, yon say, you understood to have been a member?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

(}. Was he a Iiei)nbli(;an ?—A. Yes, sir. 

i}. J>ut he was not i)resent at the meetings ?—A. Xo, sir. Those who 
were there were Deiiiocrats. 1 told Dumont that he was a friend of 
long standing, and so I told him about what was going on. 

Q. Was the (*ommittee pursuing-its business at the time?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And Dumont, you say, was not present ?—A. Xo, sir; he was not 
l)resent at any of the meetings. It was in the month of rianuary or 
lYbruary, 1878. I cannot remember which. 

Senator Hill. Please take that atlidavit (handing- it to the reporter). 

Senator Cameron. [To the re[)orter.] You will also note my objection 
to it. 

By Senator Cameron: 

(^. Were you acquainted with Mr. Franklin at that time?—A. Xo, 
sir; but he had been around my otlice on several occasions previous to 
my taking him there to Lewis’s otlice. 

(>). Was he a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was his position ?—A. He was not a member of the legisla¬ 
ture, but a prominent member of a ward club in this city. 

Q. Yon say he was not a mendier of the legislature ?—A. I think 
not. 

Q. Do you know where he now is?—A. lean give you his last ad¬ 
dress. It was on Solidelle, between Union and Bagatelle. He was 
quite a prominent man in that portion of the city at that time. He was 
I)resident of a club. 


SPOFFORD VS. KP^LLOGG. 


690 

l>y Senator Kp:llogg: 

Q. Do yon know what ward tliat was ?—A. ^o, sir; 1 do not. 1 am 
not ac(piainted with it. 

Q. J)oyou know what Avard that street is in ?—A. 1 am not so well 
acquainted with the city as to say. 

(^. Do you know in whose liandwriting’ this paper is?—A. Yes, sir; 
tliis is the handwiiting of ]\Ir. George Dicks. 

Q. Will you ])lease look at the other pai)er anil say if it is in the same 
handwriting?—A. Yes, sir. The wonts ‘‘sixteen” and “ApAril” are in 
the handwriting of Mr. A. J. Lewis. 

(k>. Lilt the body of it?—A. That is in the hand of Mr. Dicks also, 

(). And the first statement you say is in Dick’s writing also?—A. 
A'es, sii‘, also. 

Q. Then the three affidavits are all in the handwriting of Dicks?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. One is iMilon’s and the other is Franklin’s?—A. Y"es, sir. I don’t 
think this third one has been offered yet. 

Ly Senator Hill: 

Q. Look at that third one and state what it is. It is made by James 
Kelly and has the same subscribing witnesses, It is made by James 
Kelly before A. J. Lewis. Did he know the contents of it?—A. Yes, 
sir; it was read over and carefully explained to him. He signed it and 
admitted it was correct. That is his signature. 

Q. There is still another affidavit which was made by Jeremiah Black- 
stone. ^^Y want to call for that one too.—xV. I haven’t the original, 
but I have almost a duiilicate of it [producing a paper.] 

Senator Hill. [To the reporter.] Just include there Kelly’s affidavit 
and then let Mr. Seymour read that memorandum or duplicate of Black- 
stone’s. 

Tlie witness proceeded to read the following rough-draft duplicate 
of Blackstone’s affidavit: 

State oe Louisiana, 

rarinh of Orleans, ss : 

Oil tins-(lay of-, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, before 

me, a notary piildic in and for said i)arish and State, personally ajijieared before me 
Jeremiah Blackstone, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that 
he was a member of the legislature which was convened in the St. Louis Hotel, Janu¬ 
ary —, 1877; that he was electcMl from the 7th ward, parish of Orleans, State of Louis¬ 
iana; that prior to his election, and on or about the latter part of September, 1876, 
or about the lirst of October, 1876, he hail a conversation with Win. P. Kellogg, which 
conversation took place in the private office of Win. P. Kellogg, at the Saint Louis 
Hotel ; that the conversation was in regard to the aiiproaching election, and that Win. 
P. Kellogg staied that he would be a candidate for F. S. Senator. That Win. P. Kel¬ 
logg did then and there give unto him the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), 
which sum was to be used in promoting the election of the candidates from the 7th, 
Rtlp^ifr 0th wards of the parish of Orleans, and it was further understood that if the 
Republican candidates should be elected, they should vote for Win. P. Kellogg as U. 
S. Senator. That in accordance with said agreement he paid to the following-named 
persons the sums affixed to their names: Benjamin Franklin one hnndred and fifty 
dollars ($1.50,00); Pat. Griffin (club president) three hundred dollars (|:300.00); Jim 
Kelly fifty dollars ($50.00); Joe Dray fifty dollars ($50.00); James R. Brown one hnn¬ 
dred dollars ($100.00); music, li(|uors, &c., about one hundred dollars ($100.00.) That 
Win. P. Kellogg also paid John Barron in his presence a sum of money, the amount of 
which deponent does hot know, which niouey was to be used in the same way and 
manner. After the election of deponent, and while he was a member of the house of 
representatives, and on or about the sixth of January, 1877, he was sent for by Wm. 
1*. Kellogg to attend him in his private office. Upon meeting him, Kellogg stated to 
deponent that some of the members showed a disposition to go back on the pledoes 
they had given, and reiiiiested him to use his influence, and further that Wm. P. Kel- 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


691 


log (lid then and there give unto deponent thesnm of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), 
which sum was to he used in advancing the interests, and, if possible, to secure tlie 
election of Win. P. Kellogg to the United States Senate. This said sum of money was 
paid with that distinct and perfect understanding, Wm. P. Kellogg stating explicitly 
that the money jiaid was to be used for the jiurpose of electing him to the Senate of 
the United States. Kellogg also stated to deponent that he should have all of the pat¬ 
ronage of his district, and that he would always be cared for* Deponent accepted the 
money, and paid to different persons as follows: Jonas Hughes, of Assumption Parish, 
one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00); George Bird, of Baton Rouge, two hundred 
dollars ($200.00); Henry Blair, (d' Bossier, one hundred dollars t$100.00.); Johnson, of 
De Soto, fifty dollars ($50.00); Isham Nichols, of the 9th ward, a politican, one hundred 
dollars ($100.00). That after the election of Wm. P. Kellogg to the United States 
Senate, and on or about the day of January, 1877, deponent was further paid l>y 
Louis .J. Souer, a member of the liouse of representatives, the sum of two hundred 
dollars for his services, and that this w'as given him as an extra acknowledgment for 
the service he had rendered as well as for the fact of voting for Wm. I*. Kellogg for 
United States Senator. 

J. B. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this day of March, 1878. 

Also personally ajipeared before me, at the same time and place, George Dicks and 
Wm. H. S., wiioj being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that they were 
personally present and saw .Jeremiah Blackstone sign his name to the foregoing decla¬ 
ration. That the said declaration was read over to the said Blackstone and he acknowl¬ 
edged in their presence that his signature to the same was his own free will, act, and 
deed. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me,this day of , 1878. 

By Seiuitor Camp:RON: 

Q. Wliat is that tliat you have Just read ?—A. That is the sum and 
substance, as near as can be, of the allidavit made by Blackstone. 

B3\Senator Hill: 

Q. lie acknowledged that he knew those faints to be true ?—A. Aes, 
sir ; he made the allidavit and it is now in t!ie city in the possession of 
]\Ir. Ewart. 

Senator Hill. Senator Cameron objects to this testimony. His ob¬ 
jections will be noted, and they are overruled. 

The Witness. This paper, yon will understand, is not signed by Black¬ 
stone. 

By Senator Vance: 

Q. Where is Blackstone now A. I cannot say, sir; but I under¬ 
stand |he is in the city. He is a preacher here in the city. The original 
of this allidavit is in the possession of Mr. Ewarts. 

Q. Did he sign the allidavitf—A. Yes, sir; in my iireseuce and in 
that of ^Mr. Anthony Sambola. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. Did he admit all these facts to be true'?—A. Yes, sir; headmitted 
the same facts. He stated all of them, and occasioned a gimd deal of 
merriment when speaking to the gentlemen who composetl that com¬ 
mittee. I remt^mber that some days afterwards he made this allidavit. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

(^. Did I understand yon ti^ -say that that committee ever made any 
report ?—A. Not that I remember, sir. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. Was the statement made to the committee by Blackstone like tliis 
contained in this atlidavdt ?— A., ^ es, sir; it was exactly like it in its 
substance. He was to have proceeded to get corroborating witnesses in 
the country. Tliese two men were iiroduced to corroborate him, Frank- 


692 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


liii and Kelly and, be was to go to the country to get the affidavits of 
Jones, who was a member of the house, and of another who was at Hog 
Point in Pointe Coupee. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you know thfs Mr. Kelly who is referred to i?—A. Only in con¬ 
nection with these matters. 

Q. Where did he reside?—A. In the third district. 

Q. Do you know where he is now ?—A. 1 do not 5 no, sir. His resi¬ 
dence was given to me then, but whether he is there or not I do not 
know. It was on La Harpe street, between Tonti and Eocheblave. 

Senator Cameron. Go on and state what Blackstone said when he 
was before that fragment of a committee in your office ?—A. Mr. Black- 
stone was not present on that occasion. He was present with Dicks and 
W. K. Spearing, of this city, Mr. Boatner, and Mr. Zachary, whom I 
failed to mention a while ago. Mr. Zachary was a senator and a mem¬ 
ber of the committee. These gentlemen told him and cautioned him that 
they were not desirous of offering him any recompense for making the 
statements which he proposed to make; and if he desired to make them 
voluntarily he could do so. He, in pursuance of that understanding, 
made the affidavit which was embodied in the copy which I have exhib¬ 
ited to the committee. 

Q. State what he said to them.—A. At this length of time it would 
be impossible to state it minutely, but he stated that he could prove 
what he said, and he brought these two men, Kelly and Franklin, to 
corroborate it. 

Q. They were to prove what assertions?—A. That he had received 
this money, and that he had been bribed, as a prominent member of the 
legislature, and bribed Franklin, as a prominent member of a ward club, 
to woik in that contest, and that he received the money from L. J. 
Souer. 

Q. Hew did he say he was bribed, or what for?—A. To get his influ¬ 
ence and that of others who might be under his control as a minister of 
the g ospel, as the churches exercise great influence in Kew Orleans in 
politics. 

Q. He was to do vhat?—A. He was to vote for Kellogg and get 
others to do so. 

Q. Who were the members of the legislature at that time from his 
ward?—A. I have no recollection, sir. 

Q. Was he paid a thousand dollars to get the influence of the men 
from his ward ?—A. No, sir; but of men all over the State of Louisiana, 
such men as George Washington and Jonas Hughes, and others scat¬ 
tered throughout the State. 

Q. When do you understand the first thousand dollars was given to 
him ?—A. I cannot state without referring to the affidavit. 

Q. But I am trying, Mr. Seymour, to get at the conversation that was 
had with him at your office ?—A. I understood that it was prior to the 
election in January, 1878, or rather in January, 1877. 

Q. He did not state then when it was paid ?—A. I cannot state now 
without looking at the affidavit. 

Q. But the affidavit, you say, was not made then. I want your recol¬ 
lection of the conversation prior to the making of the affidavit ?—A. 
It is that this money was paid, or had been paid, by Mr. Souer before 
the election came off. 

Q. You replied, I believe, to the assertion made by the Senator from 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. G93 

Georgia, that he stated the same things to the committee that he put in 
the attidavit. 

Senator Gill. I made no such assertion. I asked the question. 

By Senator Cameron : 

(}. The conversation that was had there, I understand you, was after¬ 
wards reduced down to the form of an affidavit. Now, 1 am after the 
conversation ; wliat was it ?—A. He informed these gentlemen, Boat- 
ner being the chairman, that he had been paid this money, and he Wiis 
ready to corroborate it by other testimony, and he produced these men, 
Franklin and Kelly, as witnesses to the fact. 

Q. Have you stated all the conversation that you now remember that 
took place at your office at the time ? If you have not, state the balance. 
—A. The balance of the conversation was that in case Mr. Blackstone 
was at any traveling expenses in proceeding to the country for the pur¬ 
pose of receiving the affidavits of the member from La Fourche and the 
others he had referred to, the same were to be reimbursed to him. 

Q. Who first mentioned the matter of reimbursing him for his ex¬ 
penses?—A. I think it was Mr. Spearing. 

Q. What did Mr. Spearing say in regard to that matter !—A. He said 
that any expenses he iiucurred in doing that would be reimbursed, but 
that it would not be proper for them to pay anything for the testimony 
itself. 

Senator Cameron. Of course not. 

The Witness. Mr. Blackstone did, afterwards, get some money. 

Q. From whom ?—A. I understood from Mr. Spearing. 

Q. What connection di<l he have with this matter ?—A. He was a 
friend of Mr. Boatner’s, and introduced me to him. 

Q. He was not a member of tlie legislature then?—A. No, sir; I 
think he was in the previous legislature; but he seemed to take a deep 
interest in this affair. 

Q. What office did Boatner hold ?—A. He was attorney at law, and 
a member of the senate, and chairman of the senate committee to inves¬ 
tigate the alleged malfeasances in the election of Kellogg to the 
Senate. 

Q. Did Spearing say this in the presence of Boatner, that be would 
reimburse him, Blackstone, for his expenses ?—A. I do not know, sir; I 
think it was afterwards. 

Q. Was that stated more than once ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether it was ever stated in the presence of Boat¬ 
ner ?—A. No, sir, I think not; I think it was only in the presence of 
]Mr. Zachary. 

Q. Do you remember whether it was stated at the first meeting ?— 
A. There were several meetings, and Mr. Spearing stated to him, 
“ Whatever expenses you will be at will be paid back to you.” 

Q. You do not remember, that Boatner was present?—A. No, sir; I 
could not say. 

Q. Do not you know whether he was or not?—A. No, sir, I do not; 
he might have been or he might not have been. I know that Black¬ 
stone went up the country on that motion. 

Q. And you sav that Spearing paid him for it?^A. Not in my pres¬ 
ence. 1 understood that Mr. Hewitt gave him the money. Instead of 
attending to the business he was sent on he attended a convention of 
colored preachers from lied Iliver. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Is Kelly a colored man or a white man?—A. Yes, sir; he is a col- 


694 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


ored man^ and so are Franklin, Blackstone, and Milon, all four of them. 
Blackstone is very dark, and so are Kelly and Fianklin. Milon, so far 
as I can remember, is not as dark as the others; he is what we w^ould 
call a griffe man. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. John Barrow; is he a colored man too?—A. I was informed by 
Blackstone that he was. I never saw him. 

Upon motion the committee at this point took a recess for half an 
hour. 

The committee reassembled in pursuance of the order it had taken 
for a recess. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Walker, will you have any more witnesses now ? 

Mr. Walker. I have several subpoenaed, but they are not present. 
It will probably be to-morrow morning before I can get any more before 
the committee. 

Senator Hill. Governor Kellogg, if you have any witnesses now we 
can go on and examine them. 

Senator Kellogg. We had no idea that we would have any oppor¬ 
tunity to go on with our testimony today; and I think the sergeaut-at- 
arms told those witnesses I had subpoenaed that they might go for the 
balance of the day. 1 should like to arrange so that when I commence 
my rebuttal I could go on uninterruptedly. 

Mr. Walker. We have examined forty odd witnesses and’summoned 
two dozen others. I think I shall examine them when I learn the cir¬ 
cumstances of the case and what they know. This is the first occasion 
when I could not go ahead. We have had them examined as rai)idly as 
possible. 

Senator Kellogg. I have no complaint to make on that.score; but 
I just desire as the matter gets on and I get my witnesses, who have 
been fooling about town, to put them on as rapidly as possible, and stop 
all those expenses and let them go. 

Senator Vance. AVe adopted a rule in Kansas that if we called a 
witness and he could not be found, we did not pay him for that.day’s 
attendance. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, it is probabl 3 ^ our fault not expect¬ 
ing this hiatus. W^e said to them to-day that we would not need them 
until to-morrow. 

Sergeant-at-arms Wilcox. There are a number of them, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, who are close about here, I think, that we can get our hands on. 

Senator Kellogg. We can get on better and more expeditiously^, I 
think by taking a recess for the balance of the day. 

Senator Hill. Then we will adjourn until to-morrow at ten o’clock if 
Mr. Walker has no more witnesses. If there is any more that he can 
produce now we can examine them, and after that go on to-morrow 
with yours, (to Senator Cameron.) The order of the introduction of 
your witnesses or the witnesses for Governor Kellogg is for you to' 
determine. 

Senator Cameron. I think the arrangement you have stated is proba¬ 
bly the better way. 

On motion the committee thereupon adjourned to Tuesday, November 
25, 1879, at ten o’clock a. m. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


695 


Xew Orleans, Tuesday^ November 25, 1879—10 a. m. 

Present, tlie members of the committee; also C. L. Walker, esq., 
counsel lor the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford: and the sitting mem¬ 
ber (Senator William Pitt Kellogg). 

Senator Hill. Senator Kellogg, I believe it was the understanding 
that you were to introduce witnesses this morning; have you any one 
whom you desire called ! 

Senator Kellogg. I have, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to call 
Jeremiah Blackstone. 

Jeremiah Blackstone (colpred), a witness called on behalf of the 
sitting member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you live ?—Answer. In the city of Kew Orleans. 

. Q. How long have you lived in New Orleans ?—A. Twenty years, sir. 

Q. AVhat is your age ?—A. 1 was born in the State of Maryland, and 
came to New Orleans at the age of fourteen years. 

Q. Were you ever at any time a member of the lower house of the 
legislature in Louisiana?—A. I was, sir. 

Q. When were you elected, sir, to that position ?—A. I was elected 
in November, 187(>. 

Q. Did you go to Washington last summer, or spring, as witness in 
this Kellogg-Spofford case ?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. In whose interest were you subpoenaed ?—A. Mr. Spofford’s, I so 
understood it. 

Q. Were you sworn as a witness before the committee?—A. I was 
not. 

Q. Who went to Washington, what other witnesses I mean, at the 
same time that you did ?—A. I remember Johnson, of De Soto, Jones, 
of Pointe Couple, De Lacey, of Kapides—I believe he was there, but I 
am not certain; and probably some whose names 1 can’t recollect at 
present. 

Q. Do you know Bernard Williams ?—A. I have seen him. 

Q. Bernard Williams has testified as a witness before this committee, 
and he said in his testimony in substance, this: That on the night of 
your arrival in Washington, between the hours of twelve and one o’clock, 
he took you and four other witnesses, fiv^e of you in all, from the hotel 
where you were stopping, to Governor Kellogg’s room, at Willard’s 
Hotel; is that so, so far as you are concerned ?—A. It is not so; I didn’t 
go to Willard’s Hotel; I went straight from the depot to a hotel, and 
being a perfect stranger in the city, I didn’t leave it until the next morn¬ 
ing, when I went to the Capitol and the senate committee. 

Q. He said, also, that while at Governor Kellogg’s room that night, 
after some negotiations between the witnesses and Governor Kellogg, 
it was agreed that Governor Kellogg should pay each one of you five 
hundred dollars, in consideration, to use his own expression, that “ they 
, would go back on the affidavits they had made.” He stated that Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg took an envelope out of his pocket, and took the money 
out of it and held it up in this way |imitating Williams’ manner]; 
and that the bills were all new hundred-dollar bills, and he paid down 
to you and each of the other witnesses, in that way, five hundred dol¬ 
lars ; is that true or false ?—A. It is not true ; there was nothing of the 
kind happened. 

Q. When did you first see Governor Kellogg, after you arrived in 
Washington as a witness?—A. I cannot remember exactly now; it has 
been some time since I was there. I am certain I had no conversation 





696 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOG(}. 

with Governor Kellogg whatever, until I was told by the committee I 
would not be put on the stand ; I cannot say how many days it was, 
now, but I am certain 1 had not a conversation with him until then. 

Q. Mr. Seymour, of this city, was a witness before this committee 
yesterday, and jiroduced this paper here. [Taking u[) the draught of 
Blackstone’s affidavit.] You may look at it, but you need not stop to 
read it. Look at the end of it. I will read this paper: 

State op Louisiana, 

Parish of Orleans: 

On this-(lay of-, in the year 1878, before me, a notary public, in and for 

said parisb and State, personally appeared before me Jeremiali Blackstone, who being 
duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that be was a member of the legislature 
which was convened in the Saint Louis Hotel, January ,1877. That he was 

elected from the seventh ward, parish of Orleans, State of Lonsiana. That prior to 
his election and on or about the latter part of September, 1876, or about the first of 
October, 1876, he had a conversation with Wm. P. Kellogg, which conversation took 
place in the private office of Wm. P. Kellogg, at the Saint Louis Hotel. That the con¬ 
versation was in regard to the ajiproaching election and that Wm. P. Kellogg stated 
that he would be a candidate for United States Senator. That Wm. P. Kellogg did 
then and there give unto him the sum of $1,000, which sum was to be used in promoting 
the election of the candidates from the seventh, eighth, and ninth wards of the parish 
of Orleans, and it was further unperstood that if the Republican candidates should be 
elected that they should vote for Wm. P. Kellogg as United States Senator. That in 
accordance with said agreement he paid to the following named persons the sums affixed 
to their names: Benjamin Franklin $150, Pat. Griffin (club president) $300, Jim Kelly 
$50, Joe Dray $50, James R. Brown $100; music, li([Uor, &c., about $100. Iffiat Wm. P. 
Kellogg also paid John Barrow, in his presence, a sum of money the amount of which 
deponent does not know, which money was to be used in the same way and manner. 

After the election of deponent and while he was a member of the house of represent¬ 
atives, and on or about the 6th of January, 1877, he was sent for by Wm. P. Kellogg 
to attend him in his private office. Upon meeting him Kellogg stated to deponent 
that some of the members showed a disposition to go back on the pledges they had 
given and requested him to use his inlluence; and further that Wm. P. Kellogg did 
then and there give unto de 2 )onent the sum of $1,000, which sum was to be used in 
advancing the interests and if possible to secure the election of Wm. P. Kellogg to 
the United States Senate. This said sum of money was paid with that distinct and 
perfect understanding; Wm. P. Kellogg stating explicitly that the money i)aid was 
to he used for the purpose of electing him to the Senate jf the United States. Kellogg 
also stated to deponent that he should have all of the patronage of his district and 
that he would always be cared for. Deponent accepted the money and paid to dif¬ 
ferent persons as follows: Jonas Hughes, of Assumption Parish, $150; George Bird, of 
Baton Rouge, $200; Henry Blair, of Bossier, $1('0; Johnson, of De Soto, $50; Isham 
Nichols, of the nintli ward, a politician, $100. That after the election of Wm. P. 
Kellogg to the United States Senate and on or about the day of January, 1877, 

deponent was further paid b^^ Louis J. Souer, a member of the house of representatives, 
the sum of $200 lor his services, and that this was given him as an extra acknowl¬ 
edgment for the services he had rendered as well as for the fact of voting for Wm. 
P. Kellogg for United States Senate. 

J. B. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of March, 1878. 

Also personally appeared before me at the same time and place George Dicks and 
Wm. II. S , who being sworn according to law, depose and say that they w^ere 

personally present and saw Jeremiah Blackstone sign his name to the foregoing declara¬ 
tion ; that the said declaration was read over to the said Blackstone, as he acknowledged 
in their presence that his signature to the same was his own free will, act, and deed. , 

Sworn to and subscribed before me on this day of , 1878. 

Kow, Mr. Blackstone, you can go on and state the facts so far as you 
know then), in regard to this pajter, puri)orting to be an affidavit made 
by you ; begin at the beginning and tell the wliole story to the end.—A. 
I will go on, sir, so far as I can remember. So far as that paper is con¬ 
cerned, I don’t recollect ever having seen it before. I saw one in a 
place down in the lower part of the city. 


ft 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


697 


Q. Tell where it was, if yon remember.—A. It was on the corner of 
Dnmaine and Old Levee streets, in at a man’s place there who keeps a 
coffee-house. 

Q. What is that man’s name '! —A. I think Edwards, or Ewart. 

(»). Isn't it Ewart?—A. I think its somethin" like that. I done been 
wilh him in regard to getting]: advances for pensioners. One day I was 
at his otlice and he showed me a pai)er like that, and asked me if I 
made it; I told him I didn’t; he asked me if it was my signature to the 
paper, and that I knew to be mine, and asked him where he got that 
l)aper; he said, ‘‘Of a man with whom I have got business, in the 
alley, a claim agent.” I had carried a great many people round there, 
and witnessed to them, and the signature I knew to be mine and the 
contents I knew nothing about. The contents, I think, are something 
like that. 

Q. What was the name of the man who took the paper to Ewart and 
said what you say ?—A. George Dicks ; and Ewart said he had drawed 
$170 or $270, or something of that kind; I can’t remember which. 

Q. From what; on the strength of that ])aper?—A. On the strength 
of that paper; and whilst being there with Dicks, and he knowing I 
had been a member of the legislature, he ai)proached me on that case, 
Kellogg and Si)otford, and told me if I’d give them such information as 
would oust Governor Kellogg out of his seat it would be worth to me 
$1,500 or $2,000. 1 told him I had no information I could give them 

which I knew that could oust him out of his seat; that I knew very 
little. He asked me about being a member of some ring or combination 
in the legislature ; I told him I was a member of the appropriation com¬ 
mittee, and he went on to tell a good many things, I don’t know what, 
and he made out that i)aper or something like it; and I told him 1 
wouldn’t sign anything of the kind, and he t(‘ld me if I would sign some¬ 
thing like that I would get titteeii hundred dollars. 

Q. With whom did you have that conversation ?—A. With Dicks; 
and he says, to convince me he would do what he was saying ; he would 
take me to a gentleman authorized to act for Spoflord ; that he had no au¬ 
thority himself, but was a go-between, and he took me to ^Ir. Spearing, 
who keeps a liveiy stable on Gravier street. 

Q. Who took you there ?—A. Dicks. 

Q. He took you to Si)eai ing ?—A. Yes, sir; and had a conversation 
that I cannot remember all of, but 1 will give it to you the best as 1 
recollect it. 

Q. Give It as you remember it.—A. When I went in .Spearing told 
me he was authorized to act for ^Ir. Spofford, and been informed I was 
in ])OSsession of the kind of evidence they stood in need of in order to 
make a case against Governor Kellogg, and I asked him who told him 
that, and he said Dicks had showed him a paper—probably that one. I 
said “ I don’t think I am in possessiofi of that kind of information”; and 
Dicks came to me and said if I could go in the country and hunt up 
members of the legislature he would make out the atlidavits, and they 
would swear to them; it would be the means of him and 1, or them, 
making money. He asked if 1 knew any of them; 1 said yes, and he 
asked wouhri go ; I said I would ; I had no objection, as when in the 
country I could see them, and I said if you pay the expenses ; they 
.said they would, and I think did probably give me forty or fifty dollars. 
I went out in the country ; didn’t see any members and conseipiently 
came back to the city. There are probably some other things about it 
I can’t remember. Mr. Spearing said he was bound to get even witii 
Governor Kellogg ; that Governor Kellogg deceived himself and some 


698 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


one named Anderson, his nephew, and that if I knew anything, I had 
as well acknowledge, it as not, as he was going to oast Kellogg out of 
the United States Senate. It was a foregone question that they would 
oust him anyway. If I had testimony and will furnish it that I would 
live here a long time, and that way I would ingratiate myself in the 
good graces of this community. And I said I didn’t know that I was 
in the posssesion of such testimony as would do them any good. , As 
to the aftidavit I had no knowledge of its contents. I never read or 
signed it wdth any knowledge of its contents. 

Q. Was not the name of Spearing’s nephew Littlefield instead of 
Anderson ?—A. I do not remember. I heard him say something of it. 

Q. Did you on or about the latter part of September, 1876, or the first 
of October, 1876, receive a thousand dollars or any other sum from Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg!—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Did you at any time ])ay before the election of 1876, the sum of 
$150, or any other sum to Benjamin Franklin !—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Did you pay the sum of $300 to Pat Griffin ?—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Did you pay the sum of $50 to Jim Kelly !—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Did you or not pay $50 to Joe Dray!—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Did you or not pay $100 or any other sum to James R. Brown !— 
A, No, sir. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg at any time pay to John Barrow’, in your 
presence, any sum of money for political or other purposes’!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg on or about the 6th January, 1877, in his pri¬ 
vate office at the Saint Louis Hotel or elsewhere pay to you or give you 
a thousand dollars or any other sum !—A. He did not, sir. 

Q. Was there at any time any agreement or understanding between 
you and Governor Kellogg that he, Kellogg, would i)ay you any sum of 
money whatever for your vote or influence, as a member of the legisla¬ 
ture !—A. There was not, sir. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg at any time state to you that you wmuld have 
the patronage of your district, or that you would be cared for!—A. He 
did not, sir. 

Q. Did you at any time pay to Jonas Hughes, $150 !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Or any other sum !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you or not at any time pay George Bird of East Baton Rouge, 
the sum of $200!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you pay to Henry Blair of Bossier, $100 or any other sum!— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you pay to J. J. Johnson of De Soto, $50 or any other sum ! 
—A. I did not, no, sir. 

Q. Did you pay to Isam Nichols of the 9th ward, a politician, $100 or 
any other large sum !—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Do you know L. J. Soeur !—A. I do, sir.. 

Q. Did he after the election of Kellogg, or at any time, pay you the 
sum of $200 for your services as a member of the legislature, or for any 
other purpose w'hatever!—A. He never paid me any money as a mem¬ 
ber of the legislature, but wbileth ere in the Saint Louis Hotel,"we would get 
vouchers of the Packard legislature, and they w^ere worth very little at 
the time, but there was brokers who used to buy them and Mr. Souer 
used to tell us where to go to the brokers, and that is all. As for him 
giving me any money I got it for vouchers placed in possession of a 
broker place in the Saint Louis Hotel. 

Q. I will ask you generally, if you ever received any money from Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg or from any of Governor Kellogg’s friends, as an induce- 


SFOFFOUD VS. KELLOGG. 699 

meiit for you to vote for him as a United States Senator !—A. I did not, 
sir. 

Q. ])o yon know that any other person did, of your own knowledge, 
ever receive any money from (Tovernor Kellogg, or any of his friends 
to induce them as members of the legislature to vote for Governer 
Kellogg !—A. I do not, sir. 

Q. Explain if you can, how you happened to sign a pai>er which you 
saw in the i)ossession of Ewarts, purporting to be an atiidavit signed by 
you?—A. Well, sir; 1 was in the habit of going to this man Dicks’ 
ollice and signing papers there, affidavits, Ac., for pensions and bounty 
and prize money, and when he presented a document to me 1 put my 
name to it as a witness without reading the contents, and I sup])ose 
that is the wa}’ that he obtained the signatures to this paper. I was iu 
the habit of going there every da^', which his partner is here Mr. 
Wilder, and will say I was there every day and staid in his office. I 
was there six or seven hours at a time. I was interested in getting 
out and hunting up parties with claims against the government, and I 
was tliere and sometimes they would accumulate, and 1 signed these 
papers 10 or 12 at a time, and that is the only way I can account for it. 

(}. Mr. Seymour states that you were i)resent in his office when sev¬ 
eral gentlemen were present and certain members of the Nichols legis¬ 
lature were i)resent—gentlemen who were api)ointed for the i)uri)Ose of 
investigating the election of Kellogg as United States Senator—and the 
substance of his statement was that you assented to the statement of 
facts in this ])aper. Were you i)resent, and what took place there ?—A. 
I remember going one night, going before the committee ai)pointed by 
the State senate on Custom-Llouse street over this man’s office. 

Q. What man ?—A. Dicks. 

Q. Did Dicks accompany you ?—A. Yes, sir. I said 1 did not want 
to go before this committee ami he said there was some money could be 
made out of it, and I said that 1 could not give them any testimony that 
would be of any service. He stated to the saiue meeting what he had 
said to me; he wanted me to go. I went with him on Custom-House 
street. 1 don’t know whether it was in Mr. Seymour’s ollice or not, I 
am not positive, but the gentlemen were sitting at a table and I think 
they asked me very few (piestions any ''ay, and what fe'v they did, I 
did not answer. Di(;ks ans'vered them as they pronounced them to me, 
stating that he (referring to me) did not understand the nature of the 
case and he did, and he was in possession of whatever information 1 had 
and he "ould give it to them. I answered very fe'v questions. I can’t 
remember the (]uestions exactly as' they might have been ])ronouuced 
to me. 

Q. Do you know A. E. Milon ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do'v long have you been acquainted 'vith him ?—A. 1 liave been 
actpiainted with him t'velve or thirteen years. 

C^. Are you acquainted 'vith his signature?—A. Y'es, sir; 1 have 
often seen it. 

Q. Will you look at that paper and see that the signature is Mil- 
on’s ?—A. (Examing the Milon affidavit). Yes, sir; I take that to be 
his signature. 

Q. J^ook at that (handing witness another paper) and state whether 
in your opinion thht is his signature.—A. YYs, sir; I take both ol them 
to be his signatures. 

liy Senator Hill : 

Q. Can yon read!—A. Y"es, sir. 

(}. \Yriting as 'veil as printing!—A. 1 can, sir. 


700 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You are well acquainted with Governor Kellogg, are you ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And you saw him frequently during the session of the Packard 
legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You saw him before the election in 1870, November, 1876?—A. I 
saw him once or twice before the election. 

Q. Did you know all the time that he was a candidate for the United 
States Senate ?—A. Do you mean before the election ? 

Q. Yes, that is wlieii I mean,—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. You knew of it only afterwards ?—A. Only afterwards, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether anybody was paid anything to vote for him ? 
—A. Not to mj" knowledge. 

Q. Wasn’t that the rumor around the capitol ?—A. There was some 
talk to that effect. 

Q. Wasn’t it a general rumor ?—A. I cannot say that it was. 

Q. Did any of the members say that they were paid anything ?—A. I 
never heard them if they did. 

Q. Was it the talk among the members?—A. I never heard a mem¬ 
ber say so, sir. 

Q. Did you hear them saying anybody was paid ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then the talk was all by outsiders ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were there a great many outsiders who talked so ?—A. I cannot 
say, sir. There was always talk among the people about political 
parties. They were always saying such things about them. 

Q. You say you sold your vouchers?—A. I mean my warrants, sir. 

Q. Did you sell yours to a broker ?—A. Yes, sir ; I pledged them. 

Q. Was that the way you raised the money on them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What amount of them did you have ?—A. 1 drew them for the 
full session. 

Q. In advance?—A. No, sir; not in advance but as they came due, 
sometimes fifty days or more. 

Q. How much did you get a day ?—A. I think it was eight dollars. 

Q. When did the legislature first meet ?—A. I think the first Monday 
in January. 

Q. How much money did you get from the brokers ?—A. I cannot 
remember, sometimes forty or fifty dollars, sometimes more; sometimes 
they would give ten cents on the dollar, sometimes twenty and fifteen. 

Q. What was tlie highest they were ever worth ?—A. The liighest I 
ever got was twenty five cents. 

Q. Tliat is the highest price you ever got for yours?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. What was the lowest you ever took ?—A. The lowest I look was. 
twelve and a half cents. Tliat is the lowest that I recollect. 

Q. How long was the legislature sitting?—A. Nearly three months, 
I believe. 

Q. How long did you draw that money ? When did you commence 
and when did you cease drawing it?—A. 1 wont be certain about the date, 
but I taken no money after the legislature adjourned. 1 made no mem¬ 
orandum, and I cannot be positive, but I think some time about the mid¬ 
dle or latter jiart of January we commenced to draw. 

Q. How much did you draw in all on those warrants ?—A. I cannot 
say, sir. 

Q. Give us an idea.—A. I cannot say. I drew the full amount due 
to me, and I disposed of it for whatever I could get, but the amount 
realized on them I cannot state. 

Q. Sometimes you drew twenty-five or thirty dollars?—A. AYs, sir. 

Q. Did you draw twenty-five, frequently ?—A. I won’t be positive. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


701 


Q. Did von draw 840 more than once?—A. 1 can’t be certain. 

Q. What is the lowest sum yon ever got on tliem atone time?—A. 
The lowest I ever got at one time, 1 believe, was twelve and a half cents 
on a dollar. 

(^. How much was the highest ?—A. Well, the highest money I ever 
got as far as 1 can recollect was, I believe, forty or fifty dollars j I won’t 
be positive which ; 1 can’t say whether it was forty or fifty. 

Q. Yon got forty or fifty, once?—xV. Yes, sir; at onetime. 

Q. And the lowest, yon say, was twelve and a half ?—xV. To my best 
recollection, sir. 

Q. Did yon draw pretty frequently ?—A. I cannot tell exactly. 

(^. Yon can tell ns something about it ?—A. No, sir; I could not posi¬ 
tively. 

Q. Can’t yon tell how much yon drew in all ?—xV. No, sir. 

Q. Did yon get all that yon drew from the same broker ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who was the broker from whom you got the money ?— A. I gen¬ 
erally got it from Mr. Bray. 

Q. Mr. Bray ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

(2. Is he in this city now?—A. 1 do not know, sir. 

Q. Where is his residemje?—xV. 1 do not know. 

Q. Where did he live then ?—xV. Down in the third disLi’ict some¬ 
where. 

Q. What other broker did yon get money from ?—A. 1 sold some war¬ 
rants, I believe, to a Mr. Cline, over on Carondelet street, and I might 
have sold to others; I could not at this time remember. 

Q. Was that the only source you got money from during the time the 
legislature was in session '?—A. Yes, sir; as far as I can remember. 

Q. AVere yon a mamber from the city in the seventh ward ?—A. Y"es, 
sir. 

Q. Then you got no mileage ?—xV. No, sir. * 

Q. And yon (Irew none on that account?—xV. No, sir. 

Q. And the highest yon say yon got lor yonr warrants was twenty- 
five cents and the loxVest twelve and a half?—xV. xVs far as 1 can re¬ 
member. 

Q. Did yonr total amount exceed 8480 ?— A. 1 think not. 

(,). Did it exceed 8300?—xV. Do yon mean what 1 got from the 
brokers ? 

Q. Yes, sir.— A. No, sir; I think not; it only amonnted to what I 
could get; my whole time only amonnted to 8480. 

Q. That was sixty days, was it, at eight dollars a day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that 8480 was all yon got?—xV. Yes, sir; 1 got that in war¬ 
rants. 

Q. Well, Blackstone, yon say Mr. Dicks wanted yon to give testi¬ 
mony in this case ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did yon say he had written out that statement as testimony?— A. 
Sir? 

Q. Had he written what he called yonr testimony ?—x\. I do not 
know, sir; he had some iiapers there and he wanted me to sign them, 
and I s;ii(l 1 would not do it. I refused to sign them. 

Q. Yon did not sign any pai)ers, then, for him ! —A. No, sir; not in 
the form of an allidavit. 

(,). Wt*ll, il yon di<l sign any such thing yon did not know it ?—xV. 
Anything in the shajie of that allidavit which is brought here, 1 did 
not sign. 1 signed nothing like an allidavit exce{)t for bounty from the 
government. 

(^. Weren’t they always printed lorms ?—A. 1 must testify not. 


702 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. But you say if you signed this it was as a witness ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A witness for what*?—A. For a claim against the govern?nent. 

Q. Whose claim !—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Did you sign as witness to a claim against the government and 
not know whom it was for ?—A. Yes, sir; I often did it. 

Q. You often did it?—A. Yes, sir; parties would come there and 
swear to a claim and when they could not go before a notary, and these 
papers were left to be witnessed, and ten or twelve of them I would 
sign at a time. 

Q. This paper, though, is only signed by you ?—A. Well, sir, I do 
not know how that is. 

Q. This is signed differently froiii what it would be if you were sign- 
ij)g for yourself or for another party!—A. Yes, sir; but I certified to 
what I saw only. 

Q. Y^ou would certify to the name of the rnan who was signing it!— 
A. I signed as a witness for my ow’ii signature. 

. Q. Y^ou witnessed to your signature, then, and not that you signed 
it, but that somebody else did !—A. 1 do not understand you, sir. 

Q. Well, I wall tr,y and make it plain to you. Which side of the 
paper docs the party wdio makes it out—for instance, an athdavit—on 
wdiich side of the paper does he sign it '?—A. I cannot suy. 

Q. On which side does the svitness sign it !—A. I do iiot know any¬ 
thing about that, sir. 

Q. Which did you sign generally!—A. [ cunnot say. 

Q. And yet you did it frequently!;—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. And can read, too !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVell, sir, here is a puper purporting to be your affidavit, and I 
doiiT see that it is signed by anybody but yourself, and is witnessed.— 
A. I say if it is signed by me the signature got on it that wuiy ; the con¬ 
tents 1 did notiniow. 

Q. You did not read it, then !—A. No, sir. 

Q. And it w'as not read to you !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did not Oeorge Dicks know^ ti)e testimony!—A. No, sir; Dicks 
sat down and wrote what he pleased. 

Q. Did he write what [)urported to be your testimony !—A. lie wu’ote 
a ))arcel of stuff* and give it to me to sign. 

Q. And you refused !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you did not know' what he wrote!—A. No, sir. 

Q. And he did not read it over to you !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t do so at the time he was w'liting!—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you don’t know wdiat is in it now'!—A. No, sir; I do not 
know w hat is in it. 

Q. When did a knowledge of it come to you first!—A. I do not recol¬ 
lect; 1 cannot say. 

Q. When do you first remember that affidavit !—A. The first I saw 
of it to know what was in it, was this morning. 1 read it in the news- 
pajiers. 

Q. But you testified a while ago that you saw one!—A. I saw one at 
the corner of Diunaiiie and Old Levee streets, in the second district. 

Q. And that was the one that had your signature on !—A. Yes, sir • 
but the contents 1 knew nothing about it, atul told Mr. Ewart so. ^ 

Q. Was your signature put dow'ii there as that of a w'itness or a 
party !—A. As a witness, sir. 

Q. Are you certain of that!—A. I am certain it could not be other¬ 
wise. 

Q. Did it i)urport on its face to be as a witness or as a party ! Give 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


703 


me one of those afliilavits (addressing tlie stenographer). Xow, here is 
where the witness signed, where it is attested ; that is the witness side, 

“ attested and signed in oiir presence.” IJere is where parties sign over 
here, and here is where the parties put their signature. Xow, how was 
it with yours ?—A. 1 cannot remember. 

Q. Wliere was your signature on that aflidavit you saw ?—A. I can¬ 
not say. 

Q. Can’t you say where your signature was ?—A. I cannot tell. 

Q. Was it a pai)er like tliis ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And now you tell this committee under oath that the signature 
you say which was yours, you put there as a witness and not as a 
party ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. xVnd you did not know the contents of the atlidavit, and did not 
know that it was an affidavit ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You thought it was au application for a claim or a pension ?—A. 
1 did. 

Q. You do not know who was the applicant for the pension or the 
claimant ?—A. No, sir, I do not. 

Q. And you say under oath that you never made au atlidavit or signed 
what ])urported to be your affidavit ?—A. I never did. 

Q. At no time or place ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. in the presence of no })ers()n ?—A. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

(>). You would know if you had done so, wouldn’t you ?—A. 1 state 
that 1 have not to my knowledge. 

(j>. Do you know j\Ir. Seymour ! —A. I do, sir. 

Q. He is a notary public or something of the sort in this city ?—A. I 
believe he is. 

(). He administers oaths, doesn’t Im ?— A. I believe he does. 

Q. How long have you known .Mr. Seymour?—A. I do not know; 
probably three or four years. 

Q. That is Mr. W. 11. Seymour ?—A. I can say that I know him well. 

Q. Did he ever swear you to an affidavit ?—A. Not to my knowled;;e. 

Q. AVas he ever i)resent at the time when you did swear to one ?—A. 
No, sir. 

(^. Did he ever witness any ?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

(^). WTis he ever present when you signe<l one as a witness ?—A. Not 
to my knowledge. 

Q. Did he ever read one to you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. A^ou swear that you never told him tlie contents of a pai)er ho 
read to you were right ?—A. Never, sir. 

Q. And you swear all that positively ?—A. Ido, sir; all that posi- 
tively. 

Q. You say you went one night before a committee of the Nicholls 
legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. With George Dicks ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say the committee asked you some questions ?—A. I say the 
committee asked me very few questions, aud what they did Dicks au 
swered. 

Q. Dicks answered for you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. You heard them ask the (piestions ?—A. ATns, sir. 

Q. A'ou heard him answer them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you say that the answers were false ?—A. Some 1 did, and 
some 1 did not. 

(^. You told the committee they were false?—A. Yes, sir. 

(). You say Dicks told the committee he knew what your testimony 
was ?—A. That is what I understood him. 


704 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. If be bad never made out an affidavit for you bow could be get 
possession of your testimony ?—A. That I could not state ; be done as 
be pleased. 

Q. You let bim do as be pleased ?—A. I cannot help wbat be did. I 
had nothing to do with it. 

Q. Wasn’t Mr. Seymour present at that time?—A. I cannot recol¬ 
lect. 

Q. Did you repeat to that committee in substance wbat you have said 
to this committee?—A. I did not. 

Q. Didn’t you repeat to them then wbat is contained in this paper ?— 
A. I did not. 

Q. Did Dicks repeat it as wbat be knew of your testimony?—A. Not 
what I beard read over here. 

Q. Did be tell the committee that Kellogg bad paid you a thousand 
dollars?—A. Not to my recollection. • 

Q. Did be tell the committee that Souer gave it to you ?—A. No, sir j 
not to my recollection, be did not. 

Q. Can’t you remember wbat be told the committee you knew?—A. 
1 do not recollect. I stated at first that I have no memorandum and 
that I cannot recollect. 

Q. Didn’t you say a while ago that you denied it and said it was a 
lie what be said?—A. No, sirj it has been a long time and I took no 
note of it. 

Q. It was very important, though, to remember it, wasn’t it?—A. It 
might be, but not to me. 

Q. It would not be important to you to have a man state to a com¬ 
mittee that another man paid you a thousand dollars in order that be 
might be elected Senator?—A. I cannot recollect anything of that 
sort. 

Q. You have got a very defective memory ?—A. I think my memory 
is like ordinary men’s. 

Q. If Dicks stated to the committee that Kellogg paid a thousand 
dollars to any man to secure bis election, do you think you would forget 
it ?—A. I could not state. 

Q. If he bad could you forget it all ?—A. I might. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg before bis election send for you to pome to 
bis private office?—A. He did not. 

Q. Did you ever go to see bim in bis private office ?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you talk about bis election to the Senate while you were there ? 
—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you ever talk to bim about it ?—A. I never did. 

Q. Nothing was ever said between you and bim ?—A. I do not recol¬ 
lect that there was. 

Q. Wbat is your occupation ?—A. I am a minister, sir. 

Q. You are a'minister ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you i)reacb the gospel or politics, or both ?—A. Is politics 
I)reaching ? 

Q. A good many of our preachers preach it.—A. I would like to see 
ami benr them bow they came out. 

Q. You i)reacb the gospel?—A. 1 try to. 

Q. And you talk politics ?—A. Sometimes, when I get with the poli¬ 
ticians. 

Q, Where is your congregation?—A. All about, sir. My congrega¬ 
tion is the world. 

Q. The world is your field, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your business is to save sinners ?—A. 1 try to. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG, 


7or> 

Q. Have yon "ot a c.linrch that yon are ])articularly pn«;tor of?—A. I 
do not now liave a re^nlar one. 1 have a cliiueli dowii in the lower 
portion of tlie city. 

Q. How Ion" have yon been pastor of that church ?—A. Ei"ht years. 
It was built in 187-J. 

Q. Is it in the seventh ward ?—A. Xo, sir ; in the ei^^hth ward. 

(*). And yon live in the sev^enth ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And yon hav^e a church in the eighth ?—A. Yes, sir. 

It is a colored congregation, of coarse?—A. Yes, sir; colored. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg ever attend yonr church ?—xV. Not to niy 
knowledge. 

Q. Well, Blackstone, yon went to Washington, yon say, as a witness 
in this case ? —A. Yes, sir. 

Q Yon say yon went on behalf of Mr. SpotTord ?—A. Yes, sir; that 
IS jlist what I liave stated. 

Why did they subpoena you in behalf of .Air. Siiofford ?—A. I c.in- 
not tell, sir. 

Q. Did they not tell yon at the time?—A. I think Mr. Cavanac sent 
down to my residence a man by the name of Thomas Murray. He came 
down there and talked to me about some ailidavit, or rather that Mr. 
Cavanac wanted to see me at his otiice. I told him that 1 had with¬ 
drawn from politics, I wanted nothing more to do witli it, and that I had 
a jdace where I lived, and if Mr. Cavanac wanted to see me he could 
come to me as well as I could to him, and I was not going to put my¬ 
self out of my way to see him, and I did not. 

Q. How did yon know that yon were going to Washington as a wit¬ 
ness for Siioflbrd ?—A. I think it was the 2d day of June. I think, if 
my memory serves me right, I was coming to do some work I had en¬ 
gaged to do. I was coming up Frenchman street to the corner of Great- 
man street, where there is a horse-car passes. I saw Mr. Cavanac and 
Thomas Murray get out of the car, and as Murray had been to siieak to 
me about going to Washington, I thought the gentleman with him was 
Mr. Cavanac, and I hailed him. 1 thought he was going to my house, 
as he had been there before, and sure enough it was Cavanac, and he 
comes to me and talks. The subject of the conversation 1 cannot re¬ 
member fully, but I told Mr. Cavanac then and there that I did not 
know that I could give any testimony in AYashington that would assist 
ISiiolford in the least, and I said I was going to my work. Mr. Cav¬ 
anac asked me what I will make if I go to work. I suppose, I said, 
after I got through with it I would make about 870. He sai(l, ‘‘YMii 
can make a great deal more by going to Washington.” I said, “ 1 do 
not know whether 1 can or not. I am disgusted with politics, and this 
(piestion, between yon and I, I do not care a solitary cent about.” He 
sort of insisted that I should go to Washington, as he thought I was in 
a i>osition to have information, or he heard so. I stated that I did not 
know anything; but I studied over the matter all day, and I thought 
that if 1 did not want to go, and yet he desired me to do so, he might 
force me to go, and I therefore concluded to go. There is Air. Cav¬ 
anac there (poinling to the gentleman), who will remember and tell 
you what 1 said to him on the corner, and that is what Thomas Alurray 
stated on the staml in Washington. 

Well, these things, Blackstone, you seem to remember pretty well. 
Now aren’t you the man who stated to the legislative committee that 
Kellogg paid you a thousand dollars?—A. O, well, this I am telling you 
now was only last June. 

Q. I shoulll think from your statement of that that you could tell 

4o s K 


706 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


anything that happeneil a year or two back.—A. sir ^ I remember 

that. 

Q. Well, you-went to Washington, did you'?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was Mr. Oavauac there ? Did lie join you on the train ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was Johnson, of De Soto *?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Jim Lewis?—A. Y’es, sir. 

Q. Is he a preacher too ?—A. He preaches politics. 

Q. He went on the train with you ?—A. He did. 

Q. Did he get in the same car with you?—A. I think he did. 

Q. Did you and Jim talk a good deal on the way?—A. He might 
have done so. 

Q. Did he talk with all the witnesses?—A. Did who talk with them ? 

Q. Jim Lewis.—A. I cannot recollect, sir. 

Q. Did he know what you all were going to Washington for?—A. I 
do not know anything more than that it was rumored in the newspa¬ 
pers. 

Q. Did he talk to you about it?—A. He did not with me. 

Q. Did he talk with the others?—I did not hear him at all. 

Q. Did you not hear anything at all that he had to say ?—A. No, sir j 
I did not. 

Q. A^ou do not know that he talked to the others about it?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Did he not have a lunch with him and feed you all on the way ?— 
A. Not me, sir. 

Q. Did he feed the others?—A. I have seen him have a basket and 
ask the others to take some of it. 

Q. As you were going on as a witness there was no trouble, was 
there, about getting something to eat?—xV. I do not kuow, sirj 1 paid 
my own way. 

Q. You got back, did not you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, you had plenty to eat?—A. YYs, sirj I had plenty. 

Q. Did the other witnesses have plenty?—A. Yes, sir; I suppose so. 

Q. Did you hear any complaint ?—A. I did not, of any sort. 

Q. Y^ou were all on the same train?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On the way to Washington was there any conversation between 
you and Jim Lewis and Jim Lewis and any other witness as to that 
testimony ?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. And you sw^ear to that?—A. Not as to the testimony, sir. 

Q. Did you talk of Governor Kellogg’s election to the Senate?— 
A. Not to my knowledge; I did not. 

Q. Did you hear any witness say anything about the affidavits made 
before they went there?—A. I did not. 

Q. You did not talk about them at. all ?—No, sir. 

Q. Was Seviegnes there?—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. He said he had made one, did not he?—A. He kept with Cava- 
nac; he was not with us, we darkies. 

Q. Who is Seveignes?—A. Sometimes he is a white man and some¬ 
times he aint. 

Q. Mr. Blackstone, you got to Washington when; about the night of 
the 4th ?—A. I can’t recollect. 

Q. You went straight there from here?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see Barney Williams there?—^^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he get there ahead of you ?—A. I cannot state that. 

Q. Was Williams with the witnesses there ?—A. He was at the board¬ 
ing-house sometimes where they were. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


707 


Q. Dill he talk witli the witnes.ses ?—A.. I can’t say j) 0 >itively that 
lie (lid. I can’t say that he talked witli them, but 1 saw liim in the hall 
several times. 

Q. Did he talk to yon !— V. Very little, sir. 

Q. lie was a friend of KeIlo;?g, was he not ?—A. I can’t say, sir, as 
to that. 

Q. And yon do not know whether he was with Kello;?" or not ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Was he interested for him, or a|)])eared to beA. Tie seemed to 
bo interested for himself. 1 was tryinj^ to ^^et away, and went from 
Washinjjton down in Maryland, wiiere 1 was born, i staid only a few 
days, and I come back, not knowing the rest had left, or whether they 
had or not. I came back to Wasliin^ton, and going down Pennsyl¬ 
vania avenue, I seen this Williams in tlie same pla(;e, and he, seeing me, 
came to the door, and calling me ni), said he thought I had gone home, 
and that all the rest had gone; and I said, “When?” and he said, “Several 
days ago ” ; and he saiil to me that he was staying there trying to be pro¬ 
vided for, and asked me if 1 had a [losition; ami 1 said, “None, except 
what I always had ”; and he said I was a fool, and that I was there, and 
that I ought to get something. 1 said all I wanted was to get back home, 
and 1 was going as soon as possible. He said he was going, too, but he 
was seeking a position, and if he did not get it ho was going to make 
somebody whoop. 

Q. He said he was looking for a iiosition, and if he did not get it he 
was going to make sombody whoop, did he?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did he wantitj here in the custom house?—A. He did 
not say, sir. 

Q. Whom did you understand that he was going to make whoop?—A. 
I did not understand ; that is what he said to me. 

Q. Why did he say that you were there, and ought to have a position, 
too?—A. 1 don’t know, sir. 

Q. What did he think you ought to have a position for ?—A. I don’t 
know, sir. 

Q. You have told Senator Cameron that on the night of your arrival 
you did not go to Governor Kellogg’s room ?—A. I did not. 

Q. When did you go there ?—A. Not until after the’committee said 
they would not use me as a witness. 

Q. Was that at night or in the da}’ that you called there ?—A. It was 
sometimes in night and sometimes in day. 

Q. You went there tVequently, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were in Kellogg’s room freiiueiitly ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you there with the other witnesses?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you there by yourself ?—A. Generally, sir. 

Q. Did \ini see anylxnly else there?—A. 1 might have seen other peo¬ 
ple there. 

Q. Did you hear Johnson, of De Soto, testify before the committee ? 
—A. 1 heard a portion ot it. 

t,). Did yon hear any of the other witnesses testify ?—A. I think I 
oidv heaiHl Murray testily in full. 

Q. You heard him; did you hear a great many things about the wit¬ 
nesses going back on th(*ir atlidavits ?—A. 1 heard a good d(*al. 

Q. Theie was [iretty consi(h‘rable talk among them about going back 
on their ailhlavits, and remember talking with Seveignes, who said he 
made, it on purpose to (h*(aM\’t^, and that he was going back on it?— A. 
1 remem tier reading that in the newst»ai)er. 


708 


8POFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. That excited a great deal of talk, did it not?—A. ^ot much, sir; 
I never talked much about it. 

Q. Did Jim Lewis talk mucli about it?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. Did any of the witnesses talk much about it?—A. I might have 
heard them talking about it, but I don’t remember exactly about it. 

Q. Whom did you room with ?—A. With Jones. 

Q, Whom did Lewis room with?—A. I can’t say; I believe he was 
by himself. 

Q. You believe he roomed by himself?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And down there at the hotel you say you all did not talk about the 
testimony at all ?—A. I did not say that we did not. They may have 
talked about it. I did not speak with them. They can speak for them¬ 
selves, but I had very little conversation about it. They miglit have 
spoken while I was not present. I am speaking of what I did ;‘|and I 
talked very little about it. 

Q. Did any of those witnesses send any money home by express while 
you were there?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. Did you send any?—A. Not from Washington. 

Q. Where did you send it from?—A. From Baltimore. 

Q. How much did you send ?—A. Five dollars. 

Q. Did you send it by express?—A. No, sir; not by express, but in 
a registered letter. 

Q. And you saw no money paid to anybody at all there ?—A. I did 
not; no more than what came from the committee. 

Q. Did you hear Governor Kellogg say anything to either of the wit¬ 
nesses about their testimony?—A. I did not. 

Q. Do you know that the other witnesses went to see him about their 
testimony ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know whether any of them came back and got offices in 
the custom-house ?—A. I have heard so. 

Q. You have just heard it?—A. Yes, sir; I do not know it. 

Q. Did you want an office in the custom-house?—A. I am not 
anxious. If they give it to me probably 1 won’t refuse it. But I never 
sought it. I prefer to go preaching down in Maryland. 

Q. Do you preach there now ?—A. No, sir; but sometimes when I go 
there. 

Q. Are you preaching there now ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you are not in the Orleans custom-house ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What time did you leave AVashington ; after or before the inves¬ 
tigation was there?—A. After it was over. I went down in Maryland 
a few days. 

Q. Do you remember ever seeing AAniliams in Kellogg’s rooms?—A. 
No, sir; I remember him at the hotel, but not in Mr. Kellogg’s rooms. 

Q. Did you see the witnesses riding about in carriages?'—A. I did 
myself, and had to pay for it myself, too. 

Q. Did you pay for it yourself?—A. 1 did, sir. 

Q. Who paid their bills for them when they came to go away ?—A. 
I do not know who paid theirs; I i>aid mine. 

Q. Did any of the others run short and have to be helped ?—A. I do 
not know, sir ; I wasn’t there. 

Q. You do not know anything about that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You say that Dicks told you when he wanted your testimony to 
unseat Kellogg that there was money in it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say he did advance you $40 or $o0 to go to the country to get 
testimoii}" of others ?—A. Not to get their testimony, but to bring them 
with me. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


709 


Q. Did yon take the money ?—A. Yes, sir; I took the money as I was 
goiiifj out into the eountry, and I said to him if you mind to give it to 
me all right. 

Q. Did you say that you knew all of them who were wanted ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. ])id you see any of them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVliat did they say ?—A. Thej" said that they knew nothing, and 
they were not going to come. 

Q. AVliat did they say to them ? AA^'hom did you see'?—A. Old man 
AA'ashington, Anderson, and some of them, out in the country. 

Q. Did you see Franklin ?—A. He was not a member. 

Q. Did you see Kelly ?—xV. Ko, sir. 

Q. Did you see Alilon ?—A. He was here. 

Q. Did you see Milon ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you tell Mr. Dicks you were willing to go into it; there was 
money in it?—A. I did not. 

Q. AA)u were not influenced from the f ict that there was any money 
in it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you did not think you could m.ike 81,500 or $2,000?—A. 
That is wliat he said. 

Q. And that did not influence you at all ?—xV. It did not. 

Q. AA"ho were the members of that committee of the Nicholls legisla¬ 
ture ?—xi. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Yon do not know theiu at all ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you say Dicks was there and answered for you?—A. A"es, 
sir. 

Q. And you heard his answers, and they were not like what is in 
yours here in this alfldavit ?—A. Not as far as I can recollect. 

Q. AVell, as far as you can recollect ?—A. No, sir ; they were not. 

Q. You knew w hether w hat was said was false or true ?—A. I can’t 
recollect what he said. 

Q. J)id you liear it at the time?—A. He said what he pleased. He 
took the matter in his own hands, and nobody there insisted on my an¬ 
swering. 1 heard liim answering for me, but I can’t remember what he 
said. 

Q. You knew whether it was true or false, though ?—xV. I did at the 
time, but I do not remember what he answered now\ 

Q. Did the committee take it down ?—A. I don’t know, sir. 

Q. Did you tell them you were sick and tired of the w’hole thing ?— 
A. I did not. I did not to the best of my recollection. 

Q. Did you use any such language?—A. 1 did not. 

Q. And you did not express a w illingness in any form to tell anything 
on Governor Kellogg ?— A. 1 did not. 

Q. You regarded Governor Kellogg as a Christian statesman ?—xV. I 
didn’t know w^hether he was a Christian or not. 1 never worried myself 
about it. 

Q. Yon never saw or heard anything in the Packard legislature that 
you thought was wrong?—A. I might have heard people swear. 

Q. AVere they swearing in reference to the election of Kellogg?— A. 
No, sir. 

Q. And everything there you thought was fliir and free ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. You never saw- anybody get money ?— A. No, sir. 

Q. Never heard of anybody getting it except from outsiders ?—xV. 
They say that money was used. 


710 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How much did you hear of it?—A. That some one got a hundred 
and some others got $200. 

Q. And you say you never paid any to anybody?—A. No, sir j I had 
none for myself. 

Q. And you never received it from Kellogg ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You never swore to it ?—A. I did not. 

Q. And never stated it to anybody ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You never got any of it from him and distributed it ?—A. Not to 
my knowledge. 

Q. If you had would you not have known ?—A. Well, people know a 
great many things they do not remember. 

Q. Why do you always put in “ not to my knowledge?”—A. Because 
I don’t remember it. 

Q. I notice whenever you come to anything to Governor Kellogg you 
go 1 ight straight along and do not put that in, but when I come to this 
affidavit and its contents you put in “ not to my knowledge” all the 
time. Why is that, now, Mr. Blackstone ?—A. Because you ask me 
things I don’t remember. When you come to ask about Kellogg you 
ask what other members can say as well as me. 

Q. But 1 ask you something that is personal to you.—A. Well, I say 
if I signed this affidavit it was not to my knowledge. 

Q. How came you to sign it and not know it ?—A. I say I did not 
sign it knowingl.y. 

Q. Well, if you had stated anything of that sort would you not; know 
it?—A. I might not. 

Q. And you did not state all this to Dicks?—A. I did not to him, or 
any one else. 

Q. You did not state it to anybody^ else?—A. I did not. 

Q. Under oath or otherwise?—A. I did not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do you read the newspapers ?—A. Sometimes. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Have you any government office or position whatever ?—A. No, 
sir ; I have not. 

Q. Have you ever held any ?—A. I never have. 

Q. What office, if any, have you ever held, except member of the 
legislature in this city?—A. I never held any. 

Q. Were you sworn before or by that legislative committee of which 
you have spoken?—A. I was not sworn, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Dumont—Mr. A. J. Dumont, I think?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. W^as he present at the meeting of the committee of which you 
have spoken ?—A. No, sir j I don’t think he was. 


. L 

TESTIMONY OF JOQN VIGERS. 

John Yigers (colored), a witness called in behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Question. Where do you reside, sir?—Answer. 206 Conti street. 

Q. In this city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you lived there?—A. Since the day of my birtlu 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


711 


Q. hat is your age?—A. I will be twenty-nine pretty soon j in a 
nionlli or so, now. 

Q. IDid you at any time have a position on the police force of this 
city ?—A. 1 had, during a period of two years or more. 

When was that, as near as you cau lix the time ?—A. I went on 
187d, and staid on up to the fall of the government. 

Q. J)o you know one J>ernard Williams ?—A. I do, sir. 

()}. iJow long have you known him ?—A. At least eight or nine years. 

Did you know him on the police force ?—A. Yes, sir j I had occa¬ 
sion to know him. 

State if you arrested him ; whether you were an officer, and what 
you arrested him for.—A. Well, sir, Sergeant Bergeron- 

Senator Hill. Wait a moment, Mr. Witness; it occurs to me. Senator 
Cameron, that the warrants would be the best evidence of his arrest, 
and as to what was the charge. The witness cau state what he was ar¬ 
rested for, but what he was charged with could be best ascertained from 
the warrant. 

Senator Cameuon. I suppose we are to have some new rules for the 
government of this investigation. 

Senator Hill. O, well, I don't presume it will make any difference, 
and will probably not shorten the time to discuss it; so go on. 

The Witness. Sergeant Bergeron said to me, “ If you see Bernard 
Williams’’—tiiat if I saw him to bring him to the station, as there had 
been a robbery of a gold watch and chain. I saw him and arrested him, 
and brung him down to the station-house, and the sergeant found the 
gold watch and chain on him. It was our duty, when we arrested a 
man, to turn him over to the superior officer; and he took charge of 
him, and found the gold watch and chain on him. 

Q. \yhat else, if anything, do you know in regard to that matter?— 
A. I ki’iow he has been imjreached behrre nearly all the courts, and is 
not believed. We had him on the police records as a dangerous man, 
and the oi’ders always were to k(*ep an eye on him. I know he was im¬ 
peached before Jtecoider Staes’s court. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Murray ?—A. T do, sir. 

Q. Have you had an 3 ' conversation with him in reference to this Kel¬ 
logg S])olford case ?—A. I had a conversation with him on several occa¬ 
sions ])i'evious to his going to Washington and after his return. 

State what he said ])revious to going.—A. Previous to his going 
to Washington he asked me to come to his residence in Siint Paul 
street, between Perdido and Poydras. He said to me, “.lolin, come up ; ” 
and he said, “ Do you want to make a little money ?” I said, “ I don’t 
know that I do.” He says, “I have got a good thing,” and he said, 

if you want to, I will have you subixetiaed to go to Washington, and 
if you will state there that Mr. Thomas wasn’t in his seat on the day of 
election of Kellogg, you can make some money.” I said to him, “ O, 
no, Tom ; I am not that kind of a man.” And he said, “ You won’t do 
it?” and I said “No.” He didn’t tell me who was going to give the 
money, nor that he would give it, but that he would have me subpteiaed 
to go to Washington ; then I left him and said, “ I won’t go into that 
sort of business.” 

Q. State what he said afterwards, when he came back.—A. He came 
back, and I was at the corner of Franklin and Common, and he said to 
me to come and take a drink, and we went; and he pulled out a roll of 
money and said, “ I made this, and so could you, if you had gone.” I 
said i didn’t care to do it. and In*, said that he wanted to make the money, 
and then I left him. I don’t suppose he wonld deiLV it if he were here. 



712 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you know the reputatiou of Bernard Williams for truth?—A. 
He wouldn’t be believ^ed on oath bj' anybody who knew him. I would 
not. 

Q. Is his rei)utation very bad ?—A. He has always been regarded by 
the old police as very bad ; he is a noted character, and we had instruc¬ 
tions to keep au eye over him. He has been before the court so con¬ 
stantly, and they have impeached his evidence before the court, that no¬ 
body will believe him. 

Q. Do you remember what that case was before Judge Staes ?—A. 
No, sir. Staes could tell; I cannot. 1 was in the court the day he was 
impeached, though. 

Q. Are you employed in the custom-house ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you any position under the government?—A. No, sir ; I am 
a laboring man. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I don’t know that T want to ask him a single question, unless some¬ 
body suggests it. Well, 1 will ask you one, too. You say’ you arrested 
Williams because of a watch and chain that was stolen?—A. Ser¬ 
geant Bergeron gave us orders at roll call to bring him j if we saw him 
to take him in. 

Q. And you say the sergeant found it on him ?—A. Yes, sir. I 
searched for him and found him. 

Q. Did you know him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was it that occurred—what year ?—A. It was 1876. 

Q. What did you do with him?—A. We always turned him over to 
our superior officer when we brought him in. 

Q. Was he discharged from that arrest ?—-A. Ido not know, sir. 

Q. Who did you turn him over to ?—A. Sergeant Charles Bergeron, of 
the 3rd precinct. 

Q. What relation are you to William Yigers ?—A. I am a brother to 
him. 

Q. Is he a white man or colored man ?—A. He is a colored man. 

By Senator Yance : 

Q. Did you say that the watch and chain were found on him ?—A. He 
was taken into the captain’s room, and the sergeant told me that night 
that he found it on him. 

Q. You did not see it on him ?—A. I did not, but Sergeant Berjeron 
told me-about it. 

Q. Do you think you have a right to swear to what you did not see ? 
—A. Well, that is a police regulation. 

Q. What, swear second-handed ?—A. No, sir; but I saw it on him the 
next day. 

Q. And was he ever prosecuted and sent to the penitentiary for it ?— 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. Why not?—A. I do not know, sir ; I left it to the sergeant. 

Q. Did the sergeant tell you why he did not prosecute him ? Could 
you not take a second-hand swear at that?—A. 1 do not swear that 
way, sir. 

Q. Was he not taken to the station-house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did he come out of it?—A. I do not know. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Are you employed in the custom house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And never have been ?—A. Yes, sir, I was years ago. 

Q. Have you any brother ?—A. I have two. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 713 

Q. Where are they I—A. One is in tbe custom house aud oue in the 
post-ottice. 

Q Wliat is your occupation ?—A. I am a laborer. 

Q. \V hat are you doing’now ?—A. Anything that 1 can find to do 
that would give an honest day’s work. 

Q. Have you any regular occupation ?—xV. jS'o, sir. As a laborer I 
am liable to do a day’s work here and another there. . 

Q. 1 am requested to ask you another question. 1 do not know any¬ 
thing about you, aud I do not care; but have you ever been arrested f 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What for?—A. I had been on a regular spree and was arrested. 

Q. Were you ever arrested for anything else f—A. 1 do not know, sir. 

Q. Were you ever arrested for any crime ?—A. Yes, sir; for fighting 
or something of that kind. 1 am a young man and get on a spree once 
on a time aud get locked up, but I never have been for larceny or any¬ 
thing of that kind. 

Q. Has anybody said they would not believe you on your oath ?—A. 
Not that I know of. 

Q. How about your reputation for truth aud veracity ?—xV. I suppose 
it is as good as anybody’s. 


TESTIMONY OF xVltTHUH GASTINEL. 

Arthur Gastinel, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you revside !—Answer. In New Orleans. 

Q. How long are you resided here ?—A. All my life. 

Q. What is your age ?—A. I am 43, about 42 or 43 years old. 

Q. What is your profession or business f—A. Attorney at law. 

Q. How long have you practiced in New Orleans?—A. 1 got my 
di})loma, I believe, in 1.SG5. 

Q. What judicial i)ositious have you held in New Orleans?—A. I 
was recorder of the second and the third districts, and at oue time of 
the whole city. 

Q. At what time did you hold those positions ?—A. I was first 
appointed recorder of the whole city by Ex Governor Wells, and then 
when General Sheridan took charge he ap[)ointed me. 1 was then 
elected twice by the people, for the ofiice was then made elective. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Barney Williams or Bernard Williams? 
—A. I know one of them. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Since 18GI or 18G2, about 
the time of the warj but I lost sight of him to know him. 

Q. Do you remember seeing him at any time during the war ?—xV. 
Y^'es, sir. 

Q. Did you see him at any time when the Confederates had charge of 
the city ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tell what occurred at that time as near as you can remember.— 
A. There was a regiment at the lower cotton-press enlisting recruits, 
and he was at the corner of St. Ann and Orleans streets. He was a big 
rascal, and they shaved him. They shaved him clean, and parted his 
head into four (juarters, and drummed him out of the city. 

Q. What did they shave him for ? For what reason ?—A. I could not 
state positively. I know he was drummed through the streets. 


714 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You say he was drummed through the streets with his head shaved 
and halt his beard ?—A. Yes, sir; just so (showing with his hands); and 
■ after Butler came here he came back and became a soldier in the United 
States forces. 

Q. He was a soldier when you first knew him ?—A. They were mak¬ 
ing up a company to go into the Federal arnjy and he was to go with it; 
and he committed a great deal of depredations and he was sent to Dry 
Tortugas either by Judge Bell or by Judge Atocha. 

Q. Do you remember why he was sent off to Dry Tortugas or Ship 
Island ?—A. Those things were a long time ago and I cannot remember 
for what. He was known here as a terror to the people and as a spy. 

Q. You may state whether or not he was ever brought before you in 
a judicial capacity; and, if so, what for.—A. Y^es, sir; I know he was 
brought before me, but I cannot remember for what. I am also his 
attorney and he comes to me from time to time; when he gets in a scrape 
he alwa^-s comes to me. 

Q. Do you know what Barney Williams’s reputation is in this city for 
truth?—A. I do not believe anybody in the city who knows him would 
believe him, and there are very few who do not know him. 

Q. From what you know of his reputation for truth and veracity would 
you believe him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. Not in anything that 
he was interested in. 

Q. Do you know whether or not he has been impeached in any of tlie 
courts here?—A. The wdrd “ imi)eached,” I know it is a terrible fame, 
but I do know and firmly believe there are few" judges that would be¬ 
lieve him on oath. I believe about three or four weeks ago he had a 
colored man arrested over in Saint Charles Parish, arrested for larceny, 
and Judge Miltenberger said that on such testimony as Barney Wil¬ 
liams he could not send him on for trial, and discharged him. 

Q. Williams said on the stand that he was a Bet)ublicau and was 
still a Bepublican. What did he say to you recently about his political 
status, if anything ?—A. Well, sir, he told me more as a lawyer than 
anything else. 

Q. And you do not care to mention that, then ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Hill ; 

Q. You say that Barney was not in repute w ith the Confederates. He 
did not want to be a Confederate soldier did he ?—A. I do not know 
that. He would be anything, I think, Barney would. He was as big a 
Confederate as anybody. 

Q. Did you not say that you lost sight of him after the w-ar ?—A. No, 
sir, I said during the war ; after this thing of dropping him out. 

Q. Was he not General Butler’s detective?—A. No, sir; he was a 
sort of spy. 

Q. Was he not sent to Ship Island as a spy ?—A. He w"as sent by 
Federal judges, and surely for some crime. * 

Q. Was he not sent ostensibly for some crime and sent there but as a 
spy'?—A. No, sir; Judge Bell will tell you that, and so w"ould Judge 
Atocha, but he is dead. 

Q. Have .you any statute here in Louisiana to send men to Dry Tortu¬ 
gas'or Ship Island ?—A. That was'where we sent everybody then. 

Q. It was w hat sort of courts you had here ?—A. Provost courts. 

Q. Military courts?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were military courts established under General Butler?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Well, now, Mr. Gastinel, if a man had a very bad job to do, such 
as bribing or something ot that kind, Barney would be*a good man to 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


715 


employ, would be not ?—A. T never bad anytbinjj to do with that sort 
of thing’; but I think be would turn on you and give it over to the other 
man. 

(^. You believe that if e!ni)loyed for that kind of thing, and he were 
to get mad, he would turn on a man and tell it !—A. 1 (lo not believe 
that anybody who knew him would employ him. 

Q. But 1 say, and you please answer the question, if em])loyed on that 
sort of thing, he might turn on the man wlio employed him ?—A. This 
is an opinion you ask me, and I answer in this way, that 1 believe no 
one knowing him would trust him in any sort of work. 

Q. Suppose they did ?—A. I have not said that, sir. 

Q. Suppose tliey did do it in spite of your opinion, for you aie not 
infallible, what do you think of the men who would employ him?—A. I 
would think that they did not know Barney.’ If they knew him they 
would not do it. 

Q. And you would not be surprised if Barney told it on him ?—A. 
A>s, sir; he would do it for money. 

Q. He is not the only man you have heard of that would do that ?— 
A. Yes; he is the worst man for that all over the United States. 

Q. You do not think there are a good many in New Orleans who would 
tell a good many things for money ?—A. Yes; but 1 have seen some from 
the balance of the United States. 

Q. How about the I’ackard legislature?—A. I never ])ut my foot there. 
Tt was the general talk in the newspapers every day that some of them 
there would take money. 

Q. How about the talk ? Did not the newspapers talk of men there 
being bought to vote for certain things?—A. The newsi)apers do not 
talk, I do not think. 

Q. I ask you if it was not talked of?—A. I told you it was talked of. 

Q. It was notorious, was it not, Mr. Gastinel?—A. What, sir, was 
notorious? 

Q. That money was being paid up there for votes.—A. I do not know, 
sir. 

Q. You do not know that it was talked of that money was being paid 
to members to vote for Kellogg?—A. There was a lieap of talk of buy¬ 
ing together the other legislature, to get the men from the Packard 
legislature to go to the other legislature. 

Q. You say that was talked of?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, 1 am talking about general rumors concerning the Packard 
legislature.—A. A"es, sir. 

(}. What is your politics?—A. I voted the last time the Conservative 
Democratic ticket. 

Q. What did you do under Kellogg’s rcgimel —A. I do not know that 
anybody has got a right to know, but I will tell you that I am an Inde¬ 
pendent. 1 voted for Kellogg and Lieutenant-Governor Wiltz. 

Q. Did you ever hold a government position ?—A. 1 never did. 

Q. Is your practice principally civil or criminal?—A. Generally crimi¬ 
nal, sir. 

Q. You come into common contact with those rough characters, do you 
not?—A. Criminal lawyers generally do. It is our business to know 
them. 

Q. Do you know John Vigors ?—A. Which John ? 

Q. Do you know the family?—A. Yes, I know the family. 

(,). What sort of a family aVe they?—A. The mother is a very respect¬ 
able old lady. 


716 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. I am not talking about the women now. State what you know of 
the Yigers boys, William and all of them.—A. Yes, 1 know them. 

Q. Has this John ever been arrested?—A. He has j John has been 
arrested as a fighter ; William, I think not. 

Q. He has got a bad reputation, has he not ?—A. As a fighter, he 
has, but I would believe him on oath. lu a question of veracity I would 
believe him, and I think you ask me now about veracity. 

Q. You testified that Williams had a man arrested over in St. 
Charles; was it not just the reverse ? Was it not a man from St. Charles 
that had him arrested ?—A. That was another case. The man made 
an affidavit and charge. I would have been Barney’s lawyer, but he 
did not prosecute it. 

Q. And Barney was discharged, was he not?—A. Yes, sir; it was 
all about the same pistol, and I said, “ You have made an affidavit here.” 
That was another case. 1 told him “ You have no case against the man.” 

Senator Hill. I have stopped the question, Mr. Witness, and you 
stop answering. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You said to Senator Hill, that while the Packard legislature was in 
session it was generally stated in the newspapers that the legislature 
was being bribed. Do you know anything at all going to show that 
these are facts ?—A. None at all. 

Q. The rumor was to the effect that the Democrats were buying the 
members of the Packard legislature to go over to the Nichols legisla¬ 
ture ?—A. That was the same kind of talk; that such a one was going 
over to-morrow, or such a one another time, and that he was paid to 
do it. 

Q. What was the talk in reference to their being bribed?—A. The 
Republicans say that they got a good many to go there from their side 
to the Democrats, and the Democrats said the Republicans were bribing 
them to stay, and they talked over that. As for political things I know 
nothing at all, for I had nothing to do with it. 

Q. Were you in New Orleans during the recent session of the consti¬ 
tutional convention ?—A. I was. 

Q. Did you hear anything about members being bribed on any ques¬ 
tion there ?—A. I heard that on the debt question people were being 
bribed to abolish the debt and all that. 

Q. For what offense do you state that John Vigers had been arrested ? 
—A. P^r fighting and getting drunk ; for assault and battery. 


TESTIMONY OF SOLOMON MARX. 

Solomon Marx, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. Here in this city. 

Q. How long have you lived here?—A. It will be twenty" years in 
January. 

Q. What is your occiqiation ?—A. I am a merchant. 

Q. How long have you been in business here?—A. Since I am here, 
sir. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Bernard Williams, the man who testi- 



SPOFP’ORD VS. KELLOGG. 717 

fieil before this committee ?—A. I know Barney Williams, but not very 
intimately, but I know him. 

Q. llow lon^ have you known of him intimately ?—A. I have heard 
of him only since General Butler was here. 

Q- Go you know what is his reputation for truth and veracity in this 
community f—A. It wasn’t very good from what 1 know of him. 

(}. From what you know of his reputation would you believe him on 
oath !—A. From what I know of his reputation 1 would not. 1 know 
myself of his committing perjurv, not later than last June or the end of 
May. 

(i>. Yon may state the facts. 

SSenator Hill. Yes, since you have volunteered to do so, state it. 

Senator Cameron. I asked it. 

The Witness. It is no easy thing, gentlemen, for a man to say that 
another man committed perjury, but 1 think it was the end of ^iay or 
hist of June. I do not know who was the judge; I found there a man, 
what’s his name I cannot tell you, but will, if you say so, tind out. He 
was arrested for some small debt, ahd lie said that Bernard AVilliams 
made the allidavit that he was going to Europe, and he had seen let¬ 
ters that he was going; and some man had given him a dollar a da}' or 
two belbre to buy bread. The man wanted me to go his security for his 
release, and I went to ^Ir. Johnson on Canal street. 1 had no real es¬ 
tate, so I could not go his security, and he came and released him ; then 
his glazier store was seized ; he owed something on it, and he hadn’t a 
dollar to make a living, and the things came ut) to sale. Bernard Wil¬ 
liams came to him and said, “ If you ^ive me five dollars, I will make the 
sheriff sell you that glass for nothing”; but we were instructed by the 
charitable committee to buy that glass for that money and make the 
man a present of it. The lawyer of Mr. AVilliaius, Mr. Ileidenheim, 
communicated to me that he knew the man had perjured himself; that 
was the lawyer of the gentleman who had brought suit against that very 
poor man. When Bernard AVilliams reported that the suit could be 
made, he said and swore the man was going to Europe. Another gen¬ 
tleman had given that man a dollar, a day or two before that very man, 
^Ir. Williams, swore against him. Ileidenheim told me afterwards that 
he found Williams could swear false, and that he was sorry he had sued 
the man. 

Q. Are you an Israelite ?—A. I am, sir, and I am proud of it. 

Q. Williams swore that he belonged to that faith; how is his record 
among the respectable members of the faith in this city ?—A. We have 
very tew, sir, not resi)ectable, and he is one of the great exceptions; it 
is dangerous to have anything to do with him. I recollect the things of 
General Butler’s time. 

Q. What do you recollect ?—A. I recollect that he was tarred and 
feathered and in chains. It is so long that I don’t recollect what it was 
for, but I know he was a <lisgrace to his nation and people generally. 

Q. ])o you know anything of his stealing articles from yellow fever 
jiatients '/—A. ^Tithing to my own knowledge, but I was told by one of 
my friends that he acted shamefully in that. 

By Senator IIiLL. 

(I Did you say that he offered to have the sherilf sell you that glass, 
if you would give him five dollars?—A. Yo, sir. Isay it was to the 
gentleman who had given that man a dollar, a day or two before, to buy 
bread. 

Q. Did you hear him ofi’er it ?—A. I was standing by. 


718 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did yon bear it?—A. I did. I w'as near slapping his face for it, 
but I was afraid of getting into a muss. 

Q. Who was the sheriff ?—A. He said he would make the sheriff sell 
him the glass for a very trifle, and in fact he bid against the man, al¬ 
though he hadn’t a dollar. 

Q. You say he said he would make the sheriff do it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was the lawyer who gave you the information that he acted 
that way ?—A. Mr. Heidenheim, who acted for Potthoff. He acted for 
the man who sued the poor glazier. 

Q. Do you know that he is a lawyer?—A. No, sir j I do not. I say he 
acted as a lawyer. 

Q. You stated that he was the lawyer of Bernard Williams. I think 
you have sworn to a good many things that you will take back.—A. I 
swear it because he was su[)ervising the matter and I took it it was tor 
him. 

Q. Did you ever hold any office in this State ?—A. I was flour in¬ 
spector six or seven mouths under Governor Warmoth. 

Q. Have you held ai^y office since ?—A. No, sir j not since. I was re¬ 
moved by Kellogg and he put another man in my place. 

Q. Is that the only one you ever held ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What is your politics ?—A. I was always a Union man all during 
the war. 

Q. Are you a Republican?—A. I am a Union man sir. 

Q. There are two parties in this country, the Republican and Dem¬ 
ocratic parties; to which do you belong ?— A. Is Governor Kellogg a Repu b- 
licaii ? There are more than two parties here, sir j we have three or four j 
I am not a party man. 

Q. Which ticket do you vote?—A I have not voted for two or tliree 
yeais. 

Senator Hill. Well, you may go. 

Senator Vance. Before any other witness is brought here to testify 
as to character, I want to enter my protest against the form of this ex¬ 
amination. 

Senator Hill. I think, with Senator Cameron, that it does not much 
matter how the examination goes along so we get the facts and only the 
facts. 

Senator Vance. Well, Mr. Chairman, every one who is introduced 
here on the subject of character states some fact which a man could 
not defend himseif against and could not expect in law to do so. You 
and Senator Cameron seem to let it go on and I want to protest against it. 

Senator Hill. I wish to say in just ce to, and in defense of myself, as 
chairman, that it is not the proper way to impeach a witness. I did sug¬ 
gest to Senator Cameron that his questions were not legal, but he in¬ 
sisted on putting them, so I gave him as much latitude as possible; but 
I take it for granted that the Senate is composed mostly of lawyers 
who will weigh this testimony when it gets there and give it its proper 
effect. I do not suppose that Senator Cameron insists that a witness 
shall come here and tell all his personal ijrievances against a man. It 
is not permitted in my State or the United States courts, so I do not 
care to ask them any questions except such as may be suggested by my 
friends here (referring to the memorialist and his counsel). I prefer, 
however, always to go by the proper method. 

Senator Cameron. I was just looking for the testimony of a witness 
here who was examined last week, and in the examination of whom the 
chairman of the committee, according to my recollection, asked him in 
reference to some persons who were connected with this case either as 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 7If) 

witnesses or otherwise, “ Well, wlmt sort of a fellow is he T and <ines- 
tions to that effect. 

k^eiiHtor Hill. I do not think I was then impeaching a witness, 

Senator (Iamekon. 1 think yon were attacking his reputation. 

^5enator Hill. I do not think we have iinpeae.hed any witnesses yet. 

Senator Cameron. 1 do not think so eitlier. I will find the testimonv 
I think, though. I asked the witness the proper question. This iin- 
peaching of witnesses is a difficult thing to get the impeaching witnesses 
to stand. The proper (piestion was to ask him if he knew what the 
reputation of Barney Williams is, and I have asked a witness a great 
many times in court the same (piestion and it is always very hard to get 
them to say. He always tells his own story before he will go on and 
tell what he knows about it according to the proper form of the ques¬ 
tion. 1 understand the proper way to impeach the witness, ami l will 
try to do it in a proper way. 

Senator Vance. O, yes, yes. 


tp:stimony of EMANUEL HEIDIXGSFELDEB. 

Emanuel Heidingsfeldeii, a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. In New Orleans. 

Q. How long have ymu lived here?—xV. Ever since 1840; thirty-nine 
years. 

Q. What is your occui)ation ?—A. I am a religious doctor. 

Q. Are yon acupiainted with Barney Williams?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ? —xV. Since the beginning of the 
war in 1802. 

Q* Oo you know his reputation for truth? Just answer now if you 
know it.—A. It is bad. 

Q. A^ou do know it then ?—A. Y>s, sir. 

Q. From what you know of it is it good or bad ?—xV. liad. 

Q. From that knowledge would you believe him on oath ?— xV. I would 
not. 

Senator Hill. Now you have tracked it pretty well. 

Senator Cameron. Of course. 

Senator Hill. Now hold him down to it. 

Senator Cameron. I will. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Williams was examined here and I asked him if he had been 
shaved and if he had been <lrummed through the streets, and whether he 
had been charged with highway robbery and larceny. He admitted 
that he was arrested at one time. Now, if you know anything of his 
being arrested and his head being shaved, or his ever having been ar¬ 
rested for Clime tell it.—A. If you will believe me and will let me tell 
you from the beginning I will give it. 

Senator Hill. Just answer the (luestion. 

The Witness. From the beginning and during the revolution I could 
not make a living, and I went into the country to make a living. I was 
special to the mayor. Lieutenant Weit/.el took charge as mayor, when 
Munroe was sent to Fort Jackson. I remained under him and under 



720 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Shepley as mayor. Shepley was mayor first and thon Shepley took 
command and Weitzel became mayor; and then Barney Williams came. 
He said lie was a Confederate deserter, and was wounded in the le^. I 
gave him a note, and Mayor Shepley gave him a note to go to General 
Butler, and he went, and before he was with him three months 1 saw 
him on Saint Charles street with his head shaved and it was tarred and 
feathered. He went and took some horses to Saint James, and there 
sold them and stole some others and came back. A week after he broke 
into an armoire and stole a watch and go his security, and he had to 
deposit 8250 in my possession, and then he wanted to sue me. 

Senator Hill. Stbp. 

The Witness. Well, he had his head shaved. 

Senator Cameron. Tell us what yon know about his arrests for crimes. 

A. Several times he was arrested for crimes. I was three or four se¬ 
curity for him before Gastinel. 

Q. What for ?—A. For breaking open the armoire, and for disturbing 
citizens, and for false reports. 

Q. What, if anything, do you know of his being sent to Ship Island? 
—A. Six months and a ball and chain. He was sent for stealing that 
horse. 

Q. For stealing a horse ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And was sent to Ship Island for it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Sentenced to six months with ball and chain ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cameron. Well, I believe that is all I want to ask you. 

Senator Hill. Go on. 


TESTIMONY OF EUGENE STAES. 

Eugene Staes, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. 2G5 Saint Philips street. 

Q. In this city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided in this city ?—A. All my lifetime. 

Q. What is your age ?—A. In a few days I will be 54. 

Q. What is yonr occupation ?—A. Practicing law. 

Q. How long have you been engaged in the practice of your profes¬ 
sion in this city?—A. I have been a police judge for a number of years, 
and next i)racticed law. 

Q. Do you know a man named Barney Williams ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have yon known him ?—A. Since the commencement of 
the war or about that time. 

Q. Do you know what his reputation is for truth and veracity in this 
community ?—A. It is very bad. 

Q. From what you know of his reputation for truth and veracity, 
would you believe him on oath in a court of justice ?~A. I would not 

Q. He was a witness before this committee a few days ago, and in 
response to a question I put to him he stated that he was never arrested 
for larceny and highway robbery. State what you know, if anything, 
in regard to his having been arrested and charged with crime.—A. I do 
not know whether he was arrested for larceny, but he has been arrested 
several times and brought before me. He was there several times. 

Q. Was his evidence ever impeached before you ?—A. Yes, sir; sev- 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


721 


eral tinios it was iinpeaclied. Persons swear that the}’ would not believe 
him on oath. 

A\as that in your court ?—A. Y«*s, sir; that was in my court. 

State as Jiearly as you can when he was impeache<l; how long 
i'SO.—A. I could not say exactly, but as lar as I remember 1 think he 
has been impeached before Judge Druett, and I think Mr. Gastinel and 
Mr. Hughes two or three times. 

Q. I |)ut the (luestion to Mr. AVilliams when he was here a witness 
before this committee, and asked him whether his head had ever been 
shaved and whether he was not drummed through the streets of this 
city. If you know anything in regard to that, please state it.—A. I 
think it was in 1801, or about that time, I saw him drummed through 
the streets ot the city of New Orleans, that is, the second district. He 
was at the head of a squad of soldiers, and half of his hair was shaved 
off. 

Senator Hill. 1 have no questions for you. 

On motion the committee took a recess of one hour, it being at this 
time 1 p. m. 


The committee reassembled at 2 p. m., when the further introduction 
and examination of witnesses on behalf of the sitting member w’as pro¬ 
ceeded with. 


TESTIMONY OF KAFAEL ST. AUMAND. 

Rafael St. Akmand (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sit¬ 
ting member, sworn and examined. 

Ey Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you live ?—Answer. 2G4 Bienville street. 

Q In this city ?—A. Yes, .sir. 

(j). How long have von lived in this city '?—A. I was born here and 
lived here all my lifetime. 

Q. Do you know Bernard Williams, or Barney Williams?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you see him at any time during the war ?—A. It was during 
the war time I got acquainted with him. 

Q. Where did you see him ?—A. I was a soldier in the Seventy fourth 
Regiment, stationed at Ship Island, and I saw him there under ball and 
chain, sent by Judge Atocha; that was the time I got acquainted with 
him. 

Q. How long did he stay there ?—A. Four or five months. 

Q. Did he inform you what he was sent there for?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What cai)acity was he sent there in, as a prisoner or- A. As 

a prisoner for a part of the time, and then when ho was there a while 
the colonel had him detailed as a stableman, to look after the horses. 

Q. How long did he stay before that was done ?—A. About a month. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You are a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your business?—A. I am working at a bar-room No. 4 
Front street. 

Q. Is it a gambling-house?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Cameron. It is usual, I think, in all these investigations to 
state the word colored just after the names of these parties. 

42 s K 



722 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. Has not your occupation been to keep a negro gambling-bouse for 
some time?—A. No, sir j I kept one at tbe corner of Franklin and Cus- 
tom-bouse street. 

Q. Was that a gambling place for colored people?—A. They kept a 
gambling-bouse on the lower floor. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Hid you keep a gambling place?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was it kept by somebody else ?—A. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF SAM PINOUS. 

Sam Pincus, a witness called on behalf of tbe sitting member, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. I reside in this city now, 
sir. 

Q. How long have you lived here?—A. Since last December. 

Q. Where did you reside prior to that time ?—A. In Bapides Parish. 

Q. How long did you live there ?—A. Since 1866. I was up there 12 
years. 

Q. Do you know Barney Williams?—A. I do, sir. 

Q. How long have vou known him ?—A. About twelve years, or since 
1866. 

Q. Do you know him in Bapides Parish?—A. Y^es, sir; I have seen 
there several times. 

Q. I will ask you a question that you can answer by yes'^^ or “ no.’^ 
.Do you know his reputation for truth and veracity?—A. I wouldn’t 
believe him- 

Q. I ask you do you know it ?—A. 1 do. 

Q. Is it good or bad ?—A. Bad. 

Q. Would you believe him on oath ?—A. I would not. 

Q. What is your business?—A. I am selling goods on commission in 
this city for several houses. 

Senator Hill. If you will allow me to make a suggestion. I don’t 
know what Judge Spoflord and his counsel will do, but if you will make 
out a list of witnesses who will say they won’t believe Barney Williams 
on oath, they may admit it and let it go in the record that way. 

Senator Cameron. Senator, you must know that Barney is a great 
central figure in this case. He looms up; but the governor and I can 
l)oiut out witnesses, if you prefer it that way. 


TESTIMONY OF JACOB SANDAK. 

Jacob Sandak, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
being of Israelitish faith, was sworn by affirmation and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside?—xlnswer. In the city of New Or¬ 
leans, at 309.1 Calliope and Dryades streets. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLO.GG. 723 

Q. How long have you resided here ?—A. I have resided here ever 
since 1842. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I am a merchant. 

Q. How long have you been engaged in merchandising ?—A. About 
nearly the same time. 

Q. Ho you know Barney Williams ?—A. I do. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Since the beginning of the 
war—ever since the war broke out. 

Q. Do you know his reputation iu this city in regard to truth?—A. 
It is considered very poor. 

Q. From what you know of his reputation would you believe him ou 
oath ?—A. Xo, sir ; I can’t do it. 


TESTIMONY OF M. BERWIN. 

M. Berwin, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, was 
affirmed, being of Israelitish faith, and examined. 

By Senator 0A3IER0N : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. Here in the city. 

Q. How long have you lived here ?—A. Forty yejirs. 

Q. Wliat is your occupation ?—A. I have retired from business. I 
was a boot and shoe merchant, but I have retired from the business. 

Q. Do you know Barney Williams?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Ten or twelve years. 

Q. Do you know his reiiutation in this community for truth? You 
can tell wliat you know about it.—A. It is bad. 

Q. For truth and veracity ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From your knowledge of that reputation would you believe him 
on oath in a court of justice?—A. Not in a matter he was interested iu 
I wouhln’t. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What is your name?—A. Berwin. 

Q. Have you ever been tried in a United States court ?—A. Yes, sir 

Q. What for ?—A. I was security for a man as assignee and he wanted 
to keep the money. 

Q. Were you tried for peijury ?—A. I was dismissed, sir, in that 
court. 

Q. Of course you were persecuted, as your Saviour was before you ?— 
A. I don’t know about that, sir. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. You may tell us about that prosecution for iierjiiry.—-A. A party 
has failed and owed me a large amount of money. 1 was Ids creditor, 
and he gets held, seized, and sold in bankrujitey. A creditor was ap¬ 
pointed assignee and the assignee collected that money which I went 
his security, aud he kept it for years aud didn’t want to give a return 
of it, and 1 employed a lawyer and required a rule why he should not 
make a return, ami they gave a rule against hifn. He insulted me, and 
I took a cowhide to him. I swore him in that way and he took up a 
case against uui for false swearing, but L was discharged. That you can 
see yourself in the United States court. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Were you ever in prison iu Europe?— A. 1 was here forty years 



724 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


now, sir, and I was nine years a bank director in this city, and I uever 
was in aiy life in jail; let any one come and say it. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Very well; that will do. I simply asked the question for informa¬ 
tion. 


TESTIMONY OF H. HEIDENHEIM. 

H. Heidenhetm, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
was affirmed, being of Israelitish faith, and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. In New Orleans. 

Q. How long have you Ijved there ?—A. Since 1865. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. At present I am a broker and specu¬ 
lating. 

Q. Did you ever hold any judicial position in this city?—A. I did. 

Q. What was it ?—A. Assistant recorder ; a position without pay or 
any emoluments. 

Q. WHien did you hold it ?—A. I was elected by the city council in 
1870. After that I was appointed by Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Do you know Barney Williams?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know his reputation for truth and veracity in this commu¬ 
nity ? Answer “ yes ” or “ no.^’—A. I do. 

Q. What is it, good or bad ?—A. Bad. 

Q. From what you knoTv ot it would 3011 believe him on oath in a 
court of justice ?—A. I would not. 

Q. Williams testified before the committee that he met Morris Marks 
in this hotel on Monday' evening last. 

Senator Hill. A week ago last night. 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir. |To the witness.] State whether you 
were or not with Marks that evening, and whether or not he conversed 
with Williams.—A. Well, sir, I read the report in the newspaper and 
it struck me that he was mistaken. 

Senator Hill. Answer the gentleman. 

The Witness, lam trying to. 

Senator Hill. Well, answer the gentleman and don’t tell anything 
else. 

A. I will, sir; I was with Maiks on Monday at seven o’clock. I met 
Maiksin the hotel, and with him an old gentleman, and went with him 
upstairs. Then we come awa^ and met Jack Wharton, and took a 
drink with him, and took him up into the Eepublican headquarters, and 
after that we took a car and went home. 

Q. You say he took an old gentleman upstairs?—A. Yes, sir; an 
elderly gentleman, evidently from the country. I don’t know who he 
was. 


TESTIMONY OF MOKPJS MARKS. 

Morris Marks, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn by affirmation, being of Israelitish faith, and examined. 

By Senator CxIMERON : 

Question. AYhere do you reside?—Answer. My residence is in the 
parish of Ascension, Donaldsonville. I am residing here now. 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 725 

Q. hilt, is your occu[)ation ?—A. I am collector of internal revenue 
for the State of Louisiana. 

Q. When did you take charge of that office ?—A. I took charge of it 
the first part of the fiscal year of 1878. 

Q. Have you held it ever since ?—xV. 1 have kept it since, sir. 

Q. Do you know Barney Williams ?—A. 1 do, sir. 

Did you see his testimony iis rejiorted in the newspapers with 
reference to this alleged interview in this hotel ?—xV. 1 did, sir. 

Q. Do you know of such an interview?—xV. 1 do not; I didn’t see 
him to my knowledge that inght. He may have heen in the rotunda of 
the hotel. On my way home I met George W. Jones, a planter of the 
parish of Ascension, living fifteen miles of my place. He has been sick 
here, and he insisted on my going upstairs with him. I took his arm 
and gallanted him. xVfter he engaged me about five minutes in the 
rotunda, it occurred to me to go u^istairs to Senator Kellogg’s room and 
tell him why 1 could not call on him, as 1 had retjeived company from 
Kew York. I then went to the Republican headquarters, as the parish 
judge of my parish was there. The drinks had just been ordered, 
and I stopped there and waited for them ; then we came down, and I 
sto[)ped and met Marshal Wharton ; he stopjied me and he said he 
wanted to say something to me. We went down and stood there for a 
half hour. We met Mr. Heidenheim, and he said he wanted to speak to 
me about going lo Donaldsonville. 1 said to him to walk along as I 
have to go home, and he w(*nt to the Rejiublican headquarters. xVud 
when we left there 1 went to Baronne street to take the cars and went 
home. I didn’t lay eyes on Barney Williams that night. 

Q. Barney said that you came up to him and said tliat if he testified 
before the committee he would lose his |)ension,or something about his 
pension; and you have nothing of the kind?—A. I haven’t spoken to 
him. 1 haven’t for years, excei)t once. 1 read his testimony, and I saw 
as he came back from Washington—as he claimed, 1 met him with a 
large satchel and a bunch of lish. To be frank with the committee, I 
have shunned him as I would a rattlesnake. 

By Senator Hill. Mr. Marks, stop thissi)eech. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Did you refer to it as Barney said you <lid ?—A. He said he had a 
letter to show me, and put down the fish and satchel, and he fumbled 
for the letter, and 1 asked, “ Where have you been ?” And he said to 
Washington. x\nd 1 vsaid jokingly, “ Did yon go to Washington for 
dead fish ? ” And he said he had bought them on the road, and that he 
couldn’t find the letter. xVnd 1 said, yon come to the office and bring it; 
and I haven’t seen him since. 

Q. Do you know anything of his reputation for truth and veracity? 
—A. Yes, sir. It is of the very worst. There is not a man in the city 
that has one as worse as him. 

Senator Hill. iMr. Marks, confine yourself to answering those ques¬ 
tions. Those are all of them “yes” and “ no” ipiestions. 

Q. (By Senator CAMEitON.) Would you believe him on oath in a 
court of justice ?—A. 1 wouldn’t; and I will tell you why. 

Senator IliLL. Mr. Maiks, come to order. 

'J'he Witness. Senator, 1 heard you say a while ago that a witness 
liad a right to answer a (piestion and ex[)lain his testimony. 

Senator Hill. Stop, Mr. Witness, or 1 will order you into the hands 
of the sergeant-at arms. 


726 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


The Witness. I am here to answer the questions, and I am ready to 
he ordered into arrest. 

Senator Hill. Stop, sir. Don’t let me have to repeat that. 

Senator Cameron. You can go on now and explain your testimony, 
if you have anything further to say. 

The Witness. I shall answer “ yes,” or no,” to please the Senator. 

Senator Hill. (To Senator Cameron.) Are you through with the wit¬ 
ness 

Senator Cameron. Ino, sir; not just yet. (To the witness.) Do you 
know Tom Murray?—A. I do. 

Q. Did you know what his reputation is as to truth and veracity in 
this city ?—A. I don’t know so much about it here. He lived in my 
parish, where I was parish judge, and it was not good up there. 

Q. Where was that?—A. In the parish of St. James and the fourth 
judicial district. I also heard why he was dismissed from the mint; 
but that is hearsay. I don’t know anything else about him. 


TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM LEHMAN-. 

Abraham Lehman, a witness called on behalf of the 'sitting mem¬ 
ber, was affirmed, being of Israelitish faith, and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you live ?—Answer. 2G2 Camp street. 

Q. How long have you lived in this city ?—A. I have lived here 
twenty-eight years. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. Wholesale dry-goods. 

Q. How long have 3 'ou been in that business?—A. About twenty- 
five years. 

Q. Do you know Barney Williams ?—A. I do not know as to know 
him by sight. 

Q. Do you know what his reputation is for truth in this community ? 
—A. Yes, I do. 

Q. What is it; good or bad ?—A. Bad. 

Q. From what you know of it, would you believe him on oath ?—A. 
I mean to say I knew about him formerly; but for the last four or five 
years I did not know whether he was alive or not, until now. All I 
know, it was very bad. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Have you any connection with Morris Marks ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you and him all Hebrews?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is Mr. Heidenheim ; is he an Israelite?—A. I do not know; I 
suppose so. I know Judge Marks as one. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You are a Jew by faith?—A. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF W. J. MOORE. 

W. J. Moore, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined: 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Moore?—Answer. On Tonti, be¬ 
tween La Perouse and Gonzales. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


727 


Q. In this city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. tlow lon^j have you resided in this citv ?—A. Since, sir—as a civil¬ 
ian, since 18G5. 

Q. In what capacity were you in the city prior to that time ?—A. I 
came here in the Army. 

Q. In the Federal Army ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When ditl you come here, as near as you can tix the time?—A. 
About lbG3, I think, or the first of 1864. I tliink it was in the spring 
of 18G4 that I came to New Orleans. 

Q. What was your office, if any, that you occupied in the fall of 1876, 
prior to the election of that year?—A. I was assistant supervisor of 
registration in the seventh ward. 

Q. When were you ai)pointed to that office, as near as you can fix the 
time?—A. Some time in August; in the fore part of August. 

Q. Up to what time did you continue to discharge the duties of that 
office ? - A. To a short time before the election. 

Q. Now, Mr. ]\roore, you may begin at the beginning and go through 
and state to me what you did in the matter of registration.—A. It was 
my duty to make a revision of all the electors who presented themselves 
at my office for registration, and that was made by the requirements of 
law. Those who came up to the requirements I registered; and that is 
about as near as I can state it. 

Q. It has been stated liere that the books of registration, some time 
before the election, were taken to the custom-house. Were they taken 
to the custom-house?—A. They were, after the registration ceased. 
There were nine days allowed for the preparation of the poll-lists, and 
we received a circular from the State registrar of voters that was read 
to all interested, which stated that the supervisors and clerks, both 
Democratic and Kepublican, should meet at the custom house ; that the 
Democratic party should be there represented ; and, it being a central 
locality, there was a large room provided so that all the assistant super¬ 
visors could bring their books there and make such erasures as the law 
justified on account of affidavits made against those parties who had 
falsely registered. 

Q. What occurred there when the books were taken there, and who 
were present there, as near as you can state it ?—A. All the assistant 
supervisors and Democratic and Federal supervisors. Major Burke, and* 
a great many gentlemen whose names I do not know, but who were 
members of the Democratic canvassing committee. They were there, 
and supervised the work and looked on generally. In my case, the 
Democratic supervisor who was assigned to my office was not there, and 
I suspended and did not commence the work until I went to his domicile 
and woke him up to do his duty in the premises. Major Burke detailed 
an extra representative there. 

Q. Major Burke did?—A. Yes, sir; an extra representative, Mr. Dal- 
liet—the same gentleman who represented the Democratic party on a 
previous registration. They detailed him as an extra man to help make 
these corrections; and in order to giv^e entire satisfaction to the major 
and his friends. I made a proposition to those two gentlemen that, not¬ 
withstanding the affidavits made against the electors, if both or either 
of them claimed to recognize these i)arties, and would just tell me the 
affidavit was falsely made, that I would take their words in preference, 
iidwould not scratch or <‘rase their names. 

Q. That is, if either tl.e Democratic supervisor or tlie man detailed 
by Burke claimed that he was the man he claimed to be, you did not 
erase the voter’s name?—A. Yes, sir ; or if they said he was a resident 


728 


SPOFFORD VS KICLLOGG. 


of the ward, or if lie liad moved in, I would waive tiiat, which was 
stretching’ the law; but 1 gave him that margin. 

Q. Mr. Burke has testihed before the committee, and he has testified 
ill regard to a number of lawful voters—white men and Democrats — 
who were stricken from the poll-lists in your ward. My impression is, 
although my recollection is not very distinct, that there were 100 he 
claimeil.—A. White men, sir? 

Q. That is my recollection. Now, you can state, if you know, whether 
they were actually striitken off, and the respective number of whites and 
blacks.—A. I have a memorandum here, but 1 have not anything ar¬ 
ranged alphabetically; but 1 will find it there, where they are all 
together. There were only 147 electors stricken oft'. 

Q. Were they voters of the waid ?—A. They were jiarties who had 
registered. Out of that number 293 were white and 54 colored, and 
some of those gentlemen whose names had been erased voted on election 
day. 

Q. O, yes; I was going on to ask you in regard to that.—A. 1 know this 
to be a fact. I was not in charge of the election, and, in fact, I <lid not pay 
a great deal of attention to it. My wife was very sick. But when parties 
])resented themselves to any assistant su})ervisor of registration, where 
their names were on the original poll book, and he had reason to be¬ 
lieve they had been stricken off recently, he did not go into formally 
making an affidavit, but just from the fact that he knew they were re¬ 
cently stricken off he allowed them to be voted. 

Q. What order, if any, was given by Governor Hahn, allowing per¬ 
sons to vote whose names had been improperly stricken from the rolls? 
—A. 1 think I have a circulai'—1 do not know, but I think I have the 
circular that was sent to the supervisors. These papers which 1 have I 
did not exi)ect to ever use them, and they look a little bad from being 
carried in my ])ocket. (The witness here produced a pa[)er.) 

Q. What is that paper ?—A. It is a circiilar sent around to every su¬ 
pervisor by the State registrar of voters. That was sent to me from the 
office of the State registrar of voters, and is an official circular. 

Q. You may read it. 

The witness read as follows: 


[Copy.] 


State of Louisiaxa, 

Office State Registhae of-Votehs, 

New Orleans, yoremher 4, 1876. 

To all assistant snperdsors, parisn, of Orleans : 

You are specially and 8i)ecitically instructed, in making erasures u uler the provisions 
of section 21, and other sections of the registration act, to sec to it that the name of no 
elector he erased unless upon evidence, documentary or otherwise, clearly demonstrating 
the disqualitication required bylaw. 

You will lurther satisfy yourselves, in all cases of erasure for non-residence, that the 
residence as given on the original register and the residence set forth in the evidence 
]>resentod coriespond. many changes of residence wilhin the various wards having 
been noted on the books during the last days of registration. 

You are especially enjoined to be careful in the performance of these duties, and that 
no naine be stricken from the registry of voters except on the clearest evidence and 
the strictest compliance with law. 

MICHAEL HAHN, 
Stale Eeyistrar of Voters. 

1 will state tluit it was sent to the assistant supervisois. 

Q. State when it was received by tlie assistant supervisor in your 
ward.—A. It will be received on the same day. 


SPOFFOHD VS. KELLOGG. 729 

Q. ( n wliat <lay oftlie moiub was tlie eleciioii in that year?—A. 
^^eIl, Senator, 1 really forget; I roally did not it a tliou|?lit. 

Q. Mr. Bnike stated, as reported in the m^wsi)apers, which 1 think is 
substantially (correct, Mr. Moore, referring to yourself, after you had re- 
si trued from the oflice, that you struck off the names of a irreat luauj' 
voters. This was done by Mr. Moore, referriu" to you, althou"h Mr. 
(loudolfi was pie.seut ?—A. Yes, Senator; 1 have a «reat deal of respect 
for Major liurke, and he is one of the smartest men in the State, but his 
evidence in that respect, I am bound to say, is not founded on fact. 

Q. Then all that were stricken otfyou have stated ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you strike off any of them ?—A. I say I did nothin^ of the 
kind. I will not even qualify it by saying by my best recollection. I 
did nothing of the kind. 

(^. Peter \Yilliams has testified before this committee in substance 
that he handed to yon, or gave you in some way, a large i)ackage of blank 
registration certificates of 1874 ; now, what is the fact in regard to that ? 
—A. lie never gav(* me any pa])ers of 1874. We did not need those 
paper s at all. Onr ward was a Kepublican wai'd, and we did not requir e 
to resort to those methods to bring about a Peprrtrlicarr I'esult iir that 
ward. If gentlemen will examine the statistics of that ward since re- 
corrstruction, they will find it has beerr the banrrer Iteiniblicair ward of 
this ])arish. On the first electiorr it was Pejnrblican ; arrd our frierrds, 
oirr Democratic friends, thiirking it a ba<l field to work in, left it pretty 
rnirch to itself ; and in other' years our Rcjutblican frierrds, errter’tairring 
a kind Of in id(‘ irr the banner ward, went to settle there, and jirst irr that 
way we built it irp ; so we continued to grow stronger as a jve]>ubHcan 
ward and weaker' as a Derrrocratic ward. Tliose are the facts of the 
case. 

Q. Have you the figures so as to give trs the registration of that ward 
front time to time ?—A. No, sit'; rrot fronr time to time. 

(.}. Give ns such as yon are able ti) fhi iiish.—A. There was a ce.nsus 
takerr in 1875; brrt a census trever can be taken cori’ectly irr a city, you 
know. 

Q,. dust state the facts, Mr. ^Moore.—A. If you will allow me to 
qualify one fact with arrother. 

Q. Qiralify what fact ?—A. Well, this is the fact, that the colored 
jreople live in yards and ('ongr(‘gate all together', and it is almost irrrpos- 
sible to get the exact numbers; and wheir the cerrsirs-taker goes after 
the facts he cannot get them. Then, they will work in tfie houses, and 
when the census-takm' comes to the hou.se the jn^oplc give the actual 
inirrates, and not tho.se servants, -It is not correct, therefore, but as 
given therr the census stood thus: 10,(>47 whit('; 10,870 colored; Ghine.se 
ami Indians, 7; makitrg !?l,5d3. Now there air* foreigners rrot natui'al- 
ized, 551, etpral lo a populatiorr of 2,000 not r(‘p!esentrul irr the census. 

Q Wherr was that (auisns taken ?—A. 1875. The colored votes were 
2,001, the white voters 2,121, leaving a colored balance of 540 voters. 
That left a rrrajority on the color-liire of 540 voters; we add to that 
sorrre 210 white Heimblicans, which would give us at that time rrearly a 
major ity of 800 votes. 

By Sen a tor Hill : 

Tiien you think, Mr. Moore, that every colored man is natui'ally 
a Ibqmblican ?~A. Well, yes, sir; that seems to be our experieirce. 

(^. Go on, .‘'ii', with your stoi'y.—A. The registi'ation of 187() was 
about 0,100, and the white registtjation in that was 2,0.83, about. There 
may be one or two ditfeience, but if you will examine the records you 


730 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


will find that nearly right. The colored registration was 3,483, leaving 
a colored majority of 800. At that time there were 100 white Republi¬ 
cans, which gave us nearly a Eepublican majority of 900. If there had 
been a fair expression of the voters of the ward, we would have had a 
majority of 900 instead of 54. That was the number that I had, and I 
was the lowest candidate that was elected. I beat the highest Demo¬ 
cratic candidate that was elected by 54 votes; that is, on the face of 
the returns, counting all the polls ; and when thrown out by the board, 
I beat the liighest Democratic candidates 54 votes, which is certified to 
by Major Burke and his board of canvassers. 

Q. Have you that certificate with you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you produce it ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Senator Hill, the chairman, here interrupted the proceedings to state 
that he would not subpoena any more witnesses for impeachment. Said 
he: I was instructed by the chairman of the committee before coming 
to say that I would subpoena an equal number for each side. I disre¬ 
garded that instruction, and I state now that I vvill issue no more sub¬ 
poenas unless it is stated what he is subpoenaed for, or that he is an 
officer of the government. 

Senator Cameron. Is that to apply to all—to both sides? 

Senator Hill. Yes, I think so; and to both sides I announce it now. 
I wish I had carried out Senator Saulsbury’s suggestion. It is a good 
rule. 

The action of the chairman was noted in the record. 

Senator Kellogg. If the witnesses appear then they will not be 
sworn ? 

Senator Hill. I have not said that. I stated that I will not issue 
any more subpoenas for you or for the other side unless you state what 
you expect to prove by the witness. I have issued 58 subpoenas for 
you and 23 for Judge Spofford. That is about 25 more for you than for 
him. For a specific matter, if any should occur, I suppose the commit¬ 
tee will let you do so, but otherwise, I have decided to stop issuing 
subpoenas. 

Senator Kellogg. Does the rule apply also to Federal officers who 
are not under pay from the committee? 

Senator Vance. Our time here is limited, and we will have to exer¬ 
cise our discretion in that. 

The examination of the witness Moore was resumed. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What statement is this which you have presented?—A. It is the 
statement of the Democratic canvassing committee, consisting of Burke, 
McGloin, Cavanac, Cauthreaux, and sworn to before William H. 
Holmes, second justice of the peace for the parish of Orleans. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. What is the date of it?—A. The 7th of December, 1876. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Where was that published; in what newspaper?—A. In the rec¬ 
ognized Democratic official organ of that date. I do not think it was 
the Democrat, but I think it was another paper. 

Senator Cameron offered the statement in evidence, and it was ad¬ 
mitted, (see p. 993.) 

By Senator Cameron, resuming: 

Q. One witness testified that you a*fid two other persons went to his 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


731 


bouse at night and obtained certain papers connected with the election 
and took them away, and he has never had them in his possession 
since ? 

Senator Hill. And that yon refused to restore them the next day ? 

A.-As to retnsing to restore them I do not know anything about that. 

I know the day after the election we went there. 

Senator Cameron. Who went ? 

A. jNIr. Gondolfi and his clerk and myself went there. 

Q. To whose house?—A. Mr. Tournade’s, the Democratic commis¬ 
sioner of election. AVe found they had adjourned the poll at 3 o’clock 
without completing tin; count and returning the box to the office, which 
was required under the law, and we went to the other commissioner, 
Mr. , and we ascertained that he held no papers in his posses¬ 

sion as to the state of that i)oll, and we asked him where the statement 
and papers were, and he said Mr. Davenport and the Democratic com¬ 
missioner had taken them to his house, and I found these did not have 
them. I thought this did not have a tendency to increase my majority, 
and I got ai)prehensive of the result, and we went to the house of Air. 
Tournade. Mr. Tournade was the Democratic commissioner, and we 
found him lying on the bed and partly under the influence of a very 
strong oi)iate, 1 suppose, as he was not drunk. He was delirious and 
could not tell us anything. He was apparently under the influence of 
a drug, and that is the way I judged him. He could not answer, and 
he was not drunken, and we could not get an answer or anything from 
him. The supervisor looked on the table and saw on the table a roll 
of papers, and saw it was the unsigned tally-list, and he said: “1 will 
take this. It is the only check we have on this i)arty who is about to 
violate the law and tinker with the returns or doctor them.” The su¬ 
pervisor took that to his domicile, but whether he lefused to give them 
up the next day I do not know. He took it as a matter of protection 
to the State as an oflicer of the State. 

Q. What s])ecial right had Tournade to these papers ?—A. They all 
violated the law in adjourning and not completing the count and send-, 
ing it to the clerks of tlie suj»erior court. 

Q. Wliat did the law require ?—A. It required them to remain there 
and comj)lete the count and make the return. 

Q. I will call your attention now to the testimony of Peter Williams, 
in which he states that on one or two occasions he had a conversation 
with you in regard to that election in that ward.—A. Well- 

Q. Wait one moment. “Aloore and I have had several conversations 
on the subject of Governor Kellogg’s election to the United States Senate, 
and Aloore said tliere was no quorum and the clerks answered to the 
names of members. Aloore said the evidence he had was very valu¬ 
able to the Democrats, probably $10,000, and I was asked to go into 
the combination, and he got a place in the custom-house, and, as he 
was provided for, he did not desire to give the evidence.”—A. I would 
state that I have not lost, at any time, my place in the custom-house. I 
was ai)pointed a gauger sometime last year, and 1 have not been dis¬ 
charged since then. 1 knocked off work for a time, for a i)urpose of my 
own. 

Q. That was voluntary on your part?—A. Yes, sir; I had a purpose, 
and the collector and I had a talk, and he said he would leave me un¬ 
assigned for ten days, or at least a month, and I took advantage ot 
these circumstances, and as it was understood that I was discharged, 
and as 1 was a person of an inquisitive nature, I knew what the Demo¬ 
crats wanted, and I was linding out what they were doing. 



752 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. AA'liat was it they wanted?—A. I knew-they wanted that seat in 
the Senate. 

Q. The seat wliich is now held by Kello^x^?—A. A^es, sir; ajid as a 
Ivejniblican I was as innch interested in Kellogg' getting’ his seat and 
keeping it as the Democrats were to get it, and 1 moved around to see 
what was the programme of the party, and what ])rogramme they had 
])erfec'ed. 1 went around to see what was the state of feeling since the 
State had been taken from us. Since then we liave had a hard time, 
and it is a hard thing on the Kepublicans. I talked to parties, and to 
numbers of these disaffected Republicans, and wi)ile I conversed with 
th(‘m, which had a tendency to mislead them, I think I said it for the 
best of effects. I know all of it was not based on facts. 1 have said 
so to others, and I stated about anywhere that what 1 had to give to the 
Democrats I thought was worth a hundred thousand dollars, and I say 
so now. 

Q. ATou say that now, do you?—A. A"es, sir; and I think it would be 
worth five hundred thousand dollars. 1 do not want to be misunder¬ 
stood ; and I found out the programme of my Democratic friends, and 
that it was regarded b}^ them as a foregone conclusion, without regard 
to what the testimony was, that the removal of Governor Kellogg had 
been decided on as the result of a Democratic (iainms, and that he was 
to go out ii'iespective of the evidence affecting his title. I did not say 
it is so, but 1 say that 1 received it from gentlemen who are taking 
charge of the interests of Mr. Spoffbrd. They stated it as an induce¬ 
ment to weak Republicans, and would tell them that Kellogg was gone, 
that it was a I'oregone conclusion, and you had better fall in now, gen¬ 
tlemen, and make your standing with decent peo[)Ie. 

Q. Now as to a quoi um, whether there was or not at the time Governor 
Kellogg was elected?—A. There was certainly a quorum present; 1 
know that. 

Q. Major Burke intimated in his testimony that he discovered that 
about three hundred dnjdicate registration papers wereDsued.—A. It 
»couid not be done, sir, and I will explain it to you. Suppose you regis¬ 
tered me as AY. J. Moore, and fill it out with the status that pertains to 
me as a voter; then Senator Hill comes to you to give him a du[)licate, 
as Senator Hill; it ceases to be a duplicate if iie gives it to yon, and he 
cannot use it as such for the ])nr})ose of voting; then, sir, to giv^e such 
testimony to the countiy is absurd. 

Q. 1 do not think his testimony is given here quite properly. He 
said the same names were given on some jiapers. 

Senator A^ance. I think he said it could not be done in any other way 
than with the connivance of the supervisor and the clerks. 

The Witness. It could not be done, sir, even then, because, sir, they 
had an asssistant supervisor there. They had a Democratic supervisor. 

Senator Vance. 1 am glad to see that you think a Democrat is 
honest. 

The Witness. I say that it could not be done. Senator. 

Q. Was it done by your connivance ?—A. Ko, sir; I defy Alajor Burke 
to say that I did. I will give you an idea, for instance [illustrating on 
a piece of paper], here is a book ; here is the number on this side, and 
that is filled by Senator Cameron’s name; here is another number on 
this side; here is Senator Hill’s name; here comes a name, and the num¬ 
ber is opi)osite, and when the party votes the number is erased. 

Q. Major Burke stated, I think, that any voter could vote at any pre¬ 
cinct in his ward ?—A. it don’t make any difference. Senator; each poll- 
list is an exact fac simile of the other; it could not be done, sir; and if 


SPOFFORL) VS. KELLOGG. 


733 


these poll-lists are in the hands ot the Democratic canv^assin^; committee, 
and this evidence is in the hands of the Democratic party, Major Burke 
would not come here with his testimony, but brin^^ the documentary tes¬ 
timony. It it were done in that case, poll number 2 would show, for in¬ 
stance, that Senator \ ance voted at that poll on this day, and at poll 
number 3 Senator Cameron voted, on number 1,000. Both of them 
could not vote legally on that number at those two polls. Major 
Burke is such a man as could not be deceived by that; if it were done, 
he would have those tall.y sheets here; it is impossible to do it, it can¬ 
not be done, ami I defy the proof of it. 

Q. Were any of those i)apers used with your connivance in that ward ? 
—A. No, sir. 

Senator Vance. I believe that’s all. ' 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. Mr. ^Mooie, I wish to understand you; all we want are-the facts in 
the case. 

The Witness. 1 will ^ive them to you. I did not intend to give any 
opinion, but will give you the facts. 

Q. The statements made by Peter Williams as to his conversation be¬ 
tween you and him, are they correct?—A. Please state the facts. 

Q. Tliey were read to you by Senator Cameron.— A. They were not 
the facts, sir. 

Q. J^idn’t you have that interview at that meeting with Peter Will¬ 
iams at the custom-house ?—A. I had several with him. I met him up 
there several times. 

Q. Didn’t he follow you to your residence ?—A. I don’t know, sir; he 
was down there. 

Q. Did you not state to him that you were discharged from the cus¬ 
tom-house ?—A. I left that impression on him ; but 1 will insist on (juali- 
fying my statement. 

Q. You have explained your motive, sir, and I do not want it again. 
You answer my question.—A. This is the committee, sir. 

Q. Y^es, sir, it is the committee and it regulates this examination. 
Were the facts .stated by Mr. Peter AVilliams that you and he had con¬ 
versations together on the idea you both were discliarged from the cus¬ 
tom-house, and you both knew damaging testimony with regard to Mr. 
Kellogg—were these facts true ?—A. VV"e had sevcual conversaiions. 
Peter was very .sore, and I was in .sympathy with Peter; he was like 
a great many others who didn’t know what to do, but I wanted to see 
Peter- 

Q. Sto]); you have said that the conversations took place; now, in 
those conversations did you present to him that you knew facts that 
would show there was no (luorurn in the Packard legislature ?—A. 1 did 
not. 

(^. Did you represent anything of the .sort ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you repre.sent to him that Kellogg was not elected to the 
United States Senate ?—A. 1 did not. 

(^). Did you repre.sent to him, after you got back into the custom- 
hon.se—have you represented to him that you did not want to testify ?— 
A. I intended to convey that idea to what you refer, and 1 did ; but I 
was not di.scharged from the custom-house. 

Q. Did you reiire.sent yourself, Air. Aloore ?—A. Ye.s, sir. 

(,). Afterwards you concluded to throw off yonr mask, if you choo.se to 
call it so, and he went to your house. Did you tell him that you would 
not testify before this committee ?—A. 1 did not. 



734 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


Q. Did you tell him that you would not help the Democratic party 
without you got paid % —A. I did not word my language to him in that 
way. I said that if he did it he was a fool; that the Democratic party 
would pay him thousands of dollars, and if he testified, that he ought to 
get it; that the Democratic party wanted that said, and if he did it and 
gave it to them, he was a fool. 

Q. Did you tell him you would swear that the moon was made out of 
green cheese ?—A. I said that if he were to do it and get in a bad odor, 
that before I would do it I would swear that the moon was made of green 
cheese. 

Q. Did you sa^^^ that you would swear it?—A. There was no necessity 
for it, Senator. Mr. Williams did not represent the facts. There are 
no facts in all this business. 

Q. Did he want your opinion, and did you not tell him to come to the 
custom house and see him ?—A. Yes, sir; that is the fact. 

Q. And he came there and did not see you, and followed you to your 
house ?—A. Y^es, sir; that is a fact. 

Q. And 3 ’ou said he was a fool to give himself away to the Democratic 
party, and that he should not say so and so?—A. I said he was a fool if 
he did so. 

Q. You say you made this arrangement so that you would appear as 
having been discharged from the custom-house?—A. It was a freak of 
my own. I stated that I was discharged by the collector of internal 
revenue office. 

Q. How did you come to seem to be discharged ?—A. I say, sir, it 
was a freak of my own. 

Q. Whom did you agree with that you were to appear discharged ?— 
A. With myself. 

Q. How long were you out of the custom-house ?—A. I was out a 
month. 

Q. Was your paj* running on at the time?—A. Not a cent of it. 

Q. You were a spy, then, on the Democratic party ?—A. You may call 
it that if you please. 

Q. I grade the thing by your motive. You were, as I understand you, 
a sort of self constituted detective?—A. You may call it that, if you 
please. 

Q. Did you leave the custom-house with the consent of your superior 
officer?—A. He left me without any assignment. 

Q. Did he know of your purpose ?—A. No more, sir, than you know.. 

Q. Did you leave at his request?—A. I told you he did not know 
anything about it. 

Q. Did you leave off work at your own request ?—A. He left me with¬ 
out any assignment at my own request. 

Q. How came he to leave you without an assignment?—A. You will 
have to get that from the collector. 

Q. Then it wms an act of the collector ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Without regard to your consent?—A. I had no consent in the 
matter. I am not a learned man, and I did not ask to be left as¬ 
signed. 

Q. Why did he leave you unassigned ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. You and the collector had a talk, and you say he left you unas¬ 
signed?—A. I say not, sir; 1 did not have a talk with him, and he did 
not leave me unassigned for that reason. 

Q. Were you left unassigned by the act of the collector alone or by 
your consent ?—A. By the act of the collector alone. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGtJ. 735 

Q. Iben your being unassi^ned bad no reference to this purpose of 
yours ?—A. None whatever. 

(,>. Tlien the collector did not know anything of your purpose ?—A. 
Nothing whatever. In relation to this understanding I want to make 
an explanation. 

Senator Camkuon. It is no matter now, ]Mr. Moore. Later on you can 
do so. 

Senator Hill. I do not want any explanation. Now, yon stated 
that leading Democrats here told you that it was the result of a l)h*:n- 

ocratic Senate caucus, that Governor Kellogg was to lose his seat?_A. 

A"es, sir. 

Q. They said that Kellogg was to be turned out anyhow ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Now, what leading Democrats told you that ?—A. I would >tate 
that it was common street rumor. 

Q. That is not it, sir. I want to know who among the prominent 
Democrats told you so?—A. I do not want to be forced to tell that. 

Q. Well, sir, consider yourself force 1 to tell than.—A. There is a gen¬ 
tleman there, Mr. Walker. He stated that he was going out, you can bet 
your bottom dollar, and he said, I want to make a good case, and you 
can help me. Now, Senator, i did not want to do this. 

Q. Well, you say you had a purpose in all this, and that is what you 
mean, is it?—A. Yes, sir; I was about it while you were on your way 
here Ifom Georgia. 

Q. The other day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At the time you were acting detective you did not hear this, then f 
—A. It has been talked about all along. 

Q. Then if I understand you you did not get it from leading J)emo- 
crats, but from common street rumor?—A. 1 understand a street rumor 
to be street talk. 

Q. Then you did not learn trorn any Democrat that the Senate caucus 
would do this thing ?—A. No, sir. 1 heard it, 1 reckon, a thousand 
times. 

Q. Who told you there had been a Senate caucus that decided he 
should go out ? Is there an> body that you can remember who told you 
there had been any Senate caucus at all ?—xV. I shall have to tell you 
that I disremember. You won’t be satisfied if I do these things. 

Q. Therefore you tell me you do not remember ? Is that it ? Now, 
will you repeat what Mr. Walker said ?—A. I will state what 1 heard 
Mr. Williams say in the ollice of Judge Walker when I went there for 
the purpose of seeing Mr. Williams. 

Q. Was that Barney Williams ?—A. I do not know, sir. You will ex¬ 
cuse ipe, Senator, but i was not personally acquainted with even the 
judge’s face. I went up there and inquired tor Mr. Williams, and he 
said he was not jiresent, and I started to leave. 

Did Mr. Walker call you back ?— A. He came to the head of the 
stairs, and you [addressing Mr. Walkeij said, ‘‘This is Mr. Moore?” 

Mr. Walker. 1 said‘‘Is your name ^Moore ? A. Yes, sir. And 
then I addressing Mr. Hillj he says “ I have heard of .Nou, and I have 
told Mr. Williams to bring you to my olli(,‘e.’’and 1 told him, “Yes, 
sir,’’ although I had not heard ol that. Still I told him yes. He 
sai i, “ 1 piesumeyon know my mission,” and I said, “ Yes, sir”; and he 
sa '*, ‘‘ 1 am satisfied if you wish to, .\(>u can give evidence of great 
valnotons”; and In* said, “Mr. Williams sjieaks highly of you,” and 
complin.eiitt'd jne, I thiidv, more than 1 (h served. He said, “ 1 want to 
tell ycai Kellogg is going out; that is setlleil ; and 1 am conducting 


736 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


this case, but I liav^e not got it to what 1 want to make it. T want it 
clean through, ami I want to accumuhite some points that will make 
our case a good case.'’ I told him, “Yes, sir; as a lawyer that was 
right; still as to his Ivellogg’s getting out of his seat, we \yant some 
evidence to make the case better torus than it is” [ said, “ Well, 
judge, I would rather discuss this matter with Mr. Williams, and have 
him present; I prefer to canvass it a while, and communicate with you 
through Mr. Williams. He will tell you all about it.” 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Did Mr. Walker say, or intimate to you, that 
he wanted anything that v/as not true ?—A. He did not. 

Q. Did he intimate to you that Kellogg was going out of the Senate 
without regard to the testimony?—A. He said. He is going out; you 
can bet on that. 

Q. Did you understand him to mean without regard to the testimony 
or anything of that kind?—A. He did; he said t)ositively, He is go- 
ingout. 

Q. Did he use ihela igLiage, ‘ regardb'ss of the te tiinouy’’?—A. He 
said, “ He is going v)ut. It is fixed.” 

Q. Answer my question.—A. He said, “ It is fixed ; he is going out.” 

Q. You have said two or three that he said that; now give me the 
language.—A. He said, as near as I can remembei'. Senator, “It is a 
foregone conclusion ; Kellogg is going out; but I wish to make a good 
case of this. • If I can, it is better to do so.” 

Q. Did Mr. AValker say that it was a foregone conclusion that Kel¬ 
logg was going out without regard to tlie facts?—A. He did not say 
those words. The facts were about as I have stated. He said those 
things. 

Q. I ask you now, and T want a categorical answer, did he say that 
Kellogg would go out, witliout relerence to the facts and the testimony ? 
—A. I say that is the idea that he conveyed to me in his language. 

Q. Did he say anything about the farts ?—A. I do not remember. 

Q. Did he use the word “regardless”?—A. I don’t remember. 

Q. Did he use the word “ testimony ”?—A. 1 do not know. I under¬ 
stood, and I told you so, that was the impression left on my mind. 

Q. I see that it was your inference. 

At this point a passage of words between Mr. Walker and the wit¬ 
ness on the stand, which was sup[)ressed by the chairman. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Did you say to Mr. Peter Williams, or any¬ 
body else, at any time, that Kellogg was not elected to the Senate, and 
that you knew the fact, and that it would be valuable to the Democratic 
party to show it all u[)?—A. 1 don’t recollect that 1 did to any individual 
in particular; but say, if 1 did, I had my reasons to do so, and it wasn’t 
true when 1 said it. 

Q. It was not true, you say?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you intended that it should mislead them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you intended at the time they should undei-stand it that you 
were saying it when you knew it was untrue?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that you didn’t know these facts ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that you intended to testify to them?—A. Yes, sir, 1 did; 
but I saw after I did that. Senator- 

Q. Hold up now. Yb)u said a while ago that you had some talk with 
the collector on the subject. What was it?—A. I went to see him and 
asked him why I was not assigned, and he said there are more gaugers 
than there is work, and that the government department had sent word 
to throw off some; that it was costing the government too much, and 
that he had to send some of them off and give us turns at the work. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 737 

Q. Then tliat had nothin" to do with your purpose in quittin"?—A. 
Notliiiifj at all. 

Q. (l>.v Senator \ ANCE.) How long before the election was it that you 
resigned ?—A. It was onl}" a very short time. 

How short a time ?—A. I think it was a da}’ or so, i)erhaps a 
couple of (lavs. 

i). \ou stated that this order issued by Governor Hahn to the super¬ 
visors was dated on the 4th. When was it published or made kfiowii 
to the cotnmunity ?—A. Well, sir. Major Hmkeand the representatives, 
that is, Judge Whitaker, who were representing the Democratic i)arty, 
were in continuous correspondencie with theofiice of the State registrar. 
They knew it as soon as it was issued. 

Q. Was it issued the same day it was dated ?—A. I siq)pose so, but 
I do not know. 

Q. Who succeeded you as assistant supervisor.—A. My chief clerk. 

Q. What was his name ?—xV. ]Mr. Gondolti. 

Q. Is it true that he could not be found at his otlice on the day of the 
eh^ction ?—xV. That cannot be true because he was in the ward su[)er- 
vising the election while it was going on. 1 will state that it is not true. 
He could not be found by everybody in the ward. 

Q. Was he at his post ?—A. 1 do not know. 1 suppose he was. My 
wife was sick, and I staid at home pretty much all tlie time. 

Q. You do not know of your own knowledge that he wasn’t at his 
post f—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Did you erase some two hundred names from the registration list 
before you resigned.—xV. In our capacity as otiicers, as 1 explained to 
you at the custom liouse, in the presence of Major Burke and tlie Demo¬ 
cratic representatives, we made erasures, but not the number you stated. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Well, a hundred and forty-seven, then; what¬ 
ever was said, did you erase those names?—A. xV hundred and forty- 
seven were not all. 

Q. (By Senator Vance.) Were there two hundred and forty-seven 
proven to you that you refused to erase ?—xV. There were none proven. 

Q. There were not two hundred and forty-seven affidavits tiled with 
you and you refused to erase those names?—A. Not with me, sir; we 
erased the names together—we and the Democratic rei)resentatives. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Just answer the question, and don’t repeat it 
over again. When the registration was com[)leted, how many days be¬ 
fore the election did the law require that the registration should close? 
—A. 1 think nine days, sir. 

Q. Nine days ?—xV. 1 think that, sir, you know, but I am not posi¬ 
tive. 

Q. AVere .the registration of each of the polling-places separate or 
were (he whole of tliem in one book?—A. Well, generally they were on 
one polling-list. 

Q. And any man who was on the general polling-list for the ward 
could vote on the certificate he was registered on at any polling-place 
in the ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many polling-places were there in the ward?—A. Somebody 
said seven or eight. 1 think there were twelve, but I can’t state it posi¬ 
tively. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Was the entire list of voters at each polling-place on the day of 
election, wards yon know ?—A. Yes, sir; they were at each polling- 
place. 

47 s K 


738 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. The chairman of the committee has examined yon to some great 
length with regard to your motive for deceiving the Democrats, as you 
have said you did. But 1 don’t think he permitted you to state your 
motive then. Now I ask yon what it wasi—A. Well, sir, as a Repub¬ 
lican, I am interested in keeping that seat in the Senate. That was my 
motive. There is nothing I can do to hold that seat in the Senate but 
what 1 will do it, just the same as Fitzpatrick is working in the interest 
of the Democratic party. And he is a good worker, too. 

Q. State the conversation that you had with the collector, if you had 
any conversation with him, with regard to this project ?—A. No, sir; he 
would not stand it, if I were to tell him of it. He has more scruples 
than I have and would not stand it. 

Q. Now, what did you understand from Mr. Walker’s talk with you 
with regard to the determination the Democratic party had come to with 
reference to unseating Mr. Kellogg ?—A. I understood that irrespective 
of developments that might affect his title, he was going out. 

Q. Then you understand that this committee is now engaged in hunt¬ 
ing up an excuse to turn him out?—A. That is just the way 1 under¬ 
stood it. 

Q. What language did he use with reference to turning out Mr. Kel¬ 
logg ?—A. Well, 1 said the talk to be about Mr. Kellogg. The most he 
said was, I said I had no use for him, and he agreed with me. He said 
our object is to elicit testimony, and he said, I believe you have it and 
I think you could render us valuable services if you would testify. As 
to Kellogg, he is going out, and that’s settled. If he stays in he is un¬ 
grateful and you can count on him. 1 agreed with him. He said, what 
we want is to make the condition next with him so as to have him out 
before he is going at night. 

By Mr. Walker. About what time was that ? Was it earlier than the 
15th or IGth of this mouth ?—A. I really cannot say. 1 think it was 
Friday. 

Q. Before the meeting of this committee?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the first interview you ever had with me?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You didn’t know me before that ?—A. No, sir, and I only recog¬ 
nized you by your telling me your name. 

Q. 1 didn’t call you by name. Didn’t you tell me that your name 
was Moore?—A. You came after me and said, “Your name is Mr. 
Moore,’’ and I said “Yes.” 

By Senator Yance: 

Q. Don’t you call that telling your name ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, that’s enough now, go on. 

The witness was thereupon discharged. 

On motion, the committee took a recess until 10 o’clock a. m. Wed¬ 
nesday, November 2G, 1879. 


New Orleans, Wednesday^ Noveniber 2G—10 a. m. 

Sub committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present, all of the 
members; also Mr. O. L. Walker, counsel for the memorialist; the 
memorialist, Henry M. Spofford, and the sitting member, (Senator Will- 
iam Pitt Kellogg.) 

Senator Hill. The committee will come to order. Well, gentlemen 
who will you have called now ? Senator Kellogg, do you desire to pro¬ 
duce your witnesses ? 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir; and we would like to have Mr. 0. S. 
Abell first. 




SPOFF’ORD Vs. KELLOGG. 739 

TESTIMONY OF C. S. ABELL. 

C. S. Abell, a witness called in behalf of the sittinjif member, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do yon reside?—Answer. In this city. 

Q How lon^: have yon lived here ?—A. Since January, 1872. 

(^. What is yonr oc(5Ui)ati()n at the present time?—A. Lain in the 
custom-house, emjjloyed by the government. 

Q. What connection di«l you have with the returning board in 1870 
and 1877 ?—A. I was its secretary. 

Q. Where were its sessions held?—A. In the State-house; the old 
Saint Louis Hotel. 

Q. Who was in possession of the papers and books and records of 
that body ?—A. I was, sir. 

Q. It has been stated here by a witness named Howser, who has tes¬ 
tified before this committee—I think he stated that he frecpiently saw 
]\Ir. Blanchard and Mr. Jewett itj a small room adjoining Governor 
Kellogg’s ofiice at his private residence with papers that looked like 
poll-lists and election returns, and that Blamdiard told him they were 
working on the retnims. Will yon j)lease inform this committee whether 
any j)apers belonging to the returning of board, or to the i)ossession of 
which they were entitled, went out of their possession by Blanchard and 
Jewett?—A. They were not, sir; they never were out of their posses¬ 
sion. 

Q. State who had access .to the papers belonging to the returning 
board ?—A. No person but the members of the returning board and the 
clerks who were working on them. 

Q. AVere Blanchard and Jewett clerks who were working on them ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Did they ever work on them to your knowledge ?~A. They never 
did. 

Q. State whether or not Governor Kellogg had access to those pa¬ 
pers.—A. I never saw Governor Kellogg in the office of the board dur¬ 
ing the sessions of the board. 

Q. Now you may state, if you know, whether or not any of the 
returns'made to the returning board were altered in any respect, except 
the returns from A^ei non Parish ?—A. None, sir, that I have any knowl¬ 
edge of, except the alterations that the board ordered regarding certain 
places ; that is all. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. At what time did you receive your appointment as secretary of 
the board ?—A. In the tall ot 1874, sir. 

Q. What time did the board get to work, or commence to canvass the 
election of 187() ?—A. I could not tell you the eNact date, but it was ten 
days after the election ; that is the law. 

Q. Were they continuously in session until the matter was concluded ? 
—A. \^‘S, sir. 

Q. AVere you there all the time?—A. I was, sir. 

Q. Were vou present .in the secret and executive sessions of the 

Loan! ?_A. I was present at the sessions of the board; but 1 do not 

exactlv understand that question. 

Q, Did they not have secret sessions—the board met for the open 
canvass and afterwards held consultations among themselves ?—xV. No, 


740 


SPOFFORD Vi^ KELLOGG. 


sir; I was not ])rnsent, and knew nothing of what was going on, only 
as they coininnnicated to me the result and what they wanted done. 

Q. iJow often did they have them ?—A. Every day, after the open 
canvass. 

Q. And they communicated to you the result of what tliey had deter¬ 
mined upon ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They did reject a good many i)olls, didn’t they?—A. I believe that 
is a matter of history 

Q. Didn’t they reject a good itmny where there was no protest filed ? 
—A. Not that 1 know of 

Q. Don’t you know whether there was any protest against all they 
reject* d ?—A. I did not examine all the papers, hud I do not know. 

Q. You did not examine all of the papers, you say?—A. No, sir; I 
did not. 

Q. Where are you emjdoyed now?—A. In the custom-house. 

Q. What do you do there ?—A. 1 am in the collector’s office, iu the 
cai)acity of assistant entry clerk. 

Q. How long have you been there?—A. I was appointed the 25th of 
Se])tember, 1877. 

Q. Have you been there ever since?—A. Y^'es, sir. 

Q. YVhat is your salary ?—A. Fourteen hundred dollars. 

Q. You came here in 1872 ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Where from ?—A. Ohio, sir. 

Q. Are you a native there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you raised there?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And you came from there here ?—A. Yes, sir ; from Trumbull 
County, town of Warren, in Trumbull County. 

Q. Do you know anything about the YYimon Parish returns ?—A. Do 

1 know anything about it? 

Q. Yes, sir; about that forgery ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Did you have any knowledge of it at the time?—A. At the time 
it was committed ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. Such things could be committed without your knowledge, Mr. 
Abell?—A. I suppose so; there were a large number of papers there 
and several clerks. 

Q. There were a great many things that could be done then without’ 
your knowledge ?—A. Yes, sir; certainly. 

Q. The members of the returning board had free access to all the pa¬ 
pers ?—A. Most assuredly. 

Q. They had control of them?—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. What were your business hours during the meeting of the return-, 
ing board?—A. They met as a rule at 8 o’clock, and sat sometimes to 

2 o’clock next morning. 

Q. Every night?—A. No, sir; it wms after public sessions, and they 
retired to compile the returns. 

Q. How long did the public sessions last?—A. From 10 to 2 or 3 
o’clock. 

Q. Then they went into secret session?—A. No, sir; after their open 
session, and after the visiting statesmen had been there, 1 didn’t go into 
the sessions; that was the day after these returns came up. ^ 

Q. How long did it last?—A. I think four days. ' 

Q. The secret session lasted a day and. night?—A. It was necessary, 
sir, to work in the whole twenty-four hours in order to get the work 
completed. 

Q. You went home every night, I suppose ?—A. Certainly. 


SPOFFORI) VS. KELLOGG. 741 

Q. \N liat tiino did you jro home ?—A. Alwa^’s on tlie adjournment of 
the boaicl. 

Q. ’ion mean of the oj)en session?—A. No, sir; the .secret session; 
the (rlerks all remained until the hoard notified ns it had adjourned for 
the <lay; the i)apers were then j)ut awaj’ and left in charge ot the 
watchman. 

(,). Who was he?—xV. A |)oliceman. 

Q. Yon had a j^uard ‘there too, didn’t you, a military guard ?— A, 
Never in the world. 

It was a ])oliceman there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. xVbell, give us some descrii)tion of the situation of the differ¬ 
ent rooms. Did the secret session meet in the same room with the oi)en 
session ?—A. No, sir; it did not. 

(}. What relation did the two rooms h ive, or what was the situation 
of the secret room with reference to the other rooms?—xV. The ojreri 
sessions were held, sir, in the senate chamber, and you werrt througli a 
hall to get to the other rooms; there was no connection between the 
two back rooms at all. 

Q. How marry rooms did you have?—A. We used three; I had one 
as a ])rivate otfice, and another for the clerks; the adjoirring oire was 
where tire board met. 

After the secret sessions?—A. No, sir; when they errteied into 
the secret .session. 

Q. When they went irrto secret session how many clerks or secreta¬ 
ries were irreseiit?—xV. No one was present but the board. 

Q. In these sessions yon say no one was pi’esent but the board ?— A. 
Norte, sir; the papers were serrt back to us with a memorandum what 
to do with fhent, and therr they did the clerical work on it. We just car¬ 
ried out what the board put orr these papers. 

Q. How many weeks were they in session ?—xi. Well, sir, some time 
in Jairuaiy the board went to Washirrgton ; I do not remember the ex¬ 
act date. 

Q. They were in sessiorr about two months, wereidtthey ?—xV. Yes, sir; 
all of two months. 

(2. How many clerks were there in the compiling-room ?—xV. I think 
I had trine, sir. 

(,). Yoit think there were nitre?— A. A'es, sir. 

You were the head of therrr ?—xV. No, sir; we had a chief clerk. 

Q. But you wert; the head of the de|)arttrretrt ?—xV. No, sir; not of 
the clerical force; we had a chief clerk for that. 

Q. Where was the chief work done on the retirrrrs, irr the oirerr or in 
the .secret rootrr ?—xV. Do you trrean the clerical work ? 

Q. 1 rrrearr the work of the board. The executive busiiress was dorre 
in tire secret sessiorr, arrd they sitrrirly brought the le.sult to the clerks 
aird let it be recorderl?—xV. Yes, sir; the leturrrs were .serrt to them, 
arrd as they were serrt to thenr alphalretically, thc'y would take these 
retuirrs ami pajrers arrd make a carrvass arrd attach a rrrerrrorartdurn iu 
l»eircil to the returrr and retunr it to the office, arrd the clerks would 
carry out the irrstructioirs orr the nrerrtoiarrdutrr. 

(). Were not those cler ks—you say there were rrirre of them—were 
they rrot at work irr th(‘. back roorrr while the operr sessiorr was going 
on ?— A. They wrue, sir. 

Q. Wer e \oir irr there with therrr, or’ irr the operr session ?—A. 1 was 
in arrd out, Imt gerrerally irr the operr board wherr irr .sessiorr. 

Q. Do you kirow arrythirrg about whether Hoverrror Kellogg was ever 
in that secret room with the boartl ?—A. Never to rny kirowledge. 


742 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You were not in there yourself?—A. It would be difficult for 
him, sir, or anybody, to get in there without a card. 

Q. You were not the guard to that room, were yoq ?—A. I was or¬ 
dered not to send anybody in there without sending a (;ard. 

Q. Did you ever admit anybody to that room ?—A. Xo, sirj I never 
did ; my orders were positive. 

Q. Were you there all the time while the board was in secret ses¬ 
sion ?—A. 1 was. 

Q. And you never went home until it adjourned ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Yon staid there until the secret session adjourned ?—A. I did. 

Q. What connection did Jewett have with these things ?—A. Not any 
at all, to my knowledge. 

Q. Who was Mr. Blanchard!—A. He was executive clerk in the 
governor’s office. 

Q. He was the general clerk !—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. How far was the governor’s office from the secret session !—A. 
Entirely at the other end of the building. 

Q. How far do you say it was!—A. It was at the other extreme end 
of the building. 

Q. I wish you would describe the rotunda, the large room in which 
the board met, and the three other rooms. Gan you put it in a diagram ! 
—A. I am not good at that sort of business, and I have not been in 
there for some time. 

Q. Was it in the present senate chamber !—A. I believe it was; that’s 
as near as I can get at it. That is the rotunda there, and next to it the 
hall [presenting and ])ointing to a diagram roughly sketched.] 

Q. Then*, yon say, is where the rotunda is!—A. Yes, sir; and that 
is the hall ; that entirely goes around it, and 3^011 pass through this 
hall; here is the other hall. 

Q. Here^ you say, is the other hall!—A. Yes, sir; there was one 
room ; here was another, which was my private office, and here was 
where the clerks worked, and in here the boar<l met in secret session ; 
there was a connection this way. 

Q. There were four rooms, then !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was this room for !—A. That was the guard-rootn, where 
the policeman staid. 

Q. He was your private guard, was -he !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And this^ you say, was the secret room !—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. How did you enter it; from the hall !—A. Yes, sir; there were two 
doors—one from the hall ami one communicating with the clerks’ of¬ 
fice; that is my itnpression now. 

Q. Well, standing and facing Saint Louis street, which is that room! 
—A. It is right here. 

Q Standing and facing Saint Louis street, then these rooms would be 
at your left!—A. Yes, sir; and this room is in the rear. 

Q. The secret room, you say, is in the rear I —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, the board would hold its open session in the rotunda!—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. That is where it received the visiting statesmen !—A Yes, sir. 

Q. When it got through with the visiting statesiuen, the^^ would pass 
down this hall to the secret room, and wliat was done there you don’t 
know!—A. Only as it was reported to me, sir. 

Q. You put it down as rei)orted !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And yon asked no questions for conscieiuie sake!—A. No, sir; I 
had too much to do for that. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would not like to 
swear to this plan being correct. 


SFOFFORD VS KKLLOGG. 


713 


Q. But tliat isyonr rec.ollection of itA. Yes, sir. 

[Senator Ivello<>f^ desired to add to the diagram the location of his 
office, and he was ])erinitted to do so.] 

(^. (By Senator Hill.) xVre these rooms all on the same floor ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

(,>. xVnd that is the governor’s room and executive office ?—xi. Yes, sir. 

Can you give us the names of the clerks ; you say there were nine 
of them ?—xV. There weie Davis, MitCormick, Eaton, Littlefield, Green; I 
think that is all. 1 (jannot tell you all exactly, exee[)t by referring to 
the rolls. There were several on the rolls who really did no work. 

Q. They got their pay, thougli, did they not ?—xV. They never did; 
unfortunately we never received our pay, none of us, and that is what 
we are finding fault with. 

Q. IMease name those clerks over again.—A. Davis, McCormick, 
Littlefield, Eaton, Green. 

Q. That is five ; you say there were nine besides yourself f—xV. Yes, 
sir. There were more than that carrie<l on the rolls. I think there were 
but five or six who did work, but 1 can give you the exact list. 

Q. 1 wish you would. Where is Davis now ?—A. lie is in the city. 

Q. What is he engaged in?—xV. lie is with the Uiuted States com¬ 
missioner. 

Q. Where is ^IcCormick !—A. He is out of the city; I do not know 
where he is. 

Q. Where is Littlefield ?—A. I cannot sa.y. 

Q. Wheie is I'kiton ?—xV. In Colorado. 

Q. Where is Green ?—A. Here, in the city. 

Q. What is he doing?—xV. He is inspector of customs. 

Q. In the custom-house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You and Green are the only two engaged in the custom house of 
those offic^ers ?— A. I think that is all, sir. 

Q. Was Mr. Flanagan a clerk there?—xV. He was appointed a clerk 
and carried some time and discharged some weeks before the board com¬ 
pleted its session. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. Mr. Abell, in answering to Senator Hill, you stated nobody had 
access to these returns except the returning board and the clerks. Do 
you mean that they were received by the returning board ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. You do not know whose hands they passed tlirough going to them? 
—A. I always received them by a supervisor of registration or by mail. 
They were always delivered to me sealed, and from that time until they 
were delivered to the .secretary of state they were never ont of my pos¬ 
session or that of the board, as far as I know. 

(}. You do not mean to say that they may not have been manipulated 
before going to you ?—xV. No, sir. 

Q. You do not know that by a general order they were all sent to the 
custom-hou.se before they came to you ?—xV. I do not. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. You have stated, I believe, that Governor Kellogg was never pres¬ 
ent at the executive sessions of the returning board to your knowledge? 
—x\. Yes, sir. 

Q. You ha ve state<l, I believe, whether or not to your best recollection 
you ever saw Governor Kellogg present at the open sessions, as they 
were called ?—A. I do not remember of ever having seen Governor Kel¬ 
logg in that room at all; he may have been in there, but it was so sel¬ 
dom that it was not one of frcMpient happening. 


744 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The Witness. (To Senator Hill.) You you wish a list of the 
clerks. 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir j and where they are now, and what enpjaged 
in. Please make it out and hand it to the stenographer. 


TESTIMONY OF VINCENT DICKERSON. 

ViNCFNT Dickerson, colored, a witness called on behalf of the sit¬ 
ting member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside “?—Answer. In Saint James Parish. 

Q. How long have you resided there 1 —A. I have been in Saint James 
now twelve years, if I live to see the coming Januaiy. 

Q. Were you a member of the Packard* house of representatives in 
1877 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From what parish A. The parish of Saint James. ' 

Q. What was your business, for say a year or so prior to the election 
in 1876, and what has it since been ?—A. My business prior to that was 
a storekeeper ; a grocery keeper rather. 

Q. Where did you have your grocery ?—A. In Saint James, sir. 

Q. And what has your business been since that time ?—A. I kept a gro¬ 
cery up to the first of last year, and then I closed my grocery for the pur¬ 
pose of going to rice-planting, but being called to go to the constitutional 
convention my business was broke up. The water getting down so was 
the reason I did not make a crop. 

Q. About what time did you cotne to New Orleans to attend the ses 
sion of the legislature of 1876 or 1877 ?—A. I got here on the day prior 
to the da 3 ' the legislature met. 

Q. What day of the month?—A. That were—now I could not exactly 
bring to memory. 

Q. Where did you board?—A. On Melpomene street between Bri- 
tania and Camp, No. 109. 

Q. About what distance was that from the State-house ?—A. I could 
not tell exactly. 

Q. Did you have any money with you when you came here to attend 
the legislature ?—A. When I came from home I brought $45 in my 
pocket. 

Q. About what amount had you in goods at the time?—A. I could 
not say exactly, but between $400 or $500 in groceries, liquors, &c. 

Q. A man named B. Driefus has testified before this committee, and 
he stated in substance that he was acquainted with you and your col¬ 
league, Simms, during the session of the Packard legislature, and that 
you and Simms were in the habit of coming to the store—that is, that 
you and your colleague were in the habit of going to the store, and that 
you had during the early part of the session before the election of Kel¬ 
logg not a cent of money ; that neither you nor your colleague liad any 
money, and that you owed this storekeeper for goods, and that imme¬ 
diately after the election ot Mr. Kellogg to the Senate .you paid up your 
bill to that man, and he remarked to you, You are very flush now,” 
and either 3 ’ou or Simms said “Yes, doift .you know Kellogg has been 
elected?”—A. In the first i)lace I do not know this gentleman who makes 
this statement; I am satisfied I do not know him by that name. The 
next question is, as I understand it, did I go to this grocery ? I had a 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 745 

habit of fjoing there to see a "eiitleiiiaii at the corner of Bi itania and 
Camp streets. 

Q. Wliat was Ids naaie ?—A. Cotjrave, I think. I had a habit of go- 
in to this grocery of a morning and taking a little loddy, as 1 gener¬ 
ally did of a morning. 

Q. Speak a little louder, Mr. Witness.— A. I had a habit of going 
there and taking a toddy, but I made no bill with him for groceries. 

Q. Did yon make any bill for drinks?- A. I think I have; perhaps 
I i)aid him a bill of a dollar or more, where I let it run over a day or a 
week. 

Q. Did you i)ay him any considerable amount of monev?—A. I did 
not. 

Q Did you have any money of your own at that time?—A. I said I 
had $45 coming from home to pay for my board in advance, as I usually 
do coming to town; I pay a month’s board in advance, and then after¬ 
wards at the end of the session. 

Q. Speak a little louder, Mr. Witness.—A. I say I would let the 
board run to the end o^ February, which would be sixty days, and then 
I settle. As to making a grocery bill with this gentleman, it is some¬ 
thing I have not do?ie. 

Q. State whether or not you received any money from Governor Kel¬ 
logg or any of his friends, as an inducement to vote for him as Senator.— 
A. ^h)t a dollar. 

Q. Did you receive any money from an^" one to induce you to vote for 
Kellogg ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did he promise you any money or office?—A. He did not. 

Q. Was your colleague, Simms, at that time a man of any jiroperty ? 
—A. He is a man who are to day living on tliat part of the land he 
rented from Mr. ^loirison, I think one hundred acres, which he farms 
on. It is a known fact at the time he was elected he had nine oi; ten 
hundrml dollars. He always has plenty of money, cash money at home; 
at least I have setm that when he needed money he would go to Brooks 
or Morrison’s friends and get tifty or one hundred dollars, and could to¬ 
day if he desired it. 

Q. What merchants did you, in New Orleans, buy your goods from? 
—A. 1 got them from Mr. Bai r, on the corner of Povdras and Baronne 
streids. At that time we were dealing in rice, and a-looking out for 
parties who would do right by them, and I got Blolford and Shefiield, 
and I think at one time 1 got Barr. 1 thiidv I bought of him $13S0 of 
groceries and liquors.* After each settlement, I got the rest of it at 
home. I have got a receipt settled at home, I think ; but I am satisfied 
I can prove it by Mr, Sheffield and Mr. JJlotford both, that in the latter 
part of that fall I began to deal with them in rice, and engaged them as 
merchants for the peojile where I lived. I was handling rice for them, 
and shijqied it here, but we done a small business generally. 

(J. You can state whether the colored membeis, prior to the election 
of Kellogg, resolved to support him tor Smiator.—A. The colored mem¬ 
bers were soimnvhat diviiled up to within a few days of when the elec¬ 
tion took place, and that day, or rather that night, betore we got to¬ 
gether and said what was the best for us to do, we wanted somebody to 
be elected ami go right there, and be known at once to the Senators 
and membei s of Congress, and Governor Kellogg’s name was sprung 
right there in the camms, and we finally, after a long argument, <le- 
cided that we would go in right away and elect him; for we desired 
some one tliere at that time who wanted to get the Packard legislature 
recognized. We agreed to do so, and we went in, and no other man’s 


746 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


name \Yas sprung, and the entire party of the legislature present gave a 
vote for him for Senator. 

Q. Do you know Tom Murray?—A. I do. 

Q. How long have you known him?—A. I have got acquainted with 
him in 1874. 

Q. What connection did Tom Murray have with the Packard legisla¬ 
ture?—A. He was elected sergeant-at arms, I think. 

Q. Have you ever had a talk with Tom about this Kellogg-Spoftord 
case since this investigation commenced ?—A. Well, Just prior to the 
last constitutional convention [ was a member of it. One morning—1 
can’t give you the morning and the day—he came to me and said, “ Dick ” 
—he always called me in the short way of speaking and called me Dick. 
He said, ‘‘ Let me tell you something, old boy.” I said, “What is it?” 
And he said, “ Kellogg is going to be put out.” I use the words used to 
the committee. I said, “ O ”; and lie said, “Yes; and I come to you as 
a friend of mine ; you had better go to work and make sure of things ”; 
and I said, “ What about it.” And he said, “ I will tell you if I was 
in your place what T would do—” and he used words notproiier to make 
to the committee, and I hope you will excuse me for not saying them— 
“I would go and make terms with the conservative men wdio want 
Kellogg turned out and Siiofford ]>ut in. You will be taken care of and 
put in a good ])lace.” I said, “ How^ is that. I live in the country.” 
He says, “ You can go to Spofford or Jonas, and knowdng you, Dick, 
that you give good proof in getting Kellogg out of his place will be the 
means of your getting friends.” 1 knowing Tom as I do, having at 
several occasions to know him, and finding his word not reliable, I 
answered, as I said to him that I knew nothing that would get Mr. 
Kellogg out of the Senate. There was nothing in the first place that I 
could say, and in the next place I wdsh it understood that I wouldn’t 
go before any one to take a false oath on the Bible for anything that 
they could do for me. And I said that in this way to Tom, and he said 
to me, “ You are a damned fool; a man w ho wouldn’t go to work and 
arrange matters wdiile it is time to do it. You have got this thing in 
your own hands, everybody knowing if you go there you, being recog¬ 
nized as a legally-elected member, you can make this felt throughout 
the United States”; and I said to Tom, I am pretty well known in the 
section ot the wu)rld I expect to live and die here, and I said “ I can’t do 
this any way, for 1 would rather die a first rate poor man without a 
nickel to bury me than to go and take a false oath.” This was the 
argument between me and him, and it was ke 4 )t u[) for two or three 
w^eeks, and he would come and try to agitate this matter. As to this 
gentleman’s election, I knew nothing against it. 1 only could say that 
I didn’t receive a nickel from Governor Kellogg, or any of his friends, 
for the purpose to vote for him or any one, or wouldn’t from them, and 
I think I would ])etjure myself if I said so, and I couldn’t} do it. 

Q. What did Tom wmnt you to do ?—A. He said you can go and make 
a statement that IMr. Kellogg did pay som6 of the meuibers to vote for 
him. I said to him, “ If he paid anytliing, Tom, he <lidn’t pay me noth¬ 
ing.” I am satisfied to say that, and so is he. “ Let me tell 3 mu the 
current opinion is tliat he did buy his election,” said Tom, “and .you 
might just as well fall in line”; and l.said I wouldn’t do it. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. Well, I will ask yon a very few questions. Is that all.that ever 
occurred betw^een you and Tom Murray with regard to this matter ?— 
A. Yes, sir. Well, he often met me, and wdiile upon this matter, but 
alw'ays parted wdthout agreeing to anything. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


747 


Q. AN liat was that current rumor ami where did you hear it ?—A. I 
always heard the rumor on the streets, and all aloii*^ every legislature 
that 1 have been here has been talked about. That was, on every one I 
had been elected to. The rumors were that somebody was selling out, 
and somebody buying? the legislature, and it was the same way in the 
constitutional convention between the Democrats and Kepublicans. 

Q. NVas there some difficulty in keeping a quorum there?—A. There 
was, sir. * 

Q. Didn’t the members have to be paid to stay there ?—A. I did hear 
it as another rumor. 

Q. You say you did hear that rumor ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You don’t know of any colored man receiving any money ?—A. I 
do not. 

Q. NYhat part of Saint James do you live in ?—A. The lower imrtion, 
on the bank. 

Q. NVhere do yon say you boarded while a member of the Packard 
legislature?—A. Xo. 109 Aleliiomene street, corner of Camp and Bri¬ 
tannia. 

Q. Didn’t Simmes board there too?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you both board in the same building ami room ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. NVho kept the house?—A. Mrs. Jackson. 

Q. NVas she a colored woman ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Qc You say there was no candidate for the Senate but Governor Kel¬ 
logg ?—A. Do you mean that morning his name was first sprung? 

Q. I mean that morning of the election.—A. Yes, sir, there had 
been. 

Q. You say there had been candidates before that ?—A. There were 
candidates who were spoken of. There is the name of Governor NVar- 
moth and Pinchbaek, and several others, but when we finally came to 
agree, it was when we took in consideration what we had to go there 
in NVashington, and who ought to go there to be the best known. 

Q. And you think Kellogg w'as better known than NVarmoth ?—A. 
I thought so for this reason, that he had been in the United States 
Senate, and he could work his case up right at once, and so we thought 
he would be th(‘ easiest to get in. 

Q. NVas Govermir Kellogg in that caucus ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. NVere those views exjiressed there as his views?—A. Tie did not 
say a word of that kind ; it was sprung uj) by some of the members. 

"Q. They did not speak of it as coming from Governor Kellogg ?—A. 
They did not. 

Q. IIow’ long had Kellogg been a candidate ?—A. I heard it the day 
I got here, the day of the oiiening ot the legislature, that he w’ould be 
very likely a candidate. 

Q. How much did you get for pay and mileage as a member of the 
Packard legislature?—A. I disrecollect. I think 1 got a portion of 
the warrants; I think probably four hundred dollars of warrants at 
one time, and I think I sold them at one time; along in March I sold 
forty dollars, or maybe sixty dollars, which I could prove that. 

Q. How' much more did you get?—A. I had tour hundred dollars in 
warrants at one time. 

(^. How’ much money did you get on them?—A. I once borrosved 
from Air. liune, of P>ato’n Pouge, and I borrowed from him twenty-tive 
dollars; that was NN\ J. Lane. I borrowtul from Air. Souer forty dol¬ 
lars, because 1 could not go home, and as soon as I c-ould I would settle 
with him; so, when everybody got (juiet, and this fear of what was go- 




748 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


in^ to happen to them was over, I jjot leave of absence and went home, 
and ^ot the money an<l })aid him what I owed him. 

Q. These sixty five dollars is about what yon jj^ot on the warrants?— 
A. Yes, sir j I borrowed on the warrants, also, from Mr. Bray and Mr. 
Lane. 

Q. Bnt it all afnonnted to sixty-five dollars?—A No, sir; I said I 
borrowed about fifty-five dollars from Mr. Souer. 

Q. Then that would make one hundred and twenty dollars ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Is that all you got on your warrants ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you or Simmes settle your bills the day after Kellogg was 
elected?—A. 1 don’t think I had any settlement that time. 

Q. Did you appear at that store that day ?—A. I may have done so. 

Q. Did you have a package of money?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Did you have a package with the figur<\s 250 on it ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did Simmes have such a package ?—A. I don’t know what he 
had ; he never had such a thing in my ]>resenee. 

Q. Did anybody say anything to you about fiush ?—A. Not at all. 

Q. Have you any connection with the custom-house ?—A. I have 
not. 

Q. Have you ever had?—A. I think during the summer a friend of 
mine came, and he worked awhile in the sujumer, as a laborer. 

Q. What was his name?—A. Joseph Perkins was his name; I have 
no connection with it. I was in the convention, and he came down and 
staid with me; he asked for work, and I went down and saw them, and 
he went in a laborer’s place, to helj) keep up his board. 

Q. Did he work there ?—A. Yes, sir; first in the laborers’ department 
and then down at the jetties, in the quarantine department. 

Q. How much did he get there ?—A. 1 cannot say. 

Q. Did he stay with you?—A. He boarded at the same place. 

Q. You saw him at work, then ?—A. The first time I called on him 
was to carry him a letter I had received from his mother; I carried it 
around and handed it in to him where he was at work. 

Q. Can you read and write?—A. Yea, sir; I can always read what I 
have before me. 

Q. How is the population of St. James Parish ? Is your constituency 
largely colored ?—A, Yes, sir; very largely colored; we have a thou¬ 
sand majority there now. 

Q. Is it mainly made u[> of sugar plantations?—A. A"es, sir; and 
rice iilantations. 

Q. How old are you ?—A. I was born in 1841, on the 12th of Jan¬ 
uary. 

Q. Do you write your own letters ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You can write, then?—A. Yes, sir; if I have anything to send to 
a gentleman, particularly on business, I always do it; sometimes my 
clerk at home does it, and I sign my own letters. 

Q. Do you make your clerk write them, and then you sign them?— 
A. Yes, sir; if 1 go to do business away from home. 

By Senator Kellogg ; 

Q. Do you know when the legislature first met?—A. Yes, sir; Ire- 
member; I think it was the first Monday in January. 

Q. Was the speaker elected ?—A. Y^es, sir, 

Q. Who was elected s])eaker?—A. Governor Hahn. 

Q. At the time of the vote for Senator and speaker, all during that 
week, and the weeks preceding, after the legislature met, was not it 
understood that Governor Packard and all the State officers and 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 749 

leaders of the i)arty were very anxious that I should be elected to the 
Senate ? 

Mr. Walker* counsel for the lueniorialist, objected to the question^ 
when Senator Kellogg restated it. The question was overruled by the 
chairman. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Didn’t Governor Warmoth, who had run for speaker and been de- 
feate<l, make an oi)en speech and urge all the members to go for me ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wasn’t it on the ground that the administration being friendly 
to me and not to the other candidates, that it was urged for me to be 
elected ?—x\. Yes, sir; that was in caucus. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. I want to ask you a question on my own account. It has been 
stated that somebody made a speech in the legislatuie in which he told 
the members that they knew they had been bought; did he make that a 
l)ublic statement in the legislature, do you rememl)er?—A. Let me see, 
did an.N one make such statement; I have not refreshed iq) my memory 
at this time ; it may have been there. 

Q. The name of Hie party was given to' me, but I cannot recall it.— 
A. If I could hear the name 1 could tell, but at the time present I 
haven’t any such memory. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You stated in answer to the question put to yop by Senator Hill, 
that you borrowed certain sums of money on your warrants?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did I understand you that you paid back that money and took up 
your warrants ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. 1 will state that I am informed by the sergeant-at-arms 
that this witness came here without any subpcena; he came voluntarily, 
and 1 ask how about his pay ? 

Senator Vance. I think that if he came to the committee at the re¬ 
quest of Senator Kellogg, he should be tiaid. 

Whereupon it was so ordered. 


TESTIMONY OF G. A. J. SWAZIE. 

George Andrew Jackson Swazie (colored), a witness called on 
behalf of the sitting member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is your name ?—Answer. jMy name is George An¬ 
drew Jackson. I sign it G. A. J. 

Q. Where do you reside ?—A. 274 (.Common street. 

Q. How long have you resided in this city ?—A. Since I came to the 
legislature in 187(5. I left home in November, 1870, just afterthe elec¬ 
tion, and 1 have been here constantly ever since. 

Q. What i>arish did you reside in prior to that time?—A. West Fe¬ 
liciana. 

Q. How long had you resided there?—A. All my life, sir; 32 years. 

(,). Do you know Barney Williams ?—A. I met the gentleman, the 
first time to my knowledge, in Washington. 



750 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Barney Williams lias testified before this committee that on the 
evening of the arrival of certain parties, w^io went from here to Wash¬ 
ington in this case, he took five of them, yourself being one of the num¬ 
ber, to the Philadelphia House where they were stopjong, and Governor 
Kellogg’s room in Willard’s Hotel, and that they ami Governor Kellogg 
entered into an agreement l)y which he, Kellogg, was to pay each of 
them 8500, and that they, to use the expression of Williams, were to go 
back on their affidavits; and, thereupon, Kellogg did pay each of these 
])arties $500, you being of the number, in the consideration of their go¬ 
ing back on their affidavits ?—A. Every word of that from beginning 
to end is a story. There is no truth in it. I arrived in Washington 
Tuesday evening, twenty-four hours ahead of these gentlemen. 

Q. Did you go there as a witness'?—A. No, sir ; 1 went single-handed 
and alone. There was no one in the car tliat I knew, except a porter. 
I saw Williams a couple of days after I got there, but he didn’t stop at 
the same hotel. He was around there before; as to my going to Kellogg’s 
room with him, 1 never did, and I never saw him there, and I never 
went to Kellogg’s room with any of the witnesses excej)t General 
De Lacey. That was the Saturday following I went with him, and that 
is the only time I went there. 1 went one day and saw Jim Lewis, and 
Walsh, and George A. Sheridan, but I was never there in company 
with the witnesses. 

Q. Did you make any affidavit in this case ?—A. Ko, sir ; I aint one 
of those kind of men. 

Q. Then you had no affidavit to go back on ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg ])ay you any money for any purpose what¬ 
ever in Washington ?—A. 1 don’t recollect of ever getting a dollar from 
Governor Kellogg in my life in any case, and not a dollar in Washing¬ 
ton. In fact 1 never got a dollar from him anywhere. 

Q. Williams stated also that those five persons that he said received 
this money from Kellogg sent it home by express. What is the fact 
about that so far as you are concerned ?—A. 1 never sent a dollar home 
while I was up there. 1 got paid none, and I had none to send. If I 
had any I carried it with me, and if I had wanted to send any home I 
would have left it before I went away. I didn’t testify, and wasn’t paid 
a dollar; and I carried eiiough with me to pay my expenses, and had no 
occasion to send any back—not a dollar in the world. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Murray ?—A. I do. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. I have known Tom since 
1874. , 

Q. Had you any conversation with him in reference to this Kellogg- 
Spofford case ? Did you ever say anything to him in relation to this 
case ?—A. Only the other day. 

Q. Go on and detail what it was.—A. As a general thing there was 
not during the summer much to do down in the laboring room, and at 
12 o’clock in the day the convention met,and I took our dinner leave, and 
I used the time down at the convention. Tom had been working in 
the laboring department weighing steel and iron on the levee, but the 
wages were so cut down to a dollar a day he got indignant and quit. 

I saw Tom off and on, and he had on better clothes and looked better, 
and I said, what are you doing ? He said he wanted a better place, and 
he said he could not feed his wife and children on a dollar a day. I 
said to him that there wasn’t a good place for every man who voted 
the Kepublican ticket, and that I took what I could get. But he claimed 
that he was sergeant-at-arms of the legislature, and he had got to have 
a big place. I said I was a member of that legislature and I did not 


SPOFFORI) VS. KELLOGG. 


751 


have a good place myself. He said, O, well, you are a ])atiiotic mem¬ 
ber ot the legislature, and I said I liad reason to he. I promised Tom 
not to sj>eak this, gentlemen, between man and man, unless the coiu- 
mittee force it out. I state, on the honor of a man, that I promised not 
to tell it; that if we had got to fight it was not politics and didn’t come 
together; we would not divulge it. . * 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Then why did you call the attention of the committee to it?—A. 
Because they asked me if I had met and talked to him. 

Q. Go on with your story.—A. All the time that I met him I had 
these conversations. Tom is a man tnat I like as a man. He said he 
had been working in the custom-house and in small places and he 
wanted a better one, and he said he thought he could make 2,500 dol¬ 
lars working for the Democrats, and that if the llepublicans wanted him 
to shut his mouth they would have to pay him more. That is the truth, 
if a man ever spoke it this side of kingdom come. Then I si)oke to 
him of this Watson job. 1 knew what he sent to Tom. He said to me 
if they give hiin Ladd’s ])lace he would be satisfied, and he went to the 
custom-house with Governor Warmoth and wanted them to give him 
Ladd’s place, and when they wouldn’t do it he said, I am now heart and 
soul on the other side, and I can make 2,500 dollars on the other side of 
this case. 

Q. What did he mean by the other side ?—A. The Democratic side. 
He said if the llepublicans wanted him they must pay him that much 
money and then he might hush. 

By Senator Cameron. Go on, Mr. Swazie. 

A. He did not get Ladd’s i)lace, so I supi)ose he is working for his 
$2,500. So I come to si)eaktohim of Democratic matters, and then about 
this Thomas case. He said that Thomas was not in the legislature that 
day when Kellogg was elected senator. I said, Tom, you know better 
than that. He said no, he wasn’t. I knew that Tom knew he was in the 
legislature. I know what Tom was doing, and I said to him, you know very 
well that he was there, and I said to liim if you come and swear that 
Thomas was not in tliere we go no further together. He said, not politi¬ 
cally. I said, noF socially. Then 1 saw that he went on to Washington 
and swore to you I was there, that Thomas was not there, and I (piit 
speaking to Tom for a month. Then I got on a little tare and went 
to him and struck him, and said, 1 have got nothing against you, old 
fellow, and we have be speaking ever since. I made friends with him 
on that tare. Then 1 went on speaking, and 1 saw it was Watson and 
him who were trying to make up that affidavit. Watson knows that 
I knew Thomas was in the house. 1 was present and looked at him 
when the calling of the roll that day, and every llei)ublican representa¬ 
tive was interested in seeing that a quorum was there. Each member 
rose or held up his hand, and I noticed particularly, when his name was 
called he rose. I was noticing him because his health was bad. 

Q. Have you had any talk with Murray in regard to this case since 
liis return to Washington ?—A. Well, yes, sir. 1 was over here on 
Custom IL)use street a few weeks ago sitting in the bar-room, corner of 
Frame and Custom House streets, and 1 was facing the door, and he 
came up and said, “ I have been looking for you all the afternoon,” and 
1 said that “If you would have come here you would have found me.” 
He said, “ Come, 1 want to see you j” and he and 1 walked up to Canal 
street, corner of Frame and Canal. He sat <lown on the stone steps of 
the first building on the corner. He said to me, “the committee will be 


752 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


down here soon; ” and I said “yes.” And he said I ought to be gotten 
away from here. I asked him, by who? lie said, “by yonr friends; ” 
and I said, “who?” He said, “the custom-house fellows.” I said to 
him, “Anybody that treats me like gentleman are my friends so tar as 
I am concerned.” And he said the IJemocratic convention would meet 
in a few days, ivul Judge Spofford will be here, and if the Republicans 
don’t want the Democrats to get me I ought to be got away from here. 
I said, “ how ?” He said,.“ there is a wa}" to do anything 3 ’ou want to 
do ; ” and I said, “• Give it to me plainer than that.” He said, “ money 
—money will do anything;” and he said then, “less than 3,000 dollars 
will do it.” I said, “ you are a bad man ; ” and he said, “ you don’t treat 
people in the Rei)ublican party very well.” He says, “ I have been in 
this other company, and the Democrats are bad fish for a negro.” I 
says, “Yes, I know you have been hanging around them, and so were 
these fellow's AVard and Phillips, and others who w^ere looking seedy.” 
Tom said, “yes,” and 1 left. Then* I left Tom promising to meet him 
again, and 1 haven’t done it. I can’t trust Tom. I couldn’t give him 
money to do anything, for I had no mone 3 ' to give him. 1 think he 
would have come and remembered it and presented it to this committee. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. You were in Washington?—Answer. I was. 

Q. Did you hear Murray testify ?—A. I did. 

Q. He testified twice, didn’t he ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you iu the room all the time ?—A. I didn’t stay all the time. 
I was not in there all the time; I got tired standing up, and I wmlked 
out and would go and take a drink. 

Q. One time his examination was short?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was on Monday that you heard that ?—A. 1 was there and 
came iu before he got through. , 

Q. You stated that Murray' made a communication to you that was 
ver 3 ' secret, that w'as about the $2,500?—A. Yes, sir; but he didn’t 
want anything mentioned of that, of what he and 1 talked. 

Q. You say he didn’t specially want that talked of?—A. No, sir; not 
specially, none of it. 

Q. Did you ever reveal that before?—A. I think iiQt. I think I spoke 
to De Lacey wdien he(De Lacey) swore it. I said it must be true, as he 
said it to me. 

Q. De Lacey testified it, did he?—A. I think he did, and as he came 
out of the committee-room I said to him Murray made the same state¬ 
ment to me in New Orleans. 

Q. Didn’t you hear Murray swear that he had said to many persons 
that he expected to make $2,500?—A. I did. 

Q. And that he had not been promised a dollar by Spofiford or any of 
his friends?—A. I do not remember it in that way. 

Q. Here it is in the testimony sworn to?—A. I heard him say it, but 
as this case looks I expect to make twenty-five hundred. 

Q. Didn’t he say that they didn’t promise him a dollar?—A. He may 
have done so. 

Q. Do you testify to make the impression on this committee that he 
was to get it from the Democrats?—A. No, sir, I do not. I don’t think 
I could make that impression on it. 

Q. Don’t you know at the time he steted how he expected to make 
that amount?—A. I heard him say it. I think he had plenty of time 
between Saturday night and Monday to make up that. 

Q. When you were telling the committee what he said and all that,. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


753 


you didu’t give an explauation too; wasn’t it to leave that impression, 
and to make it so secret when he had told it to you that he expected to 
get it from the Democrats when he bad already sworn it before the com¬ 
mittee in Washington ?—A. I told Mr. Cameron that when he asked it. 

Q. But how could it be necessary to keep it so secret after Murray had 
said that himself!—A. Because he told me before he told the com¬ 
mittee. No, sir. Murray would not have said it if he had not told it to 
De Lacey before. 

Q. Didn’t Murray testify before De Lacey ?—A. De Lacey first, I 
think. 

Q. Well, didn’t he admit it after De Lacey had testified to it!—A. 
He said that was the truth. 

Q. Didn’t he say he told other people that he thought he could make 
$10,000 out of it!—A. He may have done so while I was out of the 
room. 

Q. Didn’t he say that Mr. Spoliord never promised him anything and 
Mr. Cavanac said that he would not get a cent for it?—A. No, sir; I 
don’t remember that. I paid strict attention to the figures, the money, 
and nothing else. 

Q. Yet you testified to this committee that you didn’t want to state it 
because it was a secret and you had promised Murray’ not to tell it, when 
in point of fact Murray had sworn to it himself in Washington?—A. 
Y'es, sir; I didn’t want to retail it here. 

Q. Why did you treat it as such a secret thing when you heard him 
tell it to the committee in Washington ?—A. I explained that as it was 
the only conversation that Murray and I had before he went to Wash¬ 
ington, we made an agreement to keep it secret. 

Q. You and he had the conversation, you say, before he went to Wash¬ 
ington ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The one that you detail here now!—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. As a secret conversation that you would not tell without the court 
forced you to ?—A. 1 would not. 

Q. But after that conversation and when you were in Washington 
you h ard Murray say these same things on the stand ?—A. But that 
'didn’t justify me in telling what he said to me in New Orleans. 

Q. SVas that your idea in saying that it was such a great secret !—A. 
Well, sir, it was because he said not to tell it. 

Q. Wasn’t that secret part of it all over after he had told it himself! 
—A. That did not take it off of me. 

Q. And you heard him testify to it ?—A. Y^es, sir; but I did not tes¬ 
tify, because he told me not to. 

Senator Cameron. I did not ask him for any explanation of it, Mr. 
Chairman, myself. 

Senator Hill. Y^our question was entirely proper. Senator. 

Senator Cameron. Yes; but 1 say that yours is not. Y^ou asked 
him if he did not give Murray’s explauation to the committee, and I say 
it would have beeu very improper for him to have done so. 

Senator Hill. Y'ou recollect that your witness represented to this com¬ 
mittee that this conversation about the $2,500 was a great secret, aud 
now he says he calls attention to it because of that fact, when in the 
mean time he had heard Murray tell all about it in Washington. 

Senator Cameron. He explained about that. 

Senator Hill. No, sir; he said he did not make explauation because 
he did not believe it. 

Senator Cameron. Well, now, a moment upon another matter. Major 
Walker called the attention of the committee to a rule that witnesses 
48 s K 


754 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


slioulf] be excluded from the room when they are to be called on to tes 
tify. 1 see that Major Burk is in here now. 

Senator Hill. Well, it was stated at the time, I thought, that there 
would be exceptions to it, and let Mr. Clarke remain in here, when our 
at tention was called to the fact that his presence was desired. 

Senator Cameron. But Major Burk comes in here and remains with¬ 
out attention being called to it. 

Senator Hill. Ho you object to it ? 

Senator Cameron. I do not object, but I desire to call attention 
to it. 

Senator Hill. We stated to you at the time that it was subject to 
objections and exceptions. We don^t want your witness present when 
a witness is testifying about‘the subject-matters that he is to testify 
about thereafter. 

The examination was resumed by Senator Hill. 

Q. Now, you went on, you say, in advance of the witnesses ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you understand they were going ?—A. It was common rumor 
that they were. 

Q. Did you know that Jim Lewis was going up there ?—A. I knew 
be was going on business of his office. 

Q. Did you know he was going with the witnesses f—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you hear before he got to Washington that he was with the 
witnesses ?—A. I heard it the night before his arrival. 

Q. How ?—A. He telegraphed to Governor Kellogg to tell me to 
meet him at the depot. I was in Governor Kellogg’s room when the 
telegram came. 

Q. Did you not say a while ago that you were not there until Friday 
or Saturday night ?—A. No, sir; I went to see him the next morning 
before he was out of bed. 

Q. Did you talk with him about the witnesses ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see anybody about their coming ?—A. No, sir ; 1 did not. 

I say that he said nothing to me about that. 

Q. Did you not know they would be there that night ?—A. I had rea¬ 
sons to believe they would be there. 

Q. Did you not go to meet the witnesses ?—A. Not particularly to 
meet the witnesses, but I went down at Lewis’s request. 

Q. Did you not tell them to go to the Philadelphia House ?—A. No, 
sir 5 they asked me where to go, and I said I was stopping at the Phila¬ 
delphia House, kept by a colored man, and they had better go there. 

Q. They all went, did they ^—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whom did you room with?—A. With John De Lacey. 

Q. Whom did Lewis room with ?—A. I think with Johnson, of De 
Soto. 

Q. You all talked there about the testimony, did you not ?—A. After 
they commenced to testify, we did. 

Q. They commenced the next morning, did they not ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
we were laughing and talking about the testimony, and Johnson’s ac¬ 
tions before the committee, and about the affidavit. It was general 
conversation between us. 

Q. Did Lewis join in ?—-A. I do not know. I never had any talk 
with him about it. I cannot swear that Lewis said anything to them 
about it. 

Q. After the boys came to testify it was the topic of the day there 
about the Louisiana witnesses?—A. That is what I thought. 

Q. There was obliged to be some conversation, among them. Ev- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


755 


erywhere else thy were talked about. Now, did they talk more 
of that subject than any other subject that you heard ?—A. I do not 
think so. 

Q. Was not anything said to them about going back on their affida¬ 
vits ?—A. Not a solitary thing that I know of. 

Q. Nothing about standing up to their party?—A. Not a word. 

Q. Was anything said about their having been advised on the train 
to stand up to their party ?—A. Not a word, sir. 

Q. Did you hear the yvituesses say so in their examination in Wash¬ 
ington ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. You say they did not say it ?—A. They might have said so when 
I were out of the room. 

Q. You were there the most of the time that they were, and you were 
there for the purpose of hearing their testimony f—A. Not particularly 
so, sir. 

Q. Y^ou were’not?—A. No, sir ; it was a visit I was making to Wash¬ 
ington, and I had never been there before, and it was convenient, and 
I went up there while this matter was being investigated, for I was a 
man who had voted for Governor Kellogg and I was interested to see 
him kept in. 

Q. Did you go there on this business?—A. No, sir; not particularly 
on this business, but if I could help the Senator I would do so. I went 
principally to see the capital of the nation and the two houses of Con¬ 
gress. 

Q. Did you have any official business there?—A. No, sir; I was a 
common laborer in the custom-house and had no*official business there, 
of course. 

Q. How long did you stay there?—A. Until after the committee ad¬ 
journed. 

Q. Did you then go home ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you go with the witnesses ?—A. I came with some of them. 

Q. Which way did you come?—A. By the Cincinnati route. 

Q. Who were they ?—A. I think there were Johnson, Watson, De 
Lacy, Johnson of Terrebonne, and Johnson of De Soto, both of them, 
and De Lacy ; I think four or five of them. 

Q. You say you went up to Governor Kellogg’s room the day after 
you arrived ?—A. Yes, sir; the day after. 

Q. Were you in his room everyday?—A. I^do not remember any 
particular day that I was not there. 

Q. What day did you see Jim Lewis there?—A. The only day I re¬ 
member particularly was the day we left Washington. I saw him up 
there, I think, now^ that I remember, the following Saturday night. 
That was the time I think I saw him up there. 

Q. That was the first time, then, you saw him in Kellogg’s room ?— 
A. Yes, sir; the following Saturday night. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Q. Did you state in the direct examination that it was Friday night ?— 
A. I do not know, sir; it may have been. I am not positive about it. 

Q. That Saturday night who was with him ?—A. The first time I saw 
him, there was John A. Walsh, Mr. Conquest Clarke, and I think George 
Sheridan was in there the first night I saw Jim Lewis in Governor 
Kellogg’s room. 

Q. Were they talking about this case?—A. I do not remember now. 

Q. You never heard him talk any about the case ?—A. I do not re¬ 
member. 

Q. And you never heard them all say a word about it?—A. I do not 
remember that they did. 


756 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did they not say anything about the witnesses and their testi¬ 
mony and their going back on their affidavits ? Now, was not that the 
subject of conversation ?—A. Really 1 do not remember that they said 
a thing about it. Every time I went there there were gentlemen in the 
room, except the first morning. The first morning I went there was 
nobody in there, and he was in his bed. 

Q. How long were you gone?—A. From New Orleans, do you mean ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. I left on the 2d and got back on the 22d. 

Q. Of June?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you get a salary, and was it paid while you were gone ?—A. I 
got a leave of absence. 

Q. That is not answering my question. Was your salary paid you 1 — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All the while that you were gone ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, Sweazie, you were a member of the Packard legislature your¬ 
self?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you say Thomas was there ?—A. Yes, sir j he was there. 

Q. Was he in his desk ?—A. No, sir ; he was not in his desk. 

Q. Well, at his seat, I mean.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are getting very critical, Mr. Witness. What I mean now is 
was he at his desk ?—A. 1 am positive he was. 

Q. You are?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How do you know he was there ?—A. When they said Thomas of 
Bossier—he was in delicate health, and he never got up—he simply rose 
his hand. 

Q. Was he sitting in his seat?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are certain and positive that when that roll was called Thomas 
was sitting in his seat at his desk ?—A. I am positive that he answered 
the roll-call that day. 

Q. And he was there and you saw him ?—A. I am positive that when 
the roll was called he was there. 

Q. And you have never told anybody that he was not there?—A. 
Never in my life; I defy any man to come and say so. 

Q. I am going to ask you a good many questions, and I want you to 
answer them, and answer them right.—A. I answer that I never told 
any person anything of the sort. 

Q. Now I want to be very positive that Thomas was in his seat that 
day, and you say that he was?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are a great friend of Governor Kellogg?—A. Yes,sir: I ad* 
mire him very much. 

Q. And you have long done so ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have been a friend of his for a long time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you have stood by him like a man that takes a wife for bet¬ 
ter, for worse ?—A. There is nothing I can do for Governor Kellogg con¬ 
sistent with my conscience but what I will do, you can bet. 

Q. I believe you will. Witness, so I will not bet. Are you one of 
the disciples of that school of politics that think it is not wrong to lie 
for their party ?—A. No, sir; I am not a member of that school. 

Q. Are you intimate with Johnson ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you intimate with Seveignes ?—A. Yes, sir; I know him. 

Q. You have not quit speaking to him, have you ?_^A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you hear Seveignes testify in Washington?—A. I did. 

Q. That he made an affidavit and swore falsely to it on purpose ?— 
A. I did not. i 

Q. Do you know that he did swear that ?—A. I have heard so. 

Q. Did you lose your respect for him on that account ?—A. I did not. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


757 


Q. You saw Governor Kellogg very frequently during the sitting of 
the Packard legislature ?—A. I do not know, sir. I do not remember 
seeing Governor Kellogg about the building very much. 

Q. Did you not go to see him frequently 1 —A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you not a frequent visitor of his, and one of bis trusted 
friends?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You said you were one of his best friends ?—A. I do not think I 
was in the way that you refer to. I admired him because he was a 
Senator and governor, and I trusted him because I think he was a gen 
tleman. 

Senator Hill (to Senator Cameron). Mr. Burke has handed me some 
questions to be propounded to this witness, and I thought it proper to 
tell you, and ask whether you object to their being put here. 

Senator Cameron (laughingly). I do not object, because I have under¬ 
stood all along that he was the Democratic boss here. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Now I want to ask you a question : Was it not generally under¬ 
stood up there at that election that the members were paid to vote for 
Kellogg ?—A. I never heard of it, not until the day that Ross Stewart 
was going to be expelled for taking members up to the Nicholls legisla¬ 
ture. He was charged with it by Lucien Como. 

Q. You never heard anything about members of the Packard legisla¬ 
ture being paid until the time you mention?—A. That was the first 
time. 

Q. What time was that?—A. About the 1st of April. 

Q. What was it that Stewart said ? Did he make a speech ?—A. I 
do not remember his speech. 

Q. Did he not tell you that you were all bought, and that they knew 
it ?—A. He said something about their being bought the day he was 
going to be expelled, and that was the first of it that I heard. 

Q. He charged on them that they were all bought ?—A. He charged 
that in his speech when he was going to be kicked out. 

Q. Did you not in the spring or fall of 1877 give Major Burke the 
names of certain members of the Packard legislature who were paid 
money to vote for Kellogg ?—A. No, no, sir (excitedly). 

Q. And who would go on and swear to the fact?—A. No, sir ; I deny 
every word of it in toto. 

Q. Did you or not offer to go to certain parishes and procure the affi¬ 
davits of certain members who received pay for voting for Kellogg?— 
A. No, sir; he asked me—he was the man that done it, and I made no 
proposition to him, but I went up as far as Bayou Sara, and Major 
Burke knows that I did not say that to him. 

Q. You keep quiet now. Did you not give him the names of members 
of the legislature who had received money for voting ?—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Did you not give him any names at all ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you go to the country to get the affidavits of members?—A. 
I went to Feliciana Parish to see if my colleague knew anything about 
it, that is all. 

Q. Did you not go for his affidavit ?—A. I went to see if he knew 
anything about money being paid. 

Q. Well, that was for an affidavit, was it not ?—A. No, sir; Dr. Ry- 
land was to make it up. It was to him I had letters. I was not acting 
in good faith with Major Bnrke, I will tell you. 

Q. You can answer that hereafter, Mr. Witness. You have just 
stated that you do not believe in that school of morals.—A. I just 


758 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


wanted to go to the parish and see my wife and children, and I took his 
money for that. 

Q. You can give your reasons hereafter, I say, I want to ask you 
some questions first.—A. Well, sir, I went up there to see what my col¬ 
league knew about it. 

Q. And if he would make an affidavit you would get it and bring it 
back ?—A. Mr. Irvine and others were to get it, and my instructions 
were to see if he knew anything, and see that they got it. 

Q. And that was your mission, was it?—A. Yes, sir; to see if he got 
any money to vote for Kellogg. 

Q. And you went to the country for Major Burke to see after that, 
and get the affidavit ?—A. I went no farther than Bayou Sara, sir. 

Q. What reason did you give to Major Burke for not continuing to 
get these affidavits?—A. Well, sir; three or four weeks after I came 
back I met him on Canal street and he said, “ You made no report to 
me of what you done; ” and 1 said, “ The day I was nominated in the leg¬ 
islature up there in Bayou Sara I struck a man, and when I give up 
the letters up there I was locked up in jail, and after I got out I got on a 
boat and came on back.” 

Q. Did you not tell Major Burke that they said they were afraid to 
make the affidavits for fear of prosecution ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You did not tell him that ?—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Or anybody else ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you not tell him that you knew Lucius Early, a member from 
West Feliciana, received it?—A. I did not. 

Q. And that he would testify to it?—A. I did not state anything of 
the kind. ♦ 

Q. Did you not tell Major Burke that you knew that Dickerson and 
Oomo, from Saint James-A. There were such men from there. 

Q. Did you not tell him that they received money for their votes ?— 
A. I never did. 

Q. At any time or place ?—A. I did not, sir, at any time or place. 

Q. Did you not tell Burke that De Lacey would swear he received 
money for his vote ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Well, do you know that De Lacey did swear that ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t you know he made an affidavit to that effect?—A. I do not; 
I know he was charged with it at Washington, and he denied it. 

Q. Didj’ou see the testimony, after it was printed, on that subject?— 
A. I did not. 

Q. Didn’t you tell Burke or anybody else that he would swear to it ? 
—A. I did not. 

Q. Nor that anybody would swear to such facts?—A. No, sir; nor 
that anybody else would. 

Q. Didn’t you send word to Burke that you could give testimony 
yourself and could get others to do it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you send him any word on the subject ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Wasn’t it in response to that message that you sent him that he 
sent for you to come to see him ?—A. No, sir; I nevor heard a word 
about it, until a man who works in a shoe-shop sent a little boy for me. 

Q. Who was that?—A. Davidson. 

Q. You never saw Major Burke before?—A. No, sir; I came to this 
man’s shop, on Poydras street, and he said come over to Major Burke’s 
office, where they were collecting taxes, and then he made this proposi¬ 
tion to me. 

Q. How did Burke know that you knew anything and wanted to see 
you ?—A. I do not know. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


759 


Q. And you were taken wholly by surprise when he sent for you ?—A. 
Davidson took me and said to me, “Come, let’s go to Burke’s office,” and 
1 came. And he said, “ Which ring were you in down there at the State- 
house! Were you for Warmoth or Kellogg?” And I said I supported 
Warmoth. He said, “ You are supporting a man who got beaten.” And 
I said, “Yes, I was with the one that got defeated.” 

Q. But you voted for Kellogg?—A. Yes, sir, 

Q. And you are Kellogg’s intimate friend ? —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On whose recommendation were you appointed in the custom. 
house?—A. Nobody’s that I know of. 

Q. When were you appointed?—A. Seventh of June, 1877. No, sir ; 
7th of June, 1878. 

Q. At the time you came to Major Burke’s office you were not in the 
custom-house?—A. At the time this man brought me to him I was not. 

Q. You admit that you did see Major Burke ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that you went to West Feliciana to get that affidavit ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were not in the custom-house at that time ?—A. I was 
not. 

Q. Did you tell him you would go to Saint James ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you tell him you would go to Rapides?—A. Mr. Burke told 
me to go to West Feliciana, and said, “You see what you can do, and you 
come back and I will send you to Morehouse and Rapides, and several 
other parishes.” 

Q. And you went to West Feliciana?—A, Yes, sir. 

Q. And you expended his money ?—A. Yes; to pay my expenses. 

Q. Now, Mr. Witness, I want to give you a chance to put yourself on 
record. You stated something, I believe, about your motive ?—A. Yes, 
sir. When he sent for me I wanted very bad to go to West Feliciana, 
where my wife and children were, and I knew that by getting a pass of 
this kind and being on a mission of that kind, I would be safe, and that 
is what induced me to do it. 

Q. You wanted to be safe from this indictment you speak of?—A. No, 
sir. I never cared anything about it. I only hit a man with my first, 
and cut him with that ring. 

Q. What reason was it that you told Burke. Wasn’t that the reason 
you gave him why you didn’t continue that work ?—A. Why, sir? 

Q. Because you were arrested ?—A. Yes, sir; that’s the reason I 
gave up to him, but it wasn’t the truth. I wanted to give him some 
satisfaction for his thirty dollars. 

{ Q. Y'ou admit, then, that you lied to Burke?—A. If it suits you, I 
admit it. 

Q. Then you do belong to that school of moralists who think it right 
to tell a lie ?—A. No, I am on oath now; the others made an affidavit 
and swdre to it; in some cases it is wrong to lie, but I wanted to go 
and see my wife and children. 

Q. Yes,'but this was after you got back that you told him the lie ?— 
A. Well, if 1 hadn’t said that he would have thought I was acting in 
bad ffiith ; he would not have liked it. 

Q. Then you told him a lie to keep him from thinking you were acting 
in bad faith with him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you think a lie good faith?—A. In that instance, yes, sir. 

Q. You say Major Burke told you that if you would go to West Feli¬ 
ciana and bring the affidavit which Mr. Early had made, he would send 
you to see others of them ?—A. No, sir; I wasn’t to bring the affidavit. 


760 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I was to find out what he did know, and then when I came back he 
would send me to see the others. 

Q. And you promised to do so ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you were not going there to those other places, though you 
said you were ?—A. No, sir, I was not 5 and I didn’t state this either. 

Q. But you made him believe you would —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you did not intend to go % —A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you were lying again?—A. Well, I didn’t intend to go. 

Q. You didn’t have a wife in all those parishes, did you ?—A. No^ 
sir. I was talking about West Feliciana then. 

Q. So you say you told him when you came back you would go to 
the other parishes. Why did you tell him that ?—A. I wasn’t telling 
him that just to deceive him, but in order to conciliate those other 
things. I wanted to go to West Feliciana. 

Q. Then you came back and gave him false reasons for not doing 
what you went to do ?—A. I came back, and he sent word for me to 
come and report, and I said I had come up to his office, and I didn’t see 
him. 

Q. Why did they lock you up in West Feliciana ?—A. Because I hit 
a man up there. 

Q. Is that indictment on it now ?—A. No, sir; I have been up there 
and been acquitted. 

Q. I thought you said it was in 1877?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. That was the time when you worked in the custom-house ?— A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What time did you leave here on that errand ?—A. The 4th of Oc¬ 
tober, 1877. 

Q. How much money did Major Burke give you ?—A. Thirty dollars. 

Q. And that accounts for your going up there ?—A. Yes, sir; I could 
not have gone if he had not given me the money. 

Q. How much did it cost you to go?—A. Do you mean going and 
coming ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Twelve dollars; that was the steamboat fare. 

Q. And then he was to pay your expenses to Saint James and the 
other parishes?—A. Well, sir, it was natural to expect he would; he 
never said anything about expenses; he said I will send you to these 
other places. 

Q. Now, Sweazie, in this interview with Major Burke about ascertain¬ 
ing these facts, didn’t you intend to make him believe that these parties 
would say that they got the money ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You said so yourself, didn’t you ?—A. I said I did not know of a 
single soul who got a dollar. 

Q. And you did not intend to make him think so ?—A. No, sir. He 
said to me to go and see if I could find out anything, and I said I would 
do it, and he gave the money to go. He gave me $30, but if fie had 
asked, “ Is $20 enough,” 1 would have said “ Yes,” and if he had said a 
hundred, I would have taken it. 1 can find a way to spend it. I can 
go and spend it with my old constituents. 

Q. Did you have a conversation with any man before you went to see 
Burke?—A. Nobody but George Davidson. 

Q. Now, how many people did you talk to about this matter ?—A. I 
talked to no one prior to my meeting him. 

Q. What did you tell him ?—A. He sent for me to come to his shop, 
and said, “ Come around the street a piece with me.” 

Q. Did he tell you where he was going?—A. He said he was going to 
see Major Burke. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 761 

% 

Q. Ilacl you had any conversation with him before?—A. Not before 
that time. 

Q. Nor with anybody else?—A. No, sir; noton that subject. 

Q. Did you make the impression on bis mind that you knew some¬ 
thing important for the Democrats to know?—A. I never did. 

Q. You say you saw Earney Williams in Washington ?—A. I did. 

Q. In Kellogg’s room ?—A. No, sir; never at all. 

Q. Did Barney say to you what he was there for ?—A. Never at all; 
but, yes, sir; I beg your pardon. He said. he was there to see about 
his pension. 

Q. Did he come on with the witnesses ?—A. I saw him about the hotel 
and around among them. I never saw him in the committee-room, and 
I do not know what he was there for—to see about his pension. 

Q. Do you know how he registered his name ?—A. I do not know how 
he registered his name. 

Q. You never say him in Kellogg’s room while you were in Washing¬ 
ton ?—A. Never at all, sir. 

Q. You say you were in the Packard legislature from West Felici¬ 
ana ?—A. Yes, sir; I was elected to it. 

Q. How many votes did you get ?—A. Eight or nine hundred. 

Q. Didn’t you only get 773 ?—A. There may have been some thrown 
out. I do not know as to that. 

Q. Didn’t the Democrats get 1,200 more than you got?—A. The Dem¬ 
ocratic candidates ? 

Q. Yes. Didn’t they get 1,200 more than you got? 

Senator Cameron. 1 object to that, Mr. Chairman. The records will 
show how that matter stood. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I will change my question. Who were the Democratic candi¬ 
dates ?—A. Judge McGee and Dr. By land. 

Q. What votes did they get ? Didn’t they get some twelve hundred 
and some odd votes and you eight hundred, about?—A, Yes, sir. 

Q. And yet you were declared elected ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who returned you as elected?—A. I was returned by the return- 
ing-board. 

Q. You were returned elected by the returning-board ?—A. Yes, sir. 
I made afiidavits and so did other men, colored men, as to the conduct 
of the election in that parish, and I think I w^vs elected. I can go to¬ 
morrow and be elected in that parish if they will stop bulldozing, and 
could have been elected then easily. 

Q. Then you were returned as elected because you could have been ?— 
A. I do not make it out that way, sir. 

Q. What time did the testimony in Washington close ?—A. I do not 
remember. 

Q. You say you got there on the second of June ?—A. No, sir; I said 
I left here on the second of June. 

Q. You got there, then, on the 4th ?—A. The 4th? Yes, sir. 

Q. And the witnesses didn’t get there until the 5th?—A. No, sir; I 
am making no mistake about it. 

Q* The record says the examination began on the 5th, and you say 
you got there the day before the witnesses did ?—A. I did. 

Q. The testimony according to your statement began, then, on the 
6th ?—A. The 6th is the day, I think. 

Q. How long did it continue ? Do you remember exactly how long 
it continued, sir?—A. No, sir; I do not know. 


762 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGa. 


Q. Wasn’t it two or three weeks 1 —A. I think it was two or three 
weeks, sir. 

Q. You think it did!—A. No, sir; I do not think it did now; I know 
I was gone twenty-one days. 

Q. And you think it commenced on the 5th. That is what the record 
says.—A. Well, I must have left here, then, on the first. I thought it 
was the second. 

Q. And you continued there until it was over?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long was it after it was over before you came back ?—A. A 
day or two after it was over. 

Q. You got back not far from the 20tb, you say ?—A. I think on 
the 22d. 

Q. Of June ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You have stated in reply to a question by Senator Hill that you 
received seven or eight hundred votes, whatever the number was?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And that the Democrats who were running against you received 
twelve hundred or thereabouts in the parish for members of the house 
of representatives of this State. Then you went on to say something 
about bulldozing. Will you please state what occurred prior to the 
election ?—A. Well, sir, there was a general system of bulldozing there. 

Q. By whom ?—A. By the Democratic party. My own brother and 
stepfather were prevented from voting for me. I never rode out in the 
country but twice before the election, and I think that was enough to 
justify the return of the people who were candidates and who were in 
sympathy with the people. I know this, and I know there were plenty 
of people, folks, up there who would vote for me and who didn’t, if you 
will take the shot-guns away, irrespective of anybody else who might 
run. 

Q. Do you remember what the registration of that parish was that 
year?—A. No, sir; I do not remember it very distinctly. I think the 
colored vote was between 1,700 and 2,000, and I do not think the white 
vote was quite 500. 

Q. Wasn’t the white registration 329 and the colored 2,213 ?—A. I 
don’t recollect exactly, Mr. Cameron, but I know the colored vote there 
averages three or four to one; I know that. 

Q. You had been in the politics of that parish, then, from reconstruc¬ 
tion down to 1876?—A. Yes, sir; with the exception of 1870, when 
Warmoth counted the parish out. It went Eepublican by eight hundred 
or a thousand majority regularly. 

Q. Do you know whether the colored people were converted in 1876 
from the Eepublican to the Democratic faith, and, if so, how ?—A. My 
honest opinion is it was done with shot-guns. 

Q. Who employed that art to convert them ?—A. The Democratic 
party of West Feliciana employed them means. 

Q. How is it with the colored voters in the parishes contiguous, in 
Point Coupee and Ascension ?—A. I never was in those parishes except 
to pass on the river. I do not know anything of the condition of the 
people. I know they are Eepublican parishes, but 1 cannot tell you 
anything about the condition of the people up there. 

Q. Do you know that the colored people in any of them were killed 
in the parish of West Feliciana prior to the election of that year ?—A. 
Yes, sir; there was a man killed in the woods, named Jack Eussell, sup¬ 
posed to be by unknown parties, and another man was killed in the 


SPOFFORU VS. KELLOGG 


763 


town of Bajou Sara. Then there were a good many whipping* being 
about in the country, not so much killing was general as much as there 
were general threats of it. There was two men, I think, killed for 
political purposes. I am willing to swear who killed them, though I 
was not there to see. They were Gilbert Carter and another man j 
that man Russell. 

Q. Was it for political purposes?—A. That was the general belief 
among the Republicans ; that is what I thought. 

Q. State what you know of threats of whippings and night ridings.— 
A. I know a good deal of that was done. I heard and saw an armed 
force ride into the town of Bayou Sara* I know I never went into the 
country, because I felt unsafe. I know that colored people would come 
into town in their wagons and I would be talking to them, and if they 
would see the “ boss” coming they would drive oft and not stop to tell 
me good-by. 

Q. Where were you on the day of the election?—A. On Acklen’s place. 

Q. Were there any armed Democrats about there ?—A. Not at that 
place. 

Q. Did you see any anywhere else?—A. I was on that plantation and 
nowhere else. That is a part of the parish where I do not think there 
was any bulldozing done at. The people vote as they please up there. 

Q. What was the result up there?—A. Up there there were 178 votes, 
and the Republicans got 174 of them. I don’t think but four Democrats 
voted there. 

Q. Who was supervisor of registration for that parish for that year? 
—A. D. A. Weber. 

Q. What became of him ?—A. He got killed. 

Q. Where ? 

Senator Hill. I think that is in the record. Senator Cameron. 

Senator Cameron. 1 want it in here. (To the witness.) What became 
of Weber ? 

A. He was killed up there during the sitting of the two legislatures. 
I was here, and his brother showed me a telegram that his brother had 
been shot down between the court-house and the cemetery. 

Q. Was he a Republican ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A leading Republican?—A. Yes, sir; he were a leading Repub¬ 
lican. 

Q. Where did you understand he was killed, and at what time of the 
day?—A. 1 understand he was killed between twelve and two o’clock, 
on his way from his brother’s store up home to dinner. 

Q. At dinner time, then ?—A. Yes, sir; while he was passing from 
his brother’s store—from the dwelling between the cemetery and the 
court-house. 

Q. Do you know as a fact or a matter of history whether any persons 
have been indicted, and if indicted, cwvicted for the killing of Weber?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. What is the fact about it?—A. 1 have not heard it mentioned in 
any way. 

Q. Or of anybody being likely to be convicted ?—A. I have not been 
up to the parish for two years, since I went up there to get a trial for 
that matter of mine. My wife and children are there. I got a letter 
from them yesterday. 

Q. Why hav^e you not been back, except under the safe-conduct that 
Burke gave you ?—A. Because they were killing the people up there. 
Some of them had been killed, and I did not know that I was any better 
than the others, and they might kill me. There was a witness named 


764 


SPOFFqRB vs. KELLOGG. 


Dalton before the Potter committee and he had gone up there and been 
killed, and I got settled on that. He had mortified his affidavit and I 
had not, and I stayed here where I is now. I thought I had better not 
go up there, and I stayed here. 

Q. State the facts that took place between yourself and Mr. Burke.—A. 
George Davison sent a little boy working in his shop around to my place on 
Common street for me. I went to Davison, and he said to me, “ Come with 
me to Burke’s office.” I sat there a little while, and then Burke came up to 
us. I was introduced as George Sweazie. He said, Sit down and I will 
be back j some other gentlemen had come in. He came back and said, 

I am working in the interest of Kellogg against Spofford. What do 
you know of Kellogg paying money to members to vote for him I 
said, “Nothing.” He said, “ O, you do”; I said, “No, sir; I did not. 

I never got a dollar in the world.” He said, “ What combination did 
you belong to down there,” and I said, “ To that fifteen that voted for 
Warmoth.” He said, “Who did your colleague vote forF I told him 
he belonged to the Hahn ring; he said, “Then you are not acquainted 
very well with the inside tricks. Do you think your colleague would 
tell you if he knew anything about it.” I said, “ I do not know,” and he 
said, “Could you go this evening, and ascertain what he knows F I said, 

“ Yes, sir,” and he said, “ How much will it cost you ? Will $30 do,” and 
I said, “Yes.” He gave me a check, and I went down there to the 
corner of Eoyal and Conti streets, and got the check cashed. I took 
the Pargo and went on up the river. I said to him, “ Give me letters,” 
and he gave me letters to Dr. Irvine and Dr. Rj»land. I know it was 
pretty w^arm for me up there, and I wanted these letters for protection. 
He said to me, “If Irvine knows anything, Drs. Irvine and Ryland will 
fix them up for him.” I went there, and went to Irvine, and showed 
him the letter. Then I went to my wife’s house, and back to Irvine, 
and he said, “ I do not think it is very safe for you to go out into the 
country.” He wrote a note for me to come and see W'ill Leak, W. W. 
Leak, and I went to see him, and he said he did not think it was safe 
there, as the people were very much against me up there, and I went 
into the court room, to Mr. Barrow, and he came and arrested me in the 
clerk’s office as I came downstairs, and put a pistol in my face, and 
said, “ You are my prisoner,” and said, “ What you got on you.” I said, 
“ Nothing.” Then they began to curse me, and I got mad, and I cursed 
them, and they said to me not to curse, and I said, “Ido not curse if you 
do not curse me.” I said I wanted to get out of the scrape, and they sent 
for Mr. Burroughs, and Dr. Burroughs said that he could not go my 
bond, but he would vouch for my appearance, and he came up to the 
man, and said, “ Bill, what do you know about George?” and said, “ He 
will do well if you will let him alone.” He said to me, “ If you do not 
treat me well, I would handle you without gloves,” and I said to him, 
“ I have always treated you well,’^ and then Dr. Irvine said, and Bur¬ 
roughs spoke to Irvine, and then said “ I have done all I can to keep 
you out of jail, and you must go.” I said to them to let me send this 
fellow who was there with me to tell my wife. “ No, I will go myself,” 
and he said to me, “You are safer in jail.” Mr. Barrow took me to jail. 

Q. Who is he ?—A. He is the sheriff of the parish, and is now. 

Q. You say he drew a pistol in your face ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He did not curse you, but he just pulled his pistol on you ?—A. 
Yes, sir; he pulled his pistol on me in the clerk’s office, and when he 
turned me over to the deputy sheriff, he said send down home, and 
get some bedding for me, as Iwas not used to this sort of treatment. He 
took my money, and watch and chain, and said, “ What shall Ido with 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


765 


these,” aud I said, ‘‘ Keep it,” aud Irvine said, “ No, give it to his wife,” 
and he did. The judge was out in Avoyelles, and 1 sent by my uncle 
to see him, and get an order for my release, or to send for bonds to be 
taken, and then he came back w ith an order to release me if I gave up 
the watch and chain to this man who would go on my bond. I went 
and gave it up. I went back there in November, and was there on a 
Sunday, and w as sitting on the fence when the sherift’ served me with 
a notice that the watch and chain were to be sold for this judgment; 
but I was tried and acquitted. I asked Mr. Irvine to pay $25, and take 
the watch and chain. After I testified before the Potter committee, he 
went to my wife, and said he had housed his political enemies as long 
as he was going to, and sold it. 

Q. What was it worth ?—A. About $75 or $80. 

Q. Who w as the man who cursed you ?—A. They were officers of the 
court. 

Q. Who ?—A. Charlie Barrow said, “ Was not you told to stay away 
from heref’ Aud I said “No.” And Mr. Barrow said to me, “You 
have got on better clothes than I can wear—plundering and robbing 
the people.” I showed a little spunk, aud said I was a prisoner, aud 
they did not want to blackguard me in that way. Then they sort of 
cooled down, and waited until Mr. Irvine came to get me out. 

Q. Who is he *?—A. He is the man I rent from ; I rented from him 
dow^n here and pay him now on the house that my wife and children 
live in. I think he is the chairman of the Democratic committee there, 
but a man who, if he liked you, w^ould stand by you. 

Q. Tell what occurred between you and Burke afterw^ards.—A. I 
came back and met Major Burke at the corner of this street and Canal. 
I met him, aud I waited until he got through talking to a gentleman, and 
he came to me aud said, “ You did not come to see me.” I said, “ No; 
they arrested me down there, aud I got disgusted.” And he said, “I 
can always be seen at my office when anybody wants to see me.” 

P Q. Was that the last conversation you had with him ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
about this matter. I spoke to him on the street afterwards just pass¬ 
ing, and that is all. 

Q. Had you ever spoken to him before?—A. Never in my life before 
that day. 

Q. You stated, in reply to a question put to you by Senator Hill, that 
you roomed with De Lacey in Washington ?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Where did De Lacey stay on the night of his arrival in Washing¬ 
ton ?—A. He stayed in the hotel with me, at our room in the Philadel¬ 
phia House. 

Q. Did he not leave the room between twelve and one o’clock and 
not return till tli6 next morning early ?—A. He never left that night. 

Q. Did he stop with you ?—A. He did. I did not leave, aud I do not 
believe that any of the delegation left the hotel that night. 

Q. Where did you see them in the hotel ?—A. Downstairs at the bar, 
aud at breakfast; they were all principally together at breakfast. 

Q. You were asked if there was not any conversation with him, and 
if you were not in conversation with him frequently about this case; 
did any of them tell you that they went to Senator Kellogg’s room 
the night they came to Washington ?—A. They could not have told me 
that, for I was there at the hotel with them. 

Q. You were asked by Senator Hill in regard to the testimony given 
by Murray before this committee in Washington. Do you remember 
what he testified to?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That Mr. Cavanac told him all along that the managers for Mr. 


766 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Spofford told him that there was not a dollar in sight, and that Spof* 
ford did not want bought evidence; but that he expected to make 
$2,500, bad as it looked?—A. I do not remember the first part of it. I 
remember when he said that De Lacey said something about my saying 
I would make $2,500, and, bad as it looks, I do. Outside of that, I do 
not remember. 

Q. That was on the Saturday, was it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On Monday, at nine o’clock, he gave what has been facetiously 
termed his explanation. Mr. Merrick put the question to him, “In 
your examination on Saturday, I understood you to state that you had 
not been promised any money or anything of the kind in this trans¬ 
action, but that you told De Lacey that you expected to make $2,500 
out of it, and that you still expected to make itj and I am informed 
that I omitted to ask you how you expected to realize that money ?” and 
this is how he explained it: “ I expected to come here and tell the truth 
and build up a reputation with my people down home ; and that is worth 
$2,500.” Then Mr. Merrick proceeds: “ That is the way you expected to 
get it? In no other way?—A. No other way. I expected to have the 
good people of the community with me.” Do you remember that expla¬ 
nation?—A. Tom was about finishing when I came in the committee- 
room. I know it was talked about there. I know he made such an 
explanation ; but I did not hear all of it. 

Q. That he expected to make a reputation for truth, and that was 
worth $2,500 to him?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Well, Sweazie, you have entertained us very much with an in¬ 
telligent account of the state of things in West Feliciana, in w'hich 
you prove all about the bulldozing, and that but for that you would 
have been elected ?—A. That is my belief. 

Q. You say the Kepublicau vote was very large, and the white vote 
very small. In fact, the Democratic vote in this last election was larger 
than the Eepublican vote. Were there any colored Democrats in that 
parish ?—A. I said the registration of colored voters was very large, 
and that of whites very small. 

Q. Were all those registered there voters ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I admit that you are more hypercritical than myself. What was 
the effect of this bulldozing ?—A. It was to make them not vote, or 
vote against the Eepublicans; but they all of them could vote the 
Democratic ticket. My stepfather and brother told me that they said 
to them if they did not go there and vote that ticket, they would pad¬ 
dle them ; but a great deal of that kind of testimony which I could 
give you is all hearsay. 

Q. There was a very full vote in that parish, was there not ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Well, all this took place, you say, in 1874?—A. No, sirj there was 
only a little of it about that time until the September riot. That was 
all over before the election came up. 

Q. The September riots were Jin New Orleans, were they not?—A. 
Yes, sir; and we had some little fuss up there. 

Q. You testified about a good number of people who were killed in 
1876. Of your own knowledge, now—I am not asking about rumors_ 

The Witness (interrupting.) Do you want to know if I saw it ? 

Q. Or know it to be true. Do you know of a single murder in West 
Feliciana for four months before the day of that election ?—A. I think 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


767 


the last oue that was killed for political purposes—I loaned him a horse 
to take his sister out to a funeral—I think that was in September. 

Q. What vvas his name ?—A. Ike Mitchell. 

Q. What was he killed for ?—A. The report was his brother came and 
said that his brother had done quit the Democratic club. 

Q. What did the others say ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Did not they say that it was for stealing ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was there not a great deal of stealing going on among the ne¬ 
groes i —A. The negroes never do. The white folks do. 

Q. Answer my question.—A. Well, sir, I have seen some prosecuted 
before the courts. 

Q. Was not that the general complaint, that horses, mules, and cattle, 
and so on, were not safe, and that the stealing and robbery had to be 
stopped ?—A. I believe that was the technical charge. I have heard 
that charge before. 

Q. Whenever there was any night riding, was it not to put down 
these crimes, and did not you Republicans call it bulldozing ?—A. We 
Republicans do not believe it was for stealing, but that it was for bull¬ 
dozing purposes. 

Q. But it occurred mouths before the election, did it not ?—A. O, 
yes, sir. 

Q. Now, here is a colored man’s testimony, let me read it to you, 
about the parish: “Do you know of any intimidation before the elec¬ 
tion ?—A. I went up to Acton’s plantation ”—you were there too ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. “And after I got there I heard a woman say that any negro who 
voted the Democratic ticket ought to be killed.” They had their guns 
around there, according to this man’s testimony. Is that true ?—A. 
No, sir; nothing of the kind happened there that day. Dr. Ryland was 
up there, and he never saw it. 

Q. He goes on to testify in reply to the question, “ Did you know of 
armed men riding around and getting negroes to vote the Democratic 
ticket?” that he knew nothing of the kind, but he did know of white 
and colored men riding around, as there had been a good of stealing 
hogs and chickens and corn. Now, do not you know of colored men 
who took part in suppressing these stealings ?—A. I do not know of 
one. 

Q. Do you believe this witness told the truth ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not believe that any witness who testified for the Demo¬ 
crats up there told the truth ?—A. I do not, when it comes to bulldozing 
—no, sir. 

Q. You do not believe the colored people took any part with the white 
men, those of them who lost property ?—A. I do not. If any one of 
them went with the crowd it was because he was compelled to and not 
of his own accord. 

Q. I want to ask you a question for my own information. The gov¬ 
ernment of Louisiana iu 187G was in the hands of the Republican party, 
and Kellogg was governor, was he not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And this bulldozing and intimidation and compelling the colored 
men to join in these night ridings all occurred then ?—A. That is my 
belief. 

Q. And you had military down here, did you not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Under Grant’s administration ?—A. Yes, sir j and we had some 
up there too. 

Q. How is it that the Republican State government and administra¬ 
tion and the military would allow three hundred white men to go around 


768 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


bulldozing and compelling seventeen hundred colored men from doing 
as they pleased ?—A. Do you want to know the facts ? 

Q. Yes, if you know the facts, that will answer the question.—A. The 
moment any of these United States soldiers came up there, he was 
taken to the house of white men like you, and his hair was plaited, and 
whatever the people wanted to do he turned his back on it. I do not 
think that General Lee would do it; I think he is too much of a gentle¬ 
man to do that, but Major Bascom did. I want to say the soldiers were 
up there, and I went to see some of them and I asked them how it was, 
and they said to me, “ Don’t you see where Bascom goes'? He is at 
Irvine’s;” and that is what I say. When they come there these white 
folks will take them in and plait their hair for them, and the negro stood 
no chance with them. 

Q. The reason, then, you give in reply to my question is that the mil¬ 
itary join with the whites?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And therefore they were no protection to you at all ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
that is one of my reasons. 

Q. You made no eflort to protect yourselves?—A. No, sir; we had 
nothing to protect ourselves with. 

Q. Did you apply to the State government under Governor Kellogg 
for protection ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Understand now, Sweazie, when I ask you a question I want you 
to answer my question, and if you have any explanation you can make 
it. You say that you applied to the governor for protection ?—A. I 
said that we did. 

Q. Did he not protect you ?—A. Yes, sir; all he could. 

Q. Did he not have the command of the State militia?—A. The State 
militia! Why, they had just been cleaned up here, and they were par¬ 
alyzed. They had nothing to fight with, and if they had been armed, 
the Democrats would have cleaned them out again. 

Q. Well, you would have fought, would you not, to protect your¬ 
selves ?—A. I do not like fighting, but I will if I am forced to. 

Q. Then you mean to say that all this night-riding there was a pre¬ 
text ?—A. Yes, sir; to cover up the bulldozing. It commenced when 
John Gear was killed, and never ceased until the State was in the hands 
of the Democratic party. It was just a continual thing all along. The 
people were scared to death, and voted just as the white people told 
them. 

Q. Was there any division then among the colored people?—A. I 
would meet them and ask them why they joined the Democratic clubs. 

Q. Well, why did they do it?—A. Because they were told to. 

Q. Would not any of them do it ?—A. Yes, sir; such fellows as Tom 
Murray would do it. 

Q. Well, now, do not get excited, Sweazie; I am not going to hurt 
you. We will get along better if we keep cool. Your idea is that a 
negro would not vote the Democratic ticket unless he was forced to ?— 
A. Not in this early day. 

Q. Why not ?—A. Because if they had been treated better they might, 
but not now. 

Q. That is your judgment?—A. That is my conscience, I believe. 

Q. That is the reason you have as the basis of your ideas and con¬ 
clusions as to the effect of bulldozing; you believe it is the result of 
force because you do not believe the negroes would vote the Democratic 
ticket voluntarily?—A. No, sir; not as you put it. 

Q. Well, put it your own way.—A. I believe that the threats made 
to them, and the condition of the colored people, being in poverty, and 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


769 


kiiowiiifj of the colored men being whipped by white men and not prose¬ 
cuted tor it, and being told to vote the Democratic ticket or you will 
get what Tom and Dick got—1 believe all that is what makes them 
do it. 

Q. AVell, that is force, is it not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Then your theory is that these colored men who vote the Demo- 
ocratic ticket, join the Democratic clubs, and join the white men in 
assisting to put down these crimes, and then this vote, the twelve hun¬ 
dred in West Feliciana, were forced to do it ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And you believe that simply because you do not believe a colored 
man would there join a Democratic club or vote a Democratic ticket 
without it?—A. 1 know he would not in West Feliciana; I know he 
would not. I know nearly everybody in West Feliciana, and I know 
they would not. The majority of them there would never do it unless 
they were forced. 

Q. I do not ask you about the majority of them. . You said none of 
them would?—A. Well, now, you let me make my explanation. You 
may have a man on your i)lautatiou over in Georgia who likes you. 
You have treated him and his family well, and befriended him wlien he 
needed it, and if you say to him that you want him to vote the Demo¬ 
cratic ticket, he may go and do it; but if you do not say something of 
the sort to him he would not vote it. 

Q. Well, there may be personal instances of that sort. Now I want 
your judgment about it. Why is it that, in your judgment, and what 
reason can you give, that the colored people, left to themselves, acting 
freely, would vote nothing but the Itepublican ticket?—A. Well, sir, 
in 18G8 I joined a Democratic club in West Feliciana myself; and every 
colored man, even the old men who had known me always, would say, 
“ You have joined a Democratic club I would saj^ “ Yes.” They 
would say, “Are you not ashamed of yourself, to join a club of people 
who have been whipping us all our lives ?’^ And they kept after me 
in that way, and shamed me until I got ashamed myself, and I took my 
name olf. 

Q. O, you joined a Democratic club yourself, did >ou? Did you 
join it at the reciuest of the bulldozers?—A. No, sir; 1 was coaxed into 
doitigit. 

Q. O, yes; and the colored people shamed you out of it?—A. Yes, 
sir; shamed me so I took my name off. 

Q. You are coming to the point now [ was trying to get you at, that 
the colored people would not vote the Democratic ticket because they 
wanted to feel that the Democrats are their enemies ?—A. They know 
that, sir. 

Q. Tlierefore, when you joined a Democratic club, and I am glad you 
told me that, you were coaxed to do it?—A. It wasn’t a Democrat who 
coaxed me, though. 

Q. Who coaxed yon ?—A. A Kepublican, a white Republican who was 
deceived in West Feliciana, he was the man. 

Q. That’s not the point; the fact is you (piit the club because the col¬ 
ored people shamed you about it ?—A. Well, I felt ashamed myself. I 
felt repentant, and so I took my name off. 

Q. Now you come to the point which 1 was after. Isn’t it true that 
the colored*people have this feeling to such an extent that they abuse 
and maltreat a colored person who becomes a Democrat?—A. No, air; 
not in our parish. We sit down and talk to them and convince them 
they are doing wrong, and then they take their names off, and do not 
do it any more. 

48 S K 


770 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Don’t you say to tbein that they are doing wrong 1 Don’t yon os¬ 
tracise them socially ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You turn them out of the church for it, don’t they !—A. I have 
heard of it, but I never belonged to the church, but they look upon 
them not as i)ure men, and ostracise them socially. 

Q. jSow this is a question of fact, without regard to the motives which 
prompt them. Are there not a thousand or eight hundred men in 
that parish who affiliate with the Democratic i)arty ?—A. They go to the 
polls and vote that way, but they were made to do it. The day I was ar¬ 
rested they said, “ Y^ou will never be able to come here and teach these 
negroes to vote the Eepublican ticket again. You are all a set of damn 
scroundrels, and we have cleaned you out, and you shall never come 
back here. I can’t go there and make a speech, even. 

Q. I want to come to your safety in that parish after awhile; T am 
going to ask you for information now. Are you not esteemed in the 
parish of West Feliciana as a bad man?—A. No, sir; I am not; any¬ 
body who knows me, knows that I will fight any one man, but I do not 
array one band of people against another. 

Q. Didn’t those people give as a reason to why they didn’t want you 
back, that you were a bad man?—A. No, sir; Mr. Barrow said to me 
that you have always treated me right, and I told him I treated every¬ 
body right who treated me right. I am charged with being a bad man 
simply because I am a Eepublican leader—that’s the only fact I know’ 
about it. 

Q. Didn’t they charge you with being a dangerous man ?—A. No, sir; 
I don’t believe they did. 

Q. Haven’t you been charged with killing a man ?—A. I don’t believe 
they have. 

Q. Don’t you know you have?—A. Well, yes, sir; I w^as charged 
with it; but I don’t think the people who arrested me believed it. 

Q. It’s all in the record, it’s old. What w^as that man’s name you 
were charged with murdering?—A. W. D. Winter. 

Q. What was the character of Judge Winter?—A. I really do not 
know. I know him to be a lawyer, and I didn’t know’ him before he 
was killed. I didn’t know Judge Winter personally. 

Q. You were arrested for killing that man ; now, don’t you know’ that 
when a man is charged with crime, whether he did it or not, and I am 
not after the fact, but after your reputation, that if a colored man is 
arrested for killing a white man of good and respectable character, that 
it gives him a bad reputation in the community ?—A. I say that when 
a man goes upstairs into court, and is tried and discharged without 
the calling of a witness, and a man like Mr. Leake takes me downstairs 
and says, you are clear in the community, that ought to be enough. 

Q. I see; but I say those little things don’t go to the public, and it 
may be that these friends of yours may not have believed that you 
killed the man. But wasn’t your trouble your readiness to fight ? You 
knocked a man down and cut him with your ring, you said awhile ago. 
Was not your readiness to show yourself off as a lighting man enough 
to give you a bad character? And haven’t you been arrested in the 
parish for killing a good man; whether rightfully or not, arrested ; and 
I say, haven’t all these things given you a reputation which is a bad one ? 
and didn’t those people there say they thought you had gone away, and 
were going to stay away?—A. There was only one man that said that. 

Q. Well, isn’t that the reason you stay away from there?—A. No, 
sir; I stay away because I am a Eepublican. No, sir, that was all in 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


771 


1871. 1 was discharged from those charges, and I was driven away be¬ 

cause I came down here to contest the seat of a Democratic member. 

C,J. Don^t yon know as a fact, without reference to its justice, that it 
has been cluyged and believed that you and the two Webbers killed 
this man Winter *2—A. No, sir ; the two Webbers were not in it. 

Q. There was nobody in it but you ?—A. Little Webber was in the 
Democratic party. 

Q. Who was in it with you?—A. Senator Webber was charged with 
me, and him and his brother didn’t speak then. 

Q. Isn’t it a fact that it is believed there generally that both of you 
called this man out of his house and killed him A. No, sir; I don’t 
believe it is. I know that we were arrested and they took us before 
a Democratic court, and that the Democratic district attorney dis¬ 
charged us. 

Q. Did they ever put it on anybody else ?—A. I have heard that 
Captain John Burrows was charged with it. 

Q. Wasn’t the Democratic candidate for sheriff killed that night ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was that?—A. Tom West. They, both of them, were prom¬ 
inent Democrats who had been killed. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You spoke of the killing of-a man named John Gear?—A. I don’t 
know any of the j)articulars of it, oidy 1 know there was a warrant for 
him charging him with poisoning some one, and be was arrested in 
Baton Rouge, and they werecarying him to Clinton, and he was pushed 
overboard and killed. I know seventy-five or more men rode into town 
after it nearly every day until after the election. 

Q. Who was he charged with poisoning?—A. Dr. Saunders. 

(^. Is he alive?—A. Yes, sir; the last time I heard from there he was 
there. 

Q. Who was Gear; is he a colored man?—A. Yes, sir; he was a 
prominent colored man. 

Q. And he was charged with poisoning Saunders?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he was arrested in the hands of ii posse and was killed ?—A. 
YY\s, sir. 

Q. You say he was a prominent colored Republican ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(*). Was anybody ever arrested or punished for Gear?—A. No, sir; 
but his sister was hung at the same time in the court house yard at 
Clinton, and nobody was punished for it. 

C^. When did that happen ?—A. In the spring of 1875. 

(»). That was the commencement of the reign of terror there?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it known who those men were that were with the 2 )osse that 
killed Gear ?—A. I have heard of different men, but I know it to be 
hearsay. 

Q. \Vas the sister of Gear hung in the day or night?—A. From re¬ 
ports, it was in the daytime. 

Q. Were there any persons ever i)unished for hanging her ?—A. No, 
sir; none in the world. 

Q. She was hung to death ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is Clinton ?—A. It is in East Feliciana; the county seat of 
East Feliciana Parish. 

Q. Were there any Republicans in that parish in 1870?—A. 1 think 
some fellow gave to Ex Governor Antoine one vote. 

(,). What was the registration there?—A. Very much like West Fe- 


772 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


liciana ; three or four to one. I believe when Kellogg was elected the 
Kepublicans gave nine hundred majority over the Democrats. 

Q. You say you didn’t understaud that any one has been brought up 
or punished for killing Weber ?—A. None, sir. 

Q. And none for killing Gear or his sister !—A. None. 

Q. Has any white man prior to 1876 or since been punished for kill¬ 
ing any colored man or woman !—A. No, sir; I don’t remember any. 
I know a colored man, who was accused of killing a white boy, being 
hung there in 1868. I have a recollection of it; I do not pretend to say. 
This was not what you asked me about, but I do not recollect it. 

Q. Was it not the general opinion, so far as you know it, that no white 
man has been punished for ever killing or whipping, which was regarded 
as a sort of political crime A. I have stated that as the condition of 
things now, ever since the Democratic party has had the government 
up there ; that is my reason for staying away from there. I think if I 
were to go back there I would be shot down on the streets, and you 
would hear that a bad nigger named Swasey was killed, and that would 
be about all. 

Q. You think that would be the case up there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That a negro named so and so had been killed, and that would be 
the last heard of it?—A. Yes, sir; 1 heard a white man say to Weber, 
that one was a Democrat, and he was a white man; as much as to sa\" 
his brother w as a negro. 

Q. Where is Weber now residing who was charged with you with 
the killing of this man and who has been referred to ?—A. Living in 
Donaldsonville. 

Q. To which party do you understand he now belongs?—A. The 
Democratic party. 

Q. And is allowed to live there now in peace?—A. He is not in West 
Feliciana, but he is in Donaldsonville, and is in peace, I suppose. 

Q. Did you understand that you were driven from the parish because 
you were a bad and dangerous man, or because you w ere regarded as a 
leading and intlueutial Kepublican ?—A. Because I am a leading Repub¬ 
lican, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. There w\as no election in 1875 at the time this man Gear was killed, 
was there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And no political excitement?—A. No, sir. 

Q. There was no election and no candidates?—A. No, sir; none at 
that time. 

Q. One other question and I am done. Was this man Weber wLo 
was killed, was he one of the Webers who was charged with you with 
killing Winter?—A. He was one of them. 

Q. Was he brother to the other?—A. Y^es, sir; he was a brother. 

Q. Was this man Weber killed since the election or before?_A. It 

was since the election of 1876. 

The committee at this point took a recess of fifteen minutes. 


TESTIMONY OF N. B. HUTTON. 

N. B. Hutton, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member 
sworn and examined. ’ 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Hutton ?—Answer. In the third 
district and seventh ward. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


773 


Q. In this city?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided here?—A. I have been here since 
1859, before the war. 

Q. liat official connection, if any, had yon with the registration in 
this city or parish in 1874 ?—A. I was assistant supervisor of registra 
tion in 1874 in the seventh ward. 

Q. Did you have any official connection with registration in 187G ?— 
A. No, sir, none at all. 

Q. It was stated by a witness named Peter Williams, who testified 
before this committee some days ago that he gave Mr. Moore a package 
of registration certificates, but he didn’t state that you knew anything 
about them, but he said all that was necessary in order to use these 
certificates in 187G would be your signature. lie didn’t state, I think, 
that you signed them, but I want to know whether in 18'iG you signed 
any of them ?—A. No, sir, I did not. 

Q. Where were you on the day of the election in 187G ?—A. I was at 
poll No. 9, a commissioner of election. 

By Senator Yance : 

Q. In what ward, sir ?—A. In the seventh ward. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Have you read the testimony of Peter Williams as it appeared in 
the papers?—A. Yes, sir, I did. 

Q. I think he mentioned your name once or twice ; perhaps you 
remember what he said more distinctly than I do ?—A. I do not know 
except that he says I was present at a conversation with Moore at his 
house. I never saw Mr. Williams or heard any conversation between 
him and Moore at Moore’s house. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What is your present occupation ?—A. I am a custom-house em¬ 
ploye. 

Q. How long have you been in the custom-house?—A. Ten years 
nearly. I have been out at times. I went out on the first of last June, 
through a mistake, as the collector told me, and I was not reinstated 
until the first of November. 

Q. That was the first of this month ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. During the time j^ou were out of the custom-house did you and 
Moore and Williams have any conversation together ?—A. Yes, sir. But 
1 will first have to show about which was the first notice I bad of this 
matter. I received it from Mr. Williams and it was sent to my house. 
This is the note. 

(j). Is this dated November 1st?—A. No, sir, the eleventh, I think. 

Q,. It is really the eleventh, you think ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was an appointment to meet yon, if conv^enient ?—A. A"es, 
sir; to meet him. 

Q. Did 3 'ou meet him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was Moore there, too?—A. Not at that time. He spoke of one 
interview, and that is the one I am testifying about. 

Q. Well, I am talking about the interview that occurred between Wil¬ 
liams and IMoore, and when you were present?—A. I am just going to 
tell you. I met him, and he said he was anxious to see me. I asked 
him'what he wanted, and he said he had a message for me. I asked 
him if it was written or verbal, and he said it was verbal. I said, “ What 
was it ? ” IFe said that Mr. Walker wished to see me, and was anxious to 
see me; and I said, “What does he want? ” as I did not know Mr. Walker, 


774 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


and would not know him if I were to see him. He said he was a law¬ 
yer named Clem Walker, and said he wanted to see me about the registra¬ 
tion business. I said to him I knew nothing, and had no information 
to give, and would not go, and “ You can tell Mr. Walker so, so that he 
will not expect me.” That interview with Peter was on the 12th. 

Q. I am talking now" about the interview with Moore; that is the one 
that I w"ant you to testify about.—A. Of course, w"heu he told me this 
I spoke to Mr. Moore, and he said for me to call and see Williams with 
him. We saw him the following day, on Canal street, but I paid very 
little attention, and scarcely know but a very few" words which will 
give you any information about tlie conversation betw"een him and Moore. 
1 let them talk it out, and I just stood around there. 

Q. Was this after you and Moore both got in the custom-house?—A. 
Of course; yes, sir; Moore had been back some time. 

Q. Y^ou had been out?—A. Yes, sir; I w’as out; and 1 did not know 
that I was back there until to day. I applied to Badger and he sent 
on to Washington, and orders came back, but it was delayed, and 1 did 
not learn it until to day. 

Q. How do you know that you were put back from the first of the 
month ?—A. Well, sir, there has been made an endeavor to have it com¬ 
mence on the first of the month. 

Q. That is, to have your pay run on from the first ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been at work there ?—A. 1 have been at w ork 
six days. 

Q. Did they tell you to go to work ?—A. Yes, sir; six days ago. 

Q. 1 thought you stated that you went on to-day?—A. It is a night 
position that they have given me that is to commence ou the first of the 
month. I worked six days and stopped. 1 received notice that as my 
confirmation was delayed, I was stopped; that is, I was stopped from 
the surveyor’s department. 

Q. Did you act as surpervisor of registration throughout the cam¬ 
paign of 1874?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Did you have apy conversation between yourself and Mr. Williams 
about the registration certificates of 1874?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never went and got any for use in 1870 that belonged to 1874 ? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you ever requested to affix your signature to any such ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Do you know a colored man named John Barrow ?—A. Yes, sir; 
I know him. 

Q. Did John Barrow take an active part in the election of 1876 ?—A. 
I think he did; I think the Democratic party has hired him. 

Q. Did they hire him in 1876 or 1878?—A. May be it was 1878. 

Q. How was it in 1876 ?—A. I suppose he was a Eepublican then. 

Q. Well, did he take an active part in the election of that year ?— 
A. Well, sir, he officiated among the colored men principally. 

Q. Didn’t he act as a Eepublican politician in 1876 ?—A. I believe he 
did. 

Q. What has he been doing since?—A. Nothing that I know of. 

Q. Hasn’t he been in the custom-house since ?—A. Not that I know 
of. 

Q. Wasn’t he appointed in there a few days ago?—A. I don’t know, 
sir. 

Q. Did Mr. C. W. Boothby live in the 7th ward at that time?—A. 
Yes, sir; he did. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with hiin as to the election in 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 775 

1870 ?—A. Often. We would meet and talk about it as we all be¬ 
longed to the same club—the Central liepublican Club. 

Q. Did you spend an evening at BoothPy’s bouse in 1876 a few days 
after the election 1?—A. I have no knowledge of being there, sir. I 
have spent many evenings at his house; our families are intimate, but 
I do not remember that 1 did at that time; certainly on no business in 
regard to the election. 

Q. What was the conversation about between Moore and Williams 
at the time that you heard them talking f—A. I suppose they would 
know that better than I do, as I paid no attention to it. 

Q. Where did it take place 1?—A. On Canal street, the corner of Canal 
and Old Levee streets. 

Q. Didn’t Moore tell Williams that he (Moore) would not swear to 
what he had told Williams before ?—A. I didn’t hear it, sir. 

Q. What did he say?—A. I don’t remember. I could not really con¬ 
nect any of the words; but they said some little things that were 
laughable and were laughed at, but I could not connect them. 

Q. Did he say anything about money, or getting money for it ?—A. 
I think so, but 1 could not tell you in wbat connection; 1 really could 
not. 

(}. Did you call at the State registrar’s otlice during the campaign of 
1876?—A. No, sir; 1 had no business there. Everything we needed 
was furnished us. 

Q. What became of the returns or poll-lists of poll 9 in 1876; where 
was it carried ?—A. Why, it was carried up to the clerk’s otlice. 

Q. Wasn’t it carried to the custom-house?—A. No, sir; it was car¬ 
ried to the corner of Loyal and Conti. 

Q. And never went to the custom-house ?—A. No, sir; it never went 
there. It was carried by the Democratic supervisor, J\lr. Waters, who 
went along with it. 


TESTIMONY OF W. E. LOAN. 

W. F. Loan, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, sworn 
and examined. 

Senator Hill (to the witness). Are you subpceaaed to appear before 
this committee ? 

The Witness. I have been called here. 

Senator Hill. Are you subpamaed, though ? 

The Witness. I have no written subpoena. 

Senator Hill. Governor Kellogg, the witnesses who have been sub- 
ptenaed are here on the expenses of the government. 

Senator Kellogg, i do not expect him to be paid, sir. 

Senator Hill. That is not the expense I refer to; but those witnesses 
who have been subpoenaed, some sixty in number, are on the expenses 
of the government, and I do not want the time and money of the gov¬ 
ernment taken up by their waiting while other witnesses not under sub- 
pcena are examined. Let the witnesses subpeenaed be exhausted first. 
This is quite an expensive piece of business, you know. 

Senator Kellogg. I only want to ask this witness one or two ques¬ 
tions. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Do you reside in this city ?—A. I do. 


776 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. What official position did you occupy in the latter part of 1875, or 
the first part of 1876 ?—A. Superintendent of police in this city. 

Q. Mr. Boughnon was sworn and examined as a witness before this 
committee a few dayiij ago, and he said in substance this: That he saw 
Senator Kellogg pay Senator Twitchell $300 in the telegraph office in the 
State-house in the jmesence of Mr. Flynn, who, at that time, was a tele¬ 
graph operator in that office. State if you know whether or not Mr. 
Flynn was in the city or the State, or was transferred to some other 
place.—A. When was that, sir*? 

Q. It was a few days before the election of Mr. Kellogg to the Senate 
in January, 1877.—A. Mr. Flynn was not in the State-house in 1877. I 
removed him from there the latter part of November, 1866. 

Q. 1876 you mean —A. Yes, sir ; 1876. 

Q. To what point did you remove him ?—A. He never did any work 
for me at all after I removed him from the State-house. 

Q. Do you know where be went?—A. I do not know, sir; he was 
about the city. 

Q. Was he not in a telegraph office there in January, 1877 !—A. He 
was not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. That is your best recollection of it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you know as a matter of fact that he was not in the State- 
house ?—A. I do. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What position do you hold now?—A. None at all. 

Q. Have you been employed in the custom-house ?—A. I was some 
year ago. 

Q. How long has it been since you left the custom-house ?—A. I think 
it was last April. 

Q. Have you any promise to get back ?—A. I have not, and do not 
expect to get back. 

Q. What is your occupation at present?—A. My regular occupation 
is a mariner. I am a seafaring man. That is my regular occupation. 

Q. How long since you have followed it?—A. I have not been to sea 
since 1869. 

Q. Were you in the State-house in January, 1877 ?—A. I was. 

Q. What were you doing at the capitol ? Were you engaged in any¬ 
thing, or have any appointment, or office ?—A. I was chief of the police 
and in command of the troops. 

Q. What were you engaged in during the early part of the mouth— 
during the time the Packard legislature was sitting there previous 
to the election of Kellogg ?—A. I was not there during that time; I 
was at the headquarters. 

Q. Then you do not know whether there was a quorum there or not ?— 
A. No, sir; nothing of that sort. 

Q. You were not out then carrying men up to the State house ?—A. 
I had other business to attend to, sir. 1 was chief of police in the city 
of New Orleans. 

Q. Where were you located in New Orleans?—A. One hundred and 
twenty four Oarondelet street, two blocks above Poydras street. 

Q. Well, then, you were not up at the State-house on the days of the 
9th and 10th of January?—A. I was. 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


777 


Q. 1 thought you saitl you were away then ?—A. I said I was not 
there until the 9th. I went in to take charge the morning of the 9th. 

Q. You were not there between the 1st and 9th?—A. I say I may 
have been in and out. 

Q. But you were not stationed there?—A. Not permanently. 

Q. Did you know a number of members of that legislature person¬ 
ally ?—A. No, sir; I can’t say I did know many of them. 

Q. What were you doing thereon the 9th & 10th at the State house? 
—A. I was getting my force in readiness to repel any attack on the 
State-house. 

Q. What forces did you have ?—A. We had some, all told—I suppose 
I had about 700 or 800 men. 

Q. Were they the police force?—A. Some of them were police. 

Q. Were they troops?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the occasion for them ?—A. You mean for my assem¬ 
bling my men ? 

Q. Yes.—A. On account of the threatening position of affairs. I saw 
armed men marching about the street and threatening to take charge of 
the State government. 

Q. And you had your troops there to take care of it ?—A. Yes, sir; 
all of them. 

Q. You had nothing to do with the members ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not constitute yourself sergeant-at-arms for that body ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor take anybody into it ?—A. No, sir; nor did I take anybody in 
there. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What authority did you have over the telegra])h operators in the 
State-house ?—A. They were under my charge and I removed them or 
not. 

Q. And you had that all to yourself?—A. Yes, sir. I did not do it 
though without the consent of the board of commissioners, and they 
usually took my recommendations. 


TESTIMONY OF APxISTIDE DE JOIE. 

Aristide De Joie (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. On Magazine street be¬ 
tween Bordeaux and Line. 

Q. How long have you resided in this city ?—A. About thirty-one 
years I have been here. 

Q. What official position, if any, did you hold in 187G or 1877 ?—A. 
In 187G, I was State assessor. In 1877, 1 was a member of the legisla¬ 
ture. 

Q. A member of the lower house, were you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A witness named Albert W. Flanagan has testified before this 
committee and in which testimony in substance he has stated this: 1 re¬ 
side in this city and I am a clerk by occupation, and De Joie claimed to 
be a member of the legislature, lie said that you visited that place- 
judge Dibble’s office—aud;he saw once some money pass between you 
and some other parties; that it was just about the time for the election 


778 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


of Senator, and that the money was divided between you, De Joie, and 
Stamps. Were you present at any time in Judge Dibble’s office or any¬ 
where else when Harris—H. H. Harris I think—passed any money to 
you and you divided it with Stamps, or passed any money to you at all ? 
—A. I will state to the committee that I was not out of the State-house 
during the month of January. I remained in there, at the State-house, 
until February. I never went out during the time from the time w^e or¬ 
ganized the house until it adjourned. I had Mr. Tom Murray to fix up 
a room for me in the State-house, and I never was out of it, and never 
at Judge Dibble’s office. 

Q. Did Mr. Harris ever i)ay you any money '?—A. I do not know him, 
and he don’t know me. 

Q. Did he pay you any money!—xV. No, sir; I do not know him. 

Q. Did you ever divide any money received in the same manner, be¬ 
cause you voted for Kellogg or agreed to, with Stamps !—A. I never did. 

Q. Did you ever receive any money from Kellogg or any of his friends, 
or any one coming with him, in consideration of voting,for him for Sen¬ 
ator!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you receive from Kellogg or any of his friends any promise or 
agreement to ai)poiut you to any office for voting for Kellogg.—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. My recollection of his affidavit is, that Flanagan states positively 
in the affidavit that he saw you paid $500 or $300—I am not certain 
which—and Stamps either $300 or $500; but one of you was paid $300, 
and 1 do not remember which it was. 

Senator Hill. I think the member got $300 and the senator $500. 

Q. (By Mr. Cameron.) He states in the affidavit that a short time be¬ 
fore Kellogg was elected to the Senate by the Packard legislature, this 
man Flanagan says he saw Harris pay you $300, and at the same time 
Stamps $500, and the consideration was that you should support Kel¬ 
logg for Senator, and the consideration to Stamps was that he should 
do the same. Is there any truth whatever in that statement !—A. I 
state emphatically that it is not true, for at no time have I received any 
promise or money for voting for Kellogg. 

Q. Did Mr. Stamps, in your presence, receive any !—xV. No, sir. 

Q. Were you not at that time friendly to the election of Kellogg !— 
A. I was. 

Q. State whether or not he was your candidate for the position.—A. 
He was my choice. I felt grateful to him for appointing me a member 
of the board of assessors, and I thought I would vote for him out of 
gratitude. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Murray !—A. 1 do. 

Q. Have you had any conversation with him in regard to this case !— 
A. We had a light talk in the street, but nothing of any consequence. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Are you in the custom-house, now !—A. I am, sir. 

Q. How long have you been there !—A. Yes, sir; over a year. 

Q. What is your occupation !—A. United States gauger." 

Q. What is your salary !—A. 1 have no fixed salary; I get a fee. 

Q. How much does it amount to !—A. The fee cannot amount to over 
$5 a day. 

Q. Did you ever see any money offered to a white man, a member of 
the Packard legislature, and he declined to take it!—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you did not see anything of that sort!—A. No, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


779 


By {Senator Cameron : 

Q. Wbat portion of your time have you employed as gauger; one-half 
or three-quarters of your time?—A. I do not understand the question. 

Q. You are only paid for the days j'ou are employed I—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you employed everj" day or not?—A. I am employed every 
<lay if the houses 1 am assigned to have work. 

Q. Then you are not paid sometimes, for there is no work ?—A. jSTo, 
isir. 

When you are not employed you are not paid ?—A. I am not 
jmid, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF JEFFERS JN STOKES. 

Jefferson Stokes (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sit¬ 
ting member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do j’ou reside ?—Answer. On Villere street. 

Q. How long have you lived in this city ?—A. 38 years, or a little 
over. I was born in the city. 

Q. What connection, if any, had you with the Packard legislature 
or Imuse ?—A. 1 was there a porter. 

Q. When did you go into employment there ?—A. I went in—I cannot 
tell you exactly the day. I went in in 1874, I think. 1 was keeper of 
the State-house before that. 

Q. You were porter, then, at the time the Packard legislature met, in 
January?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you or not continue until it linally dissolved?—A. Yes, sir; 
four mouths. 

Q. Do you know Thomas, of Bossier^ Parish ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the time of the election of Kelloirg as Seua- 
tor ?—A. 1 cannot rememher the date, but I was there at the time. 

Q. State, if you can, if Thomas, of Bossier, was actually in the cham¬ 
ber at the time.—A. Yes, sir; 1 was there, and 1 got him something 
to eat at a restaurant that day and the day previous. He asked if 1 
would get him something to eat, and 1 said yes, and I went to a restau¬ 
rant on Chartres street. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What employment are you in at present ?—A. None, sir. 

Q. Are you employed at the custom-house?—A. No, sir; I never 
worked in the custom. 


TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ANDERSON. 

Thomas C. Anderson, a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
ffuember, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is your name ?—Answer. Thomas C. Anderson. 

Q. Where do you reside ?—A. Here, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided in this city?—A. Over 39 years. 

Q, Of what State are you a native?—A. Virginia. 

Q. A witness named Bernard Williams, commonly called Barney 




780 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Williams, lias testified that be had a conversation with you,, probably 
in May last, and that he made an arrangement by which he was going 
to get to Washington in the case of Kellogg, and you directed him to 
state if he was asked what his business there was, and to say it was a 
private claim of his own. Now state when and where you first saw this 
man, and the next time, and all about it. I take it you have read his 
testimony ?—A. I read the portion that I saw in the paper, coming 
back on the cars the other day. He stated that I had him employed 
while I was in the xiarish prison as my detective. That is false. I had 
nobody employed except my attorneys. I had never seen him until the 
day the sux^reme court rendered a final decision, and he came running 
to the x)arish prison, and was the first one to communicate to me that 
the court had made a decision in my favor. I do not know as I knew 
him at all when be came there at that time. But friends of mine came 
up in buggies and carriages afterwards, and I saw no more of him at 
that time. He came to see me later on several times. He wanted a 
letter to Governor Kellogg, and I finally wrote it, a simple letter of in¬ 
troduction. He represented to me that he was going to Washington 
on private business to see General Butler. He asked for a letter and I 
gave it to him, but as to conversing with him in Kellogg’s interest, or 
about his case, it is entirely false. I made no such arrangement or 
proposition. 

Q. Please look at that letter, general (handing witness a letter), and 
state whether it is or not the letter you gave Williams to Governor Kel¬ 
logg. 

The Witness (after examining the letter). Yes, sir; it is my writing 
and my letter, written on the 3()th of May. 

Senator Cameron read the letter, as follows : 

Custom House, New Orleans, La., 

Collector's Office, May SOth, i879.. 

Hon. Wm. P. Kellogg, 

Washington, D. C.: 

Dear Sir: This will be handed to yon by Mr. B. Williams, of this city, w'ho visits 
Washington on business, and if you can be of any assistance to him it will be appre¬ 
ciated. 

Your friend, 

THOS. C. ANDERSON. 

Q. If you have ever had any other or different conversations with this 
man on this subject, please state them.—A. He called several times and 
wanted me to assist him, and he showed me letters where he was ex¬ 
pecting remittances, and asked me to lend him money, but I had none 
to lend him. I was kindly disposed to the man because he had seemed 
to manifest an interest in my case. I knew nothing of the man, his 
character, or anything else. 

Q. What business did he state that he had at Washington?—A. To 
the best of my recollection it was to look after a pension, or some claim 
against the gov^ernment. He told me he had been a detective to General 
Butler while in command in this city. 

Senator Cameron. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hill. We have no questions for you. General Anderson. 

Senator CA3IER0N: 

Q. There is another matter I desire to call your attention to, the testi¬ 
mony of a witness named Henry Houser. He testified that he was a 
policeman, stationed at Governor Kellogg’s house, in the latter x>art of 
187G and the early x>art of 1877, and he frequently saw you tliere^ and. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


781 


that yon and (lovernor Kellogg had a conversation in regard to the 
resnlt of tlie election in this State; and yon admitted, he said, that it 
had fjfone J )emocratic ?—A. He is mistaken. 1 never stated any such 
thinjj, and never had any conversation with Governor Kellogg on the 
subject, and I studiously avoided that subject in talking with him. I 
was fre(iuently there to breakfast or dinner and never said anything on 
the subject, and could not have stated any such opinion. 

Q. This witness stated also that he saw iMr. Blanchard and Jewett 
writing in a small othce-room in Kellogg’s house, and that he and 
Blanchard and Jewett were fixing up returns.—A. I believe that was 

the idea he had--i)apers which were taken from the possession of the 

returning board, and that they’ were fixing them up. 

Q. Wtwe any such i)apers taken from the possession of the returning 
board to your knowiedge ?—A. No i>apeis were ever allow’ed out of the 
hands of the returning board. 

Q. Taken out there i —A. If they had any they were taken before they 
were given to the returning board, and 1 never saw either of them at 
Kellogg’s, wu'iting. 

Q. What was (lone with the pa])ers when they were given there to the 
returning board —A. They were delivered to Mr. Abell, the clerk, and 
locked up in a chest of the treasurer or auditor. 

Q. In a safe, do you mean ?—A. Yes, sir ; they were ahvays delivered 
and put in a bright back the United States. 

Q. It has been stated by various witnesses that members of the re¬ 
turning board met frequently in secret session. 1 w ill ask you if Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg was ever present at any of those meetings ?—A. If he 
was, I never saw him. 

Q. You were present at all of them ?—A. I was never absent except 
from one or two, and I never saw^ him there. 

Q. Do you remember if you ever saw him in the }>ublic room ?—A. I 
never saw’ him. I don’t think he came in there at all. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Generally, the public proceedings of your board were published 
tVom day to day ?—A. They w ere sir. 

Q. I hold in my hand a (locument known as the Sherman report. It 
is a message by the Bresident of the United States transmitting certain 
t)ai)ers to the Senate. Jt purports to contain the proceedings from day 
to day in the juiblic sessions of your board. Will you examine and see 
whether it really does contain, as it purports to do, the proceedings of 
your Ooard ? 

The Witness (taking the book and carefully examining it). I believe 
these are the proceedings as juiblished daily w hilst we were in session. 

Q. Were any protests at any time filed w’ith your returning' board 
that were not made public in open session?—A. None that I recollect, 
sir. 

Q. On page 74 are there any protests of the supervisors or other per¬ 
sons against any polls on the city or country i)arishes ? 

Senator Hill. Governor Kellogg, all that has been i)roven. 

Senator Kellogg. You will see, Mr. Chairman, in a moment my ob¬ 
ject. [To the witness.) On page 24‘d a statement of protests filed by 
'W. P. Kellogg, Sheldon, and others. Do you recollect that protest ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. J will ask you if I have signed a protest or had any connection 
with any other except that protest ?—A. 1 don’t recollect seeing it. I 
saw none with your name to it but that one, and that w’as the general 
protest by the electors. 



782 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you know of any other?—A. I do not. 

Senator Hill. We have no questions. 

Thereupon the committee adjourned to 10 o’clock a. m. Thursday^ 
November 27, 1870. 


New Orleans, 

Thursday, Novemher 27, 1879—10 o’clock a. m. 

Present, a]l the members of the committee; C. L. AValker, counsel 
for the memorialist; the memorialist, Henry M. Spoftbrd ; and the sit¬ 
ting member. Senator William Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Walker. I desire to move the committee to submit to the sit¬ 
ting member and to Senator (kimeron whether they will or not consent 
to the admission of the testimony of J. F. Kelly, pages 171 to 182 of the 
report of a Congressional committee. 

Senator Hill. Of the Potter committee ? 

Mr. Walker. The Potter committee. The witness was fully ex¬ 
amined and cross examined, and his testimony is here at length. The 
committee will see from the examination that it was an exhaustive one; 
and desiring to save the government the expense of bringing the wit¬ 
ness here, and facilitate the committee as to time as mucli as possible, 
I would ask that the testimony of Mr. Kelly be accepted. 

Senator Hill. How far is the witness from the city ? 

Mr. Walker. He is in the parish of Kichland, in the northern part 
of the State. It would cost a matter of 8200 or $300 to get him here. 

Senator Hill. Your proposition is that the testimony be admitted 
here as introduced u|)on the stand ? 

Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 

Senator KellogGt. What testimony is it 'I 

Mr. Walker. The testimony of J. F. Kelly, supervisor of registra¬ 
tion of Kichland Parish in 7870. 

Senator Kellogg. There was a Democratic member sent from the 
parish by the returning board. 

Senator Hill. In admitting the testimony you do not admit that it 
is true. Governor Kellogg, but that if the witness were here in person 
he would swear to it or to the same things in substance. 

Senator Kellogg. I think, Mr. Chairman, that he said somewhere 
in his testimony something of my prei)aring his protest, and if so, I 
would wish to have him here and examine him about that. I would 
like to see the original protest and see if it is in my handwriting. 

Senator Hill. I think the matter is not a material one, for in my 
opinion, I think Congress would have the right to all matters of testi¬ 
mony that had been taken by a committee of Congress. 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir; I should think so. 

Mr. Spofford. Did not the sitting member refer to this testimony 
himself in his si)eech in Washington ? 

Senator Kellogg. I did, but it was used for a certain reason, and 
that speech was printed in the Kecord. 

Senator Hill. I do not consider the committee a ))etit jury. My owu 
opinion is that any testimony taken by Congress a Senator is at liberty 
to refer to. 

Senator Vance. If we begin this thing now there is no telling where 
it will end. We might take up everything taken by other committees 
and refer to it, and incorporate it in this record. Why not say that it 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 783 

is taken as part of the record of this committee without its going down 
here ? 

Senator Kellogg. Whj" not ask that it go in in the same way that 
we get it in the record ? 

Senator Uill. They, Mr. Spoflford and Mr. Walker, ask that now. 

^Ir. Walker. 1 desire to otter it, and to have this witness’s testimony 
go in. We might send for the witness, but it would be at great exi)euse, 
and it is to save that expense that we otter the testimony' in this manner. 

Senator Cameron. I agree with the chairman in his views about this 
matter. 

Mr. Walker. I do not particularly want it printed in the record if 
there is any other way to have it considered as testimony. 

Senator Came uON. When this case is considered by Senators I have 
no doubt they will feel at liberty to consider all the testimony taken by 
order of Congress ])ertinent to this controversy. 

Senator Hill. I think so; and 1 would object to putting it into this 
record and printing all this testimony. 

]\Ir. Walker. 1 think it will be sutticient if a notice is put into this 
record that this testimony in this report is to be considered a i)art of it. 

Senator Hill. The stenographer has taken it down, and it will appear 
in the record just as we understand it here. 

Senator Kellogg. It is provided, 1 suppose, that I can refer to the 
same testimony in the same manner if I desire f 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir. 

]\lr. Walker. Of course we have no objections so that it appears just 
jls it does with us. 

Senator Hill. Senator Kellogg, have you any witnesses this morn¬ 
ing. 

Senator Cameron. There are two witnesses here who have not been 
subi)a‘naed. One is Simines, of the ])arish of Saint »Iames, referred to by 
some of the witnesses, and another is Bird, referred to in the papers by 
Blackstone as having been paid 8o0. They are here from their respect¬ 
ive parishes, and not expecting any mileage, but 1 think that the com¬ 
mittee will see that they are proper witnesses to call, and they desire to 
return home as speedily as iiossible, and 1 ask the committee to examine 
them this morning. 

Senator Hill. 1 am willing to be very liberal, but I want to when 
we can get along with the witnesses wlio are under subixena and jiay. 

Senator Cameron. I know that, but 1 think they are very important 
witnesses. 

Senator Hill. I think whatever one side swears to the other will deny 
anyhow. 

Senator Cameron. Possibly so, but we have to get it in the record in 
some way. 

Senator Hill. Very well; call your witnesses. 


TKSTIMONY OF CEOUOF BIRD. 

(lEORGE Bird (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Ca3IER0N : 

(,),uestion. Where do you reside?—Answer. In the parish of East 
Baton Rouge. 


784 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How long have yon resided there ?—A. All my life. 

Q. What is your age ?—A. Thirty-nine years. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. I am a butcher by trade. 

Q. Were you employed in the custon house, or have you been in any 
other gov^ernment employment?—A. None at all; I work at my trade. 

Q. State whether or not you were a member, of the Packard house 
that was elected in 187G?—A. I was. 

Q. When were you elected to that house—in the election of 1875 ?— 
A. 1875, sir. 

Q. It is stated in a paper which has been introduced before this com¬ 
mittee as evidence purporting to be the affidavit made by Jeremiah 
Blackstone, that Blackstone, after the assembling of the legislature of 
1876, or rather 1877—O, you were elected in 1876 were not you, rather 
than in 1875 I —A. Yes, sir j 1876. 

Q. I see it is stated in this paper that Blackstone paid to you the sum 
of $200 in consideration that you should vote for Mr. Kellogg for United 
States Senator. Is that true or false ?—A. It is false; I never got five 
cents from any one, Blackstone or any one else, for vpting for Kellogg. 

Q. Did you receive any money or any other valuable thing from Sen¬ 
ator Kellogg, or anybody else, in consideration of your voting for him 
for United States Senator ?—A. No, sir ; I received nothing; not for 
voting for him. 

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg, or any one else, propose to pay you any money 
or any other valuable thing, to vote for him?—A. No, sir; I voted for 
him because he was a Republican. That was my only reason. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Thomas Murray, who has testified before 
the committee?—As Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have ;^ou been acquainted with him ?—A. Me and him 
were boys together. VVe were raised in the same parish together. 

Q. Do you know his reputation for truth and veracity ?—A. Yes, sir; 
it is pretty bad. 

Senator Hill. Senator Cameron, this witness, I understood, was in¬ 
troduced for a special purpose, to refer to matters contained in the tes¬ 
timony of others, which I think was proper enough. 

Senator Cameron. I apprehend the point, but as he is on the stand I 
desire to ask him these questions. 

Senator Hill. Go on then. 

Senator Cameron. From your knowledge of his reputation would 
you believe him on oath ?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill. Do you believe that he would believe you on your 
oath ?—A. I do not know, sir. He has no reason to disbelieve me. 

Q. Are you white or colored ?—A. Colored. 

Q. Were you elected by the returns, or by the returning board ?—A. 
I was returned by 480 odd majority. 

Q. How w'as it by the returns of the election at the time ?—A. The 
Democratic State Committee returned my opponent by 480, and the re¬ 
turning board returned me by 480 odd. 


TESTIMONY OF RICHARD SIMMES. 

Ric^hard Simmes (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. ^ 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In Saint James Parish. 

Q. How long have you resided there ?—A. Since I was born. 



SPOFFORD VS KELT.OGG. 


785 


Q. \\ hat is your a^e ?—A. Twenty-nine. I was born and raised 
there. I never lett there more Ilian on a visit to the city or some other 
place. 

(»>. What is your occupation ?—A. I am a farmer. 

Q. Are you employed in the custom-house, or have you any govern¬ 
ment employment?“-A. None at all, sir. 

Q. Were you a member of the legislature of this State in 1877, elected 
in the fall of 1870 ?—A. Yes, sir ; 1 was. 

Q. For what parish were you elected ?—A. For the parish of Saint 
James. 

Q. ^Ir. ^lurray stated before this committee that you exhibited to 
him, or that he saw money that you received as a member of the legis¬ 
lature, in consideration of your vote for Kellogg as United States Sen¬ 
ator. Is that true or false ?—A. It is false; it is not so, sir. 

(). Did you receive any money or any other valuable thing from ^klr. 
Kellogg, or anybody else, in consideration of your vote for Kellogg; 
were you promised any money or any other valuable thing by Mr. Kel¬ 
logg, or any one else in his interest, in consideration of yonr voting for 
him for United States Senator?—A. No, sir; 1 was not promised any¬ 
thing. 

Q. A witness called Dreifus was sworn and examined before this com¬ 
mittee as a witness a few days ago, and he stated in substance that he 
was acrpiainted with yourself and your colleague, Mr. Dickerson, and 
that he was in the habit of seeing and meeting you where you boarded 
during the session, and that, in the early part of the session, you had no 
money, and that you contracted some debts, but you were unable to pay 
at the time, and that the day after the election yourself and Mr. Dick¬ 
erson were at a store, and he saw that you had a considerable amount 
of monev in your possession, and that you paid your indebtedness to 
the store, and that somebody remarked that you are in cash now, and 
either one or the other replied, “ (), yes; you know Kellogg was elected 
yesterday.” What was your business then ?—A. I was a member of 
the legislature. 

Q. What was your business at home ?—A. I was running a small farm, 
me and my father in jiartnership. 

Q. Were you or not a man of some means at the time ?—A. At the 
time I was elected, I had 8‘-()0 or nearly 8d()0. 

Q. How much did you bring to the city?—A. I brought a hundred 
dollars. 

Senator Hill. I would state to you, Senator, that this witness testi¬ 
fied to all this in Washington, with the single exception, I believe, that 
the name of the ])arty who told it was Dreifus. 

Senator Cameron. I do not think he gave this testimony in Wash¬ 
ington. 

Senator Hit.l. I am not sure that he testified to the material facts, 
and all of them which you Jiave’brought out; but if you desire to en¬ 
cumber the record with it, go on. 

Senator Cameron. Proceed, JMr. Sims. 

The Witness. I do not know .Mr. ])reifus. I do not know anybody in 
the city by any such name. Some gentlemen may have seen me at ]\rr. 
Cograve’s to take a drink; but .Mr. Cograve can show his account- 
book, that I never paid him anything. After we went over to the 
Nicholas legislature and they paid us off, I took a State warranUand 
paid him what I owed him, as he desired one to pay his taxes with, and 
1 got it and paid it to him, and he gave me the balance in cash. 1 had 
money to pay my board, and my brother’s during the month of danuary. 

50 s K 


786 


SPOFFORD KELLOGG. 


All I owed Cograve I paid him iu the State warrant, and be gave me 
the balance in money. 

Q. Do yon know Thomas Murray T—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know bis reputation for truth and veracity ? What is it, 
good or bad ?—A. Bad. 

Q. From what you know of tlie reputation of Thomas Murray, would 
you believe him on oath *?—A. No, sir, I would not; because he has told 
me a good many things I would not believe, and therefore 1 would not 
believe him under oath. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Can you read and write ?—A. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF H. CONQUEST CLABKE. 

Henry Conquest Clarke, a witness called on behalf of the memo¬ 
rialist, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. In Washington City, at 
the present time. 

Q. How long have you resided there ?—A. Two years and a few 
mouths. 

Q. Where did you reside before taking up your residence in Washing¬ 
ton City ?—I resided in this city for about eleven years. 

Q. What is your business there iu Washington?—A. I am stenog¬ 
rapher to the Commissioner of Internal Bevenue. 

Q. How long have you held that place ?—A. Since October or Novem¬ 
ber, 1877. 

Q. Were you iu Washington in May and June last?—A. I was. 

Q. Mr. Bernard Williams has testified before this committee that, on 
the night of the 4th of June last, or rather on the morning of the 5th, 
that is to say, between the hours of 12 and 1 o’clock on the morning of 
the 5th, he brought certain persons, who had gone from this city to 
Washington in the interest of this case on behalf of Spofford, to Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg’s room, at Willard’s Hotel, and that Mr. Kellogg had an 
interview with the witnesses, and it was agreed that Mr. Kellogg would 
I)ay each of these witnesses live hundred dollars in consideration that 
they should “ go back” on their affidavits, to use the expression of Mr. 
Williams, and that Kellogg did pay each of them five hundred dollars. 
The witness said you were present in the room during the whole of that 
time. You may state whether you were there, and saw and heard any 
such things?—A. So far as I am concerned, that statement is entirely 
untrue. I never was in Governor Kellogg’s room until midnight but 
once, and that was last winter, correcting some proof for him, and it was 
so unusual that my wife became exceedingly alarmed at it. 

Q. Were you at his room between midnight and 1 o’clock that morn¬ 
ing, and did you see any of the things stated by Williams?—A. I was 
not in the room at all at the hour stated, and did not see or hear any¬ 
thing of the kind that he has stated iu his testimony. 

Q. Were you at any time acquainted with Mr. Flynn, who was tele¬ 
graph operator in the State house?—A. 1 was well acquainted with him. 

Q. When did he cease to be the telegraph operator there ?—A. Some 
six weeks or two months before the expiration of Governor Kellogg’s 
term of office. 



SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


787 


(»>. I)o you know where he went?—A. No, sir; I only know he was 
translerred by order of the superintendent of i)olice, and I do not know 
where he went. 

\\ hat relation, if any, did yon bear to Governor Kellogg, from 
January, 1*877, up to the lollowing January ?—A. 1 was his i)rivate sec¬ 
retary until his term of olUce expired in 1878. 

Q. Mr. Ilowzer, a witness, has testified before this committee that 
frequently before the expiration of Governor Kellogg’s term of odice, 
and perhaps before that, when the returning board was in session, Mr. 
lilanchard and Mr. Jewett were in Kellogg’s rooms, engaged in writing 
ill that room, back of his oftice, and that Jilanchard told him, Ilowzer, 
that they were engaged in writing on the returns. Please describe the 
situation of those rooms, and what furniture there was in the small 
room, and whether or not yon ever saw Jewett or Planchard engaged 
in writing in that room ?—A. There was an adjoining room in Governor 
Kellogg’s house, to the one used by him for his private otUce purposes, 
that was a little room fitted up for a bachelor cousin of Mrs. Kellogg; I 
was in it frequently; there was a bedstead between two windows on a 
gallery, a bureau, a washstand and chairs in it, and that was all the 
furniture in the room, which was a very small one. 

(^. AVas there or not a desk in the room ?—A. There was nothing of 
the kind there. 

Q. Any table or anything of that kind?—A. There was no other ar¬ 
ticle of furniture iu the room, except that 1 have stated. 

Q. Did you ever see Blanchard or Jewett in that room ?—A. Never, 
in that room ; certainly not, writing. 

Q. This witness said that Blanchard and Jewett were in the habit of 
entering Governor Kellogg’s house from the rear and not from the front. 
Will you say whether that could be so or not ?—A. I could not say 
whether they ever entered by the rear or not. I never saw them in the 
house; the rear entrance was one used almost entirely by myself and 
others who went in there. I can give you the reasons. At the rear 
there was a large door-way to the carriage-house, always open, nearly, 
and standing in the door was this man Ilowzer, or another man, and you 
could not gain access to Governor Kellogg’s room without ringing the 
bell, and as there was a staircase leading u]) from the yard to the gal¬ 
lery, you could get into his office without the necessity of distuibing 
Mrs. Kellogg or her domestic relations. 

Q. Did persons coming in carriages come in that way?—A. Yes, sir, 
they w'ould drive right in there. Governor Kellogggot into his carriage 
aiui drove out there eveiy day. 

Q. Did the house run through from Kainpart to Baronne street ?— 
A. Clear through to Basin street. 

(>). You may state wdiether or not you ever at any time saw^ any re¬ 
turns in Governor Kellogg’s house or office ?—A. Never. I never saw any 
returns in Governor Kellogg’s house or anywheres. 

Q. What was the location of the telegraph office in the State house ? 
A. The room used by the telegraph ojierator w’as a small one, interven¬ 
ing between the executive office and the s[)eaker’s room, and w as there¬ 
fore used for members of the legislature iiassing backwards and for- 
w’ards from the hall of representatives to the governor’s office. 

Q. Was there, or w’as not there, a door leading into the hall from it ? 
—A. There were three doors, one into the speaker’s room, one into my 
office, and one into the princiiml gallery. 


788 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Hill: 

Q. Are you the private secretary of Governor Kellogg in Washing¬ 
ton ?—A. No sir, not at all. 

Q. You never act as such?—A. No, sir. Only once, I think, I have 
acted in that nature for him there. 

Q. Did the governor send these men to you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he come to you himself?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did the governor give you any directions or memoranda about 
them.?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have been sitting here during the whole of this examina¬ 
tion?—A. I have heard it all, sir, since 1 came. 

Q. I see by this morning’s paper that telegrams have been sent from 
here to Washington, in the interest of Governor Kellogg; did you do 
it?—A. I have written some, sir. 

Q. Have you been sending telegrams to papers in the interest of Gov'- 
ernor Kellogg while sitting in this room ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who telegraphed you to come down here ?—A. Governor Kel- 
lo?g. 

Q. By whose influence were you appointed stenographer to Baum ?— 
A. I was appointed at General Baum’s own request: I was at the time 
appointed a 4th class clerk in the Treasury, at the request of Governor 
Kellogg and Packard, and on the expiration of that time I was assigned 
to duty with General Baum, and at the expiration of that time he w rote 
letters- 

Q. 1 asked you at whose request or upon whose influence were you 
appointed stenographer to him, I,think. How long have you been 
there?—A. 1 commenced with him soon after October or November, 
1877. 

Q. Have you ever been examined before about this election matter of 
1870 ?—A. Oh, yes, sir. 

Q. Where was it ?—A. Before the Potter Committee. 

Q. Where at, I ask ?—A. In Washington. 

Q. Do you remember anything about a forged return ?—A. I remem¬ 
ber the examination. 

Q. Did 30 U sign any of those names?—A. I am on record as deny¬ 
ing it. 

k Q. Did you ?—A. I repeat most positively and emphatically, I did 
not. 

Q. Do you know who did ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You have heard it said who did ?—A. I have heard it said. 

Q. You were in Governor Kellogg’s office ?—A. I was. 

Q. Did you sign Levisee’s name—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you hear who did ?—A. I heard rumors. 

Q. Have you any information that you recollect at that time, by rea¬ 
son of your occupation as secretary, to know who signed it ?—A. I have 
not. 

Q. You had the custody of those papers, did you not?—A. I did not. 

Q. Who did have the custody of them ?—A. Generally the members 
of the electoral college. 

Q. I speak of this vote, the electoral college ?—A. Generally the same, 
sir. I locked them up and put them in the room for the members of 
the college to have them in the morning. 

Q. Did you interpret the cipher telegrams that were sent to Kellogg 
by Badger?—A. I did not. 

Q. Do you know the key of them ?—A. I have not seen them. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 789 

Do you know anything of cypher telegrams between him and Bad¬ 
ger ?—A. No, sir. 

(}. Since June ?—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Do you know the cipher ?—A. Yes, sir; I knew it, unless he has 
changed it since I left his employ. 

Q. Well, give it to us.—A. I cannot do that. lie hatl, at times, a 
cii)her that certain arbitrary words should mean certain things. 

Q. For instance, what does the word “zebra” mean?—A. I do not 
know. 

What “Vermont”?—A. I do not know. We did not use any 
cyi)her while I was there. 

Q. Do you know what “Jefferson” meant ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know what the word “violet” meant?—A. No; 1 do not 
know what “violet” meant. 

Q. You had the custody of a cipher of his at one time. When was 
that ?—A. When I was private secretary he had a printed book issued 
by the telegraph office containing a number of words, very unusual 
words, occurring in telegraph offices, and every word had a space in be¬ 
tween to which you could write any set of words you desire. I had it 
in my possession frequently. 

Q. Do you not remember any of them ? Ilere is a telegram of May 
Gth (reading): 

To Senator W. I\ Kellogg^ Washington, D. C.: 

Zebra asb bat murrill matter moon rice moon since Vance an 1 Tucker temporary 
crown. 

(Signed by) A. S. BADGER. 

A. No, sir; those were not the character of words used in the cipher 
he had when 1 was with him. 

Q. What does “ temporary crown” mean?—A. Ido not know ; you 
will have to refer to the cipher books issued by the telegraph company. 
Y^ou will ffnd no words of that character included. 

Q. This is a private cipher, I suppose ?—A. If it is a cipher, I suppose 
it is. I do not know the meaning of it, and it has never been communi¬ 
cated to me. 

Q. Uere is another one of those cii)her telegrams: 

Will terrier Jefferson Jockey before or after disb Jockey Canter mutton wa its re¬ 
sign and bave bat to serve Jefferson. 

A. It is as intelligible to you as to me, sir. 

Q. You do not know any of those words ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see any of these in Washington ?—A. No, sir; I think 
not. 

Q. Here is another sent afterwards: 

If disb Vermont fail show parole. Terrier bunt unnecess iry. Red c int buck into 
bunt until terrier buck disb Jockey. 

A. It is unintelligible to me.* 1 do not think I ever saw one of them* 
I want to be guarded in that answer for this reason, that 1 believe Gov* 
ernor Kellogg has scribbled at the bottom of a telegram an answer that 
he wished to send. His handwriting is unintelligible to the operator, 
and I have made a fair copy of some of them, and I may have done so, 
and in doing so seen some of those in which those words occur. 

Q. When did that occur ?—A. I presume about the time the com¬ 
mittee met in Washington. 

Q. Do you not know that he sent answers to these —A. Only so far 
as 1 tell yon. 


790 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Well, here is one. Perhaps you can tell me what this means: 

Believe all moon save boat latter demoralized. Consult oak about amity Ver¬ 
mont.” 

Does not that mean “ Believe all will do except Murray, and he de¬ 
moralized ” —A. No, sir ; I do not know. 

Q. What does “oak” mean?—A. Well, “ oak ” used to mean Gov¬ 
ernor Packard, but he is in Europe now. 

Q. What does “ amity” mean ?—A. I think that is Kellogg. 

Q. “ Boat”?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Well, “ stonewall”?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. “ Sorghum fir drop stonewall Monday last, enable them disclaim 
parole Gurchard clover clipper Watson Jefierson to day, last walk con¬ 
spiracy.” Do you know anything about that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not know what any of those words mean ?—A. No, sir; 
none of them ; I saw none of them at all. 

Q. You do not know what “ violet ” or “ clover ” mean ?—A. There is 
a man named “ Clover” here. 

Q. Do you know what “eagle” meant?—A. No, sir; but one of the 
ex-supervisors of registration was named Clover. 

Q. Well, now, Mr. Clarke, to leave these telegrams, I will ask you some 
other questions. You wrote out or copied the first electoral certificates 
of the election in Louisiana in 1870 for Kellegg electors ?—A. I do not 
quite understand you. 

Q. You wrote or copied the first set of Hayes certificates in Louisi¬ 
ana?—A. They were printed, sir. 

Q. Who filled them out ?—A. Some of the clerks who were in and out 
of the executive building. 

Q. Who wrote the oiiginal to be printed ?—A. I forget whether the 
original draft was in my handwriting or not; I think it was. It was 
torn up after consultation with General Sheldon and others, and I think 
possibly the copy for the printers would be in my handwriting. 

Q. Who wrote the second set?—A. They were simply changed in the 
type. 

Q. There was no writing, then ?—A. There were corrections in the 
proof. 

Q. Who did it?—I did. 

Q. Did you know those electors personally ?—A. There were one or 
two I think that I did not know ; there was Joftrain. 

Q. You know all the rest except him ?—A. I did. 

Q. How long were those certificates waiting there for the signatures 
of the electors, and how often did you lock them up?—A. I do not re¬ 
member ; it was two days or more, possibly two days and a half. 

Q. Did you look at them every day and see how the signatures were 
getting on ?—A. No, sir ; I was exceedingly engaged on the governor’s 
messrge. 


TESTIMONY OF JOHN T. FITZSIMMONS. 

John T. Fitzsimmons, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. I reside on Locust street, 
near Thalia street. 

Q. In this city ?—A. Ves, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


791 


Q. How long have you resided here?—A. All my life. 

Q. Have you ever been away from the city ?—A. I have been away 
about two years. 

Q. What is your age ?—A. Twenty-three. 

Q. Wbat is your business ?—A. 1 have no business ; I generally take 
anything I can get to do. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Murray ?—A. I do. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Six or eight years. 

Q. Do you know his general reputation for truth amrveracity in the 
community?—A. Ido. 

Q. Is it good or bad ?—A. Bad. 

Q. From what you know of his reputation for truth and veracity would 
you believe him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. Not from the dealings 
I had with him • I would not believe him on oath. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What is your name?—A. John T. Fitzsimmons. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. On Locust street, near Thalia. 

Q. What do you do for a living ?—A. I have no occupation, but I do 
Just what I can. 

Q. You say you have no occupation ?—A. No, sir, not at present j but 
I am to go to work in cotton this season. 

Q. Are you working now ?—A. No, sir, I am not working at present. 

Q. You came here to get work, did you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you live in the city ?—A. Yes, sir j I have been away two years 
at LobdelPs store in West Baton Kouge. 

Q. How long did you live here before you went away ?—A. All my 
life. 

Q. What is your character ?—A. I can bring you any number of men 
you want; Mr. W. A. Castleman, if you want. 

Q. Have you seen them to see if they can sustain your character?— 
A. No, sir; but I know they will. 

Q. How many men could Murray bring to sustain his?—A. I don’t 
know. 

Q. What are your politics ?—A. I am a democrat and voted that 
ticket the first I ever voted. 

Q. Who told you to come here?—A. A man named Mr. Jackson. 

Q. Who is he ?—A. He is chairman of some Kepublican committee 
here. 

Q. Whom do you expect to get business with?—A. ^Mr. Sheldon. 

Q. Who is he ?—A. He is a cotton sampler. 

Q. Where does he keep ?—A. He has no regular office, but has a part¬ 
ner at one of the uptown presses. 

Q. Who did you say would testify to your character ?—A. ^Ir. Castle¬ 
man and Mr. Lancaster. 

Q. Where did you say you knew Murray?—A. He rented from us, 
myself and my mother, and he sent a letter through the post oflice signed 
by us. 

Q. Is that the reason you won’t believe him !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you testify to his character from your business relations with 
him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And not from his general bad character?—A. I know he has got 
a bad character. 

Q. Who did you ever hear say so ?—A. Who?* Why, a half dozen 
different i)eoi)le. 

Q. Is this man Jackson an acquaintance of yours?—A. I know him 
just from working under him a month. 


792 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Where did be work ; at the custom house A. I do not know, 
sir. 

Q. Why did he come after you !—A. I do not know. He said to me, 
“ Don^t you know of some dealing with Tom Murray!’^ And I said 
‘‘ Yes.” And I had some papers where he had done his dirty work, and 
I showed him the paper and he told me he was going to have me sub¬ 
poenaed. 

Q. Is that the only transaction you ever had with Murray ?—A. That 
is all. 

Q. That is the only one, is it?—A. Yes, sir, that is all. 

Q. Do you know what is Jackson’s first name ?—A. W. W. Jackson, 
I believe. 

Q. Do you know where he lives ?—A. I believe two or three squares 
from where I live—Howard and Thalia, 1 suppose. 

Q. When did he see you ?—A. I think it was either Saturday or Mon¬ 
day, I do not know which, but it was either one of those two days. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. State what that business transaction was.—A. It is a voucher 
that I got. He went and sold his voucher to another man who kept a 
grocery store, and when I went to the city hall this other man had his 
vi ucher already registered. Then he got $50 from me to get a position 
in the custom-house; and he sent a letter through the mail signing 
Kingold’s name, and when I got after him about it he sent another let¬ 
ter acknowledging it. 

Q. You say he got $50 from you to get you a position in the custom¬ 
house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What time was it that he got that ?—A. About the time that 
Bingold was postmaster. 


TESTIMO:^ Y OF ALEXANDER DEROCHA. 

Alexander Derocha (colored), a witness called on behalf of the 
sitting member, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Cameron: 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. In the seventh district of 
New Orleans. 

Q. How long have you resided in New Orleans?—A. Since 1864. 

Q. What is your age?—A. I am twenty-six years old. 

Q. What is your business at present ?—A. I am a laborer. 

Q. Are you in the custom-house, or in any government employ ?—A. 
None at all. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Thomas Murray ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Six or seven years. 

Q. Do you know what his reputation is for truth and veracity in the 
community in which he resides ?—A. From all I hear, it is bad. 

Q. Do you know it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it good or bad?—A. It is bad. 

Q. From all you know of it, would you believe him under oath ?—A. 
No, sir ; I would not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What is the deputation of the Packard legislature in 1877 gene¬ 
rally, all of them? You heard of all that they were doing, and being 
bribed, and all that sort of thing?—A. Y^es, sir. 



SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 793 

Q. ell, now, what is tbe reputation of the Packard legislature ?—A. 
I heard it has a bad reputation. 

Q. From that reputation, would you believe the Packard legislature 
on oath in a couit of justice?—A. 1 would not believe what I heard 
about them. 

Q. From what you heard, judging from that reputation, you would 
not believe anything you heard agaiust a Republican anyliow, would 
you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, judging from the reputation of the Packard legislature 
and the carpet-bag government, from top to bottom, would you believe 
it on oath in a court of justice ?—A. Would I believe it was a legisla¬ 
ture ? 

Q. Would you believe any of them on oath ?—A. Yes ; certainly I 
would. 

Q. Well, from the general reputation of the crowd, and those who 
were about there, would you believe them on oath ?—A. I do not know, 
sir. 

Q. Well, what is your character?—A. I do not know, sir, what my 
character is. 

Q. Does anybody talk about you any ?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Whom would you refer to to establish your character ?—A. Any¬ 
body who knows me. 

Q. For instance, now, whom?—A. Judge Pardee, of the second dis¬ 
trict court. 

Q. Who else?—A. O, I can count you out a hundred, if you want 
them. 

Q. Do you know anybody besides those of the Republican faith who 
will give you a good character?—A. Yes, sir. Do you want Demo¬ 
crats ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. There are men in my district whom I opposed who 
will do it. 

Q. Give the name of one of them.—A. Mr. U. Turbo, who lives in 
New Orleans, in the seventh district, on Canal avenue, will do it. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you know the reputation of the constitutional convention that 
was held here recently ?—A. 1 heard they were being bought and sold. 
Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Didn’t you hear that the members of the Nicholls legislature were 
bought and sold, and voted different ways?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear that many of them were bribed to vote for Spofiford 
for Senator?—A. I did. 

Q. Do you think the reputation of the Packard legislature was as 
good as that of the Nicholls legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. • 

Q. And as good as that of the constitutional convention ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 


TESTIMONY OF ISAAC W. FALLS. 

Isaac W. Falls, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Falls ?—Answer. I live in the 
s’xth district, in this city, on Louisiana avenue, between Magazine and 
Toledano. 



794 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How long have you resided in this city 1 —A. Since 1800, with one 
exception. During the war, I left and went to my native State, Indi¬ 
ana, and staid there two years. 

Q. What is your present occupation —A. I am seventh justice of the 
•peace of Orleans. 

Q. How long have you held it*?—A. Since 1872, except the last time. 
I have held it for four terms. 

Q. Is it an elective or an appointive office ?—A. It is an elective. 

Q. Elective by the people?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Murray, who has been a witness in this 
case ?—A. I know a Thomas Murray. I don’t know whether he is the 
witness or not. 

Q. Is he a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know the reputation of the Thomas Murray you know for 
truth and veracity in the community?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it good or bad ?—A. It is very bad. 

Q. Would you believe him, from your knowledge, on his oath ?—A. I 
wouldn’t in any case where he was interested. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. When did you come to New Orleans ?—A. In 1860. 

Q. Where were you during the war?—A. Mostly iu Kentucky and 
Illinois. I published a paper awhile iu Paducah. 

Q. When did you come back?—A. Iu 1831, when the river was open. 

Q. Are you a Eepublican ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were elected up there where you live as justice of the 
peace ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. Well, 1 believe you may go. 


TESTIMONY OF SALYADOE S. FEANCISOO. 

Salvador S. Francisco (colored), a witness called on behalf of the 
sitting member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is your name ?—Answer. Salvador S. Francisco. 

Q. Where do you reside?—A. In the southwest corner of Franklin 
and Canal streets. 

Q. In New Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir ; in this city. 

Q. How long have you resided here ?—A. Since my birth. 

Q. When were you born?—A. I was born in 1817. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I have no business particularly, but 
I am secretary of the Eepublican campaign committee of Orleans. 

Q. You are a Eepublican ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Murray, who was sworn as a witness?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Ten or twelve years. 

Q. Do you know his reputation for truth and veracity in the commu¬ 
nity in which he lives ?—A. It is bad, sir. 

Q. From what .you know of it, would you not believe him on oath in 
a court of justice ?—A. I would not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Weren’t you one of Kellogg’s police ?—A. I was eight or nine 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 795 

years on tbe Melrdpolitan’police, and I was a year on tbe Crescent City 
police. 

Q. Are yon in the custom-boiise now ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You have no position of any kind ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you any particular friends in there?—A. No, sir; none more 
than those working as porters. 


TESTIMONY OF LORENZO D. PARKER. 

Lorenzo D. Parker (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
menber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is your name ?—Answer. Lorenzo D. Parker. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. 370 White street. 

Q. Ill this city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you lived here?—A. Ever since the day of my 
birth. 

Q. What is your age ?—A. I am 27 years old. 

Q. Do you know Thomas Murray ?—A. I do, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Seven or eight years. 

Q. Do 3^011 know what his, Murray’s, reputation for truth and veracity 
is in the community in which he lives?—A. Truth ? 

Q. Yes, for truth.—A. For my own personal belief, I wouldn’t believe 
him. 

Q. I will get to that after a while. Do you know what it is ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. What is it, good or bad?—A. Bad, sir. 

Q. From what you know of his reputation, would you believe him on 
oath in a court of justice ?—A. I would not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Who have you heard speak of Murray ?—A. No one, sir. 

Q. But what you know you know of your own personal knowledge?— 
A. That is all. 

Q. You don’t say you]would not believe him from what you have heard 
others say ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What is your employment ?—A. I am a laborer. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. 370 White street. 

Q. What are you doing now ?—A. Anything for an honest living. 


TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER MOORE. 

Alexander Moore (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator. Cameron: 

Question. Give your full name to the stenographer.—Answer. Alex¬ 
ander Moore, sir. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. At No. 275 Thalia street. 

Q. How" long have you lived here ?—A. Ever since I was born, sir. 

Q. How old are you ?—A. I am 24 years old. 

Q. Do you know Tom IMurray ?—A. Yes, sir. 



796 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG 


Q. How long have you known him 1 —A. I have been knowing him 
for 12 years. 

Q. Ho you know what his reputation for truth is in this community ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is it?—A. It is very bad. 

Q. From what you know of it, would you not believe him on oath ?— 
A. I would not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Who have you heard say anything about him ?—A. I know him 
myself. 

Q. Ho you testify from what you know ?—A. Yes, sir; from what I 
know and heard. 

Q. What men have you heard speak of him ?—A. I have heard them 
out of the political club rooms, &c. 

Q. Who did you hear ?—A. Well, I have heard nearly every man in 
the second ward. 

Q. You say you have heard all of them speak of him ?—A. I do, sir. 

Q. Hid you speak to all of them about him ?—A. Every mau that 
knows him talks about him. 

Q. Hid you speak with Hemocrats, Eepublicans, and all ?—A. I spoke 
with those who know him ; I don’t know what is their politics. 

Q. How many of them have you talked to?—A. I have talked with 
I)erhaps all of them—not all of them. 

Q. Well, you stated awhile ago that you talked with all of them ; 
were you going around for that purpose ?—A. No, sir; I wasn’t going 
around for that purpose. 

Q. What are they mad with Tom about ?—A. I don’t know, sir, un¬ 
less it is because he is sqch a liar. 

Q. Wasn’t it about his testimony that he gave in Washington ?—A. 
No, sir ; it is his character here. 

Q. What do you do for a living ?—A. I am a laborer. 

Q. Where do you labor ?—A. I labor on the levee. 

Q. Hid you ever labor in the custom-house ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who asked you to come here ?—A. I wasn’t asked by anybody. 

Q. Who knew that you would come here and testify ?—A. I went 
home Tuesday and found a subpoena there. 

Q. Hid you come on that subpoena ?—xi. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF CICERO BRIHGES. 

Cicero Bridges (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Give your name to the stenographer.—Answer. My name is 
Cicero Bridges. 

Q. Where do you reside?—A. No. 98 Saint Andrew’s street. 

Q. How long have you lived in this city?—A. Ever since 1866. 

Q. Where did you come from when you came here?—A. I resided in 
Saint Helena Parish, where I was born. 

Q. How old are you ?—A. I am 32 years old. 

Q. Ho you know Tom Murray ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Ever since 1867. 



SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


797 


Q. here have you been acquainted with him ?—A. First on a steam¬ 
boat, the Alabama. She is destroyed, and since then on the police here, 
for I was a member myself for 8 years. 

Q. Do you know his reputation in this community for truth and ve¬ 
racity ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is it, good or bad ?—A. It is bad, sir. 

Q. From what you know of his reputation in that regard, would you 
believe him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. 1 wouldn’t believe him 
on oathj^ir. 

By Senator Vaxce : 

Q. What is your employment ?—A. It is a laborer, sir. 

By Senator Bill : 

Q. Have you ever been arrested for stealing?—A. Never for anything 
that I wasn’t exonerated for. 

Q. I asked you it you were not arrested ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What for ?—A. For committing a woman to jail j that was for 
false imprisonment. 

Q. Were you never arrested but once ?—A. Yes, sir ; twice for false 
imprisonment. 

Q. Did you belong to the Metropolitan police?—A. I did belong to 
the Bepublican and Democratic police, the Metropolitan, and the Cres¬ 
cent City. 

Q. What are you laboring at now ?—A. I am a deck-hand. 

Q. Have you ever been a laborer in the custom-house ?—A. No, sir ,* 
I never was. 

Q. Who told you to come here?—A. Nobody j my subpoena ^o’d me. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. What became of those cases when you were arrested ?—A. One 
was carried before the superior criminal court and I was discharged by 
Judge Atocha; after he heard the indictment read he discliarged me. 
The other never went up there; the recorder discharged me. 

Q. You arrested those parties as a police officer?—A. V'es, sir. 

Mr. Walker. ^Ir. Chairman, I believe this is the thirty fourth or 
thirty-fifth witness called by tlie sitting member; and while I have 
yielded the time which I was entitled for the purpose of facilitating this 
investigation and getting through with it, these eleven witnesses have 
been summoned to discredit the testimony of Thomas Murray—at least 
that has been the tenor of the examination of the last ten or eleven 
witnesses. I do not believe it is the practice in any court anywhere, 
certainly not here, to require the testimony of more than two or three 
credible witnesses to impair the testimony of a witness. I can assure 
the committee, who are strangers here, and knowing the men are such, 
that I shall feel compelled to call at least two credible gentlemen of this 
city, and men whose words are not to be attacked by any person, who 
will swear that there is hardly one of them who has testified here who 
w’ould be believed by any one either outside or in a court of justice. 
Their characters are such that no lawyer would put one of them on the 
stand in the matter of any interest; and, therefore, I call the attention 
of the committee to this, and to the proposition of bringing forward 
witnesses here and taking up the time and patience of the committee 
for this purpose. Now this examination of these eleven witnesses in¬ 
volves the examination of twenty-two witnesses additional upon the 
subject of character. Parties should be required, I think, in an exami- 
tioii like this, to select two credible witnesses where they desire to im- 


798 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


peacb the testimony of another one. That would make it necessary 
only for me to summon four witnesses. I know these men and their 
standing in the community, and the classes to which they belong, and 
it is useless to take up the time and burden the records of the committee 
with this testimony. I expect to call the witnesses to impeach nearly 
all of them, and I think I have a right to do so. 

Senator Hill. There is no motion before the committee. 

Senator Kellogg. I only desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that these 
witnesses have not been impeached as yet. Some of these gentlemen 
have referred to credible Democrats of this city, and Mr. Walker in 
making his statement about them is not under oath as I understand it, 
and 1 do not feel like letting his statement pass without some reply. 
Last week we sat here and heard witnesses for fifteen or twenty minutes, 
and then adjourned to wait for witnesses summoned by him. I did not 
care to say anything more than to call attention to the fact at the time. 
We have several other witnesses in reserve. I wish the committee to 
hear them. I wish them to hear the testimony of Governor Foote, that 
he, Thomas Murray, was discharged from the mint for stealing or at¬ 
tempting to steal. 

Senator Hill. I will state, as chairman, that when I came here and 
delivered the subpcenas to either side, I wished to do justice to the con- 
testee; and if I had known what all these witnesses were for, I state 
frankly I would not have issued so many subpoenas for that purpose. I 
would say to the other side that if they apply to me for any more on the 
subject of impeachment, I will not issue them. Kearly every one of 
these witnesses who were summoned here for this purpose have received 
now nine dollars for their attendance. 

Senator Kellogg. We will call no more. 

Senator Hill. I do not think I would have done this thing, nor do 1 
believe that Senator Cameron would, had we known of it in advance. 
From all that I can understand, you could get five hundred people to 
say they would not believe Thomas Murray under oath, and the other 
side could get as many to say that they would. There is no end, when 
you once go into it, and we would be here until your term expired taking 
testimony on that subject. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 would like to summon one or two officers of the 
Federal Government in order to show that he was guilty of specific acts. 

Senator Hill. If there is any record of his guilt, either of larceny 
or any other crime, or if Governor Foote tried him and convicted him, 
you can produce the records and produce the witnesses. 

Senator Kellogg. If he tried to embezzle funds while in his employ¬ 
ment, Mr. Chairman 

Senator Hill. Then he ought to have prosecuted him, and furnished 
the record to the country. 

Senator Kellogg. I will not go further, Mr. Chairman, on that line 
after the suggestions you have made. I do not know that we can go 
any further just now. I do not know whether Mr. Dumont is here, but 
he has been subpoenaed. 

y^Mr. Dumont not being in attendance, and being the witness on call, 
the committee resolved upon a recess until two o’clock. 

Upon reassembling, the examination of witnesses was continued. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


799 


TESTIMONY OF GEORGE DRURY. 

George Drury, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is j^our name, sir?—Answer. George Drury. 

Q. Were you a member of the legislature of this State in 1877, elected 
in 187G?—A. I was. 

Q. What parish did you represent in part?—A. Assumption. 

Q. Who was your colleague?—A. Jonas Hughes. 

Q. Is he living or dead?—A. lie is dead. 

Q. When did he die?—A. In 1878. 

Q. Your colleague Hughes has been referred to in a paper produced 
in evidence before the committee purporting to be the affidavit of Jere¬ 
miah Blackstone, in which it is stated that Blackstone paid money to 
Hughes in consideration of Hughes voting for Kellogg as Senator. 
What information have you in regard to Hughes and his pecuniary con¬ 
dition ?—A. I had known Hughes some years previous to his death— 
some ten years—and I know nothing of anything of that kind. I know 
I personally assisted him previous to the session and during the session 
of 1877. I have his personal obligations that I advanced money to him, 
and obtained money for him, from the brokers, which I subsequently 
paid myself; but 1 know nothing of this kind. 

Q. Do you know of any money or any other valuable thing being given 
to any members of that legislature in consideration of their voting for 
Kellogg for United States Senator ?—A. I do not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Y'ou said Jonas Hughes was your colleague ?—A. He was. 

Q. Was he a colored man or white man ?—A. He was a colored man. 

Q. Were there not rumors abroad that the colored members of the 
Packard legislature were paid for their votes?—A. I have heard several 
such. 

Q. Was it not notorious to you when the press spoke of it—the Dem¬ 
ocratic press ?—A. It was. 

Q. Was it not generally talked about the city and the State-house ?— 
A. No, sir; about the State-house, it was not. 

Q. You stated that you never were paid anything?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any one else being paid anything?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you take your seat in the Nicholls legislature ?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. Did you serve your term out there?—A. I did, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF ALFRED ETIENNE MILON. 

Alfred PItienne Milon (colored), a witness called on behalf of the 
sitting member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is your full name?—Answer. Alfred PRienne Milon. 
Q. Where do you live?—A. In the parish of Plaquemines. 

Q. How long liave you lived there ?—A. About thirty-three years. 

Q. Wliat is your age ?—A. 1 am forty-eight. 

Q. Were you at any time a member of the legislature of this State ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 



800 


SPOFFORl) VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. When?—A. It was in 1875, and I was re-elected again in 187G. 
No, let me see- 

Q. Yes, that is correct.—A. Yes, sir; I believe it is. 

Q. After the dissolution of that house were you, or were you not, re¬ 
cognized and did you act as a member of the Nicholls house ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. There was no question then of your election to the legislature ?— 
A. There was a contest, sir. 

Q. But you were admitted ?—A. Yes, sir; by the Nicholls legislature. 

Q. I will now call your attention to the testimony of William H. Sey¬ 
mour, given before this committee on the 25th, a few days ago. Mr. 
Seymour produced this paper which you may look at (showing a paper to 
the witness).—A. 1 know nothing about this paper, sir. 

Q. Mr. Seymour produced this paper and stated in substance this, 
that he is a commissioner of deeds and notary public; that on a certain 
occasion a Mr. Dicks and yourself saw him at the foot of the stairs 
leading up to his office, and that Mr. Dicks produced this paper, and 
you expressed a willingness to swear to it.—A. I do not know anything 
about it. 

Q. Wait a moment, Mr. Witness. He further stated that he refused to 
swear you to the paper unless he was made acquainted with the contents, 
and that you declined, and Mr. Dicks also refused to make him ac¬ 
quainted with it or allow^ him to read it. State whether or not you ever 
saw that paper before?—A. No, sir; I never saw the paper before; I 
never did ; never saw that paper before, sir. 

Q. Look at what purports to be your signature ?—A. No, sir : it is not 
my signature; I cannot w^rite that way. 

Q. You say that is not your signature?—A. No, sir; that is not my 
signature ; Mr. Seymour never saw me, I do not believe ; I do not believe 
he would know me to-day if he saw me; I never saw his face that T 
know of, but I know Mr. Dicks. 

Q. You state that you know Dicks?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, please state what you know of him ?—A. .He was a claim 
agent in this city, residing in Commercial alley, and while I was in the 
service of the United States a young man of the name of Felix Achan, 
of Company C, Eighty-first Regiment United States Colored Volun¬ 
teers, was in the service; I was orderly sergeant in that company, in 
that regiment. That young man died, and his family came up here and 
went to see Mr. Dicks, the claim agent, to see if they could get a pen¬ 
sion. I went as a witness for this young man. There was a whole fam¬ 
ily there, and I just witnessed that I knew the young man, and that he 
died in the service of the United States, in my company, and that I knew 
it, and that is all I said to him. 

Q. Did Mr. Dicks or anybody else ask you to sign an affidavit 
against Crovernor Kellogg ?—A. Nobody ever did. 

Q. Did you ever state to Mr. Dicks or anybody else that you received 
money to vote for him ?—A. I never so stated, and I never received a 
cent for voting for him. I voted at the dictation of my conscience, and as 
it was agreed to vote for him. Our State was in a bad condition, and 
nobody could express the condition of the State better than he, having 
been governor four years and six years in the United States Senate, 
and we all agreed to vote for Governor Kellogg in preference to Gov¬ 
ernor Pinchback. 

Q. Did you ever see Governor Kellogg in the Senate during that time ? 
— A. No, sir; I never saw Kellogg in the Senate at all. 

Q. Did anybody ever offer you anything to vote for him?—A. No, 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


801 


sir; (iov<nMior Kellogg was a Republican and I was a Republican, and 
I never knew ot siicli a thing as ollering money to vote for an odice of 
trust. 

Q. Will you look at these two papers and state if that signature is 
your signature ?—A. O, yes ; this is my signature, and this is my sig¬ 
nature (the witness examining the papers that had been handed to him 
by Senator Cameron). 

Senator Cameron. I offer to introduce them into the evidence for 
the purpose of identifying the signatures. 

Senator Vance. It is good evidence to us who look at it, but I do not 
see how it can be to anybod^^ else. 

Senator Cameron. The paj>ers are in the hands of the stenograidier, 
and any one who desires can look at them. 

The i)apers were admitted, and are contained among the exhibits. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You have looked at those papers and they are your genuine sig¬ 
natures?—A. Yes; I wrote that and that too. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. The Nicholls legislature unseated the Democratic occui)ant of 
the seat from your parish and put you in ?—A. O, no; 1 know nothing 
of that; 1 know I was returned by both boards. 

Q. Was there not a man in there, in the Yicholls legislature, claim¬ 
ing your seat ?—A. AYs, sir; Mr. Cunningham. 

Q. Well, they turned him out and put you in there?—A. AYs, sir; lie 
was never elected; he never was elected in the beginning. 

Q. I mean that you were seated in the place of another man who was 
a Democrat, and claimed to be elected?—A. AYs, sir. 

(The witness was here requested to write his name on jiieces of paper 
for the purpose of identifying his signature, which was done by the 
witness, and the papers bearing the signatures were delivered to the 
stenographer. 

Q. (By Mr. ITill.) Who wrote that letter (showing witness one of 
the letters already introduced), and fined the man ? 1 want to know’ your 
friend, Mr. Trevigen. What are those initials, “ S. W. S.,” on there ? 

The Stenographer. They are mine, to identify the papers. 

Q* Who is Mr. Trevigne? 

The Witness. He is a gentleman here w ho stays in the seventh ward. 

Q. Do you know jNFr. Peter Howard ?—A. Peter How’ard ? Xo, sir. 

Q. Do you know’ this gentleman (i)ointingto Mr. Seymour) ?—xV. Xo, 
sir. 

Q. AYu never saw' him before?—xV. Xo, sir. 


TESTIMOXY OF GEORGE W. WATERS/ 

George W. Waters, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Hill: 

Question. Where'do you reside?—xVnswer. At the corner of French¬ 
man and Chartres streets, in this city. 

Is that in the seventh ward?—xV. AYs, sir. 

Q. Do you know’ W. J. Moore?—A. AYs, sir. 

Q. Do you know Gardere, the man w’ho was elected or claimed to be 
51 s K 


802 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


elected to tlie legislature, in tbe seventh ward, in 187G?—A. I know him 
slightly when I see him. 

Q. Did you bear any conversation between tbem or by them about tbe 
election?—A. Well, sir, Mr. Moore and myself were very intimate. 

Q. Wbat did you bear Moore say about it?—A. About bis election ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. I have beard bim say that be was elected, but that 
be was not fairly elected. 

Q. Have you beard bim say that frequently ? Did you bear Gardere 
say anything of that sort?—" a. No, sir, I never have. 

Q. Did you liear Blackstone?—A. Yes, sir; I have beard Blackstone 
say that. 

Q. What did he say, Mr. Waters ?—A. During tbe last campaign, 
two years ago, Blackstone used to come to my bouse frequently, and in 
my presence be abused Senator Kellogg and said that be was never 
elected ; that be made $300 out of it, but from wbat be did not say. 

Q. He said that be got $300 for it?—A. I could not say that. 

Q. Well, it was in some conversation that he said that ?—A. Yrs s 

Q. And that Kellogg was not elected ?—A. Yes, sir; it was in tbe 
same conversation. 

Q. But be said that be got $300?—A. Yes, sir; be would come there 
and speak voluntarily and often, and then I would put in a question, 
but he would speak openly and abuse Kellogg. 

Q. Did you ever hear Moore make any sucb statement ?—A. No, not 
about Kellogg. 

Q. Wbat did be say about wbo were elected in tbe seventh ward ?— 
A. He said tbe Democrats were. 

Q. Are you sure that was the seventh ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know of yourself of any frauds being perpetrated in that 
ward in 187G?—A. I was a commissioner in poll nine of the seventh 
ward, representing the Democratic party. In that poll several fraudu¬ 
lent papers were offered for the ward, but the moment you rejected one 
of them, there was a majority in there against me, but I would not let 
them vote, and several of them I sent to jail. I never beard of them 
afterwards. 

Q. Were they white or colored ?—A. They were colored. 

Q. What ticket did they offer to vote, tbe Democratic or the Kepub 
lican?—A. Tbe Eepublican. 

Q. And tbe other two Eepublican commissioners insisted upon their 
voting ?—A. Yes, sir. There was a registration paper offered at poll 
nine, but the name of the man I have not got; it could be had. It was 
a paper issued in 1874. I represented box live for the Eepublican 
party, but there was a registration paper voted then, and that was of¬ 
fered to me at poll nine in 187G. It had no signature, but it had been 
voted in 1874, and tbe Eepublican commissioner in poll nine rejected it. 
It was offered by a white man, and we did not know whether he was a 
Democrat or a Eepublican. It was rejected, but I thought he was en¬ 
titled to vote. I thought if he was entitled to vote in 1874 he ought to 
be in 187G, and I knew bim to be a resident of tbe ward, and that he 
voted there; but it happened that the commissioner in 1876 with me 
was a supervisor in 18G4, and that is tbe reason I insisted upon bis 
right to vote. 

Q. Wbo was that party, Mr. Hutton ?—A. Mr. Hutton; he was su¬ 
pervisor with me at i)oll nine. 

Q. You say be was supervisor in 1874 and a commissioner in 1876?— 
A. Nes, sir. 

Q. x\nd you all knew that this man was entitled to vote ?—A. And I 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


803 


insisted that he should vote. The paper was not signed by Hutton at 
all, but I showed plainly by the stamp that he had voted. I was com¬ 
missioner at that i)oll in 1874, placed there bv the lleDublicans. 

Q. Do you know the character of this man Blackstone for truth and 
veracity ?—A. I do not know his o-eneral character; I cannot say what 
his general character is; I know he talked a j 2 :reat deal when he came to 
iny place, and run down his party; in fact, they held a mass-meeting in 
the back part of the ward down there and repudiated their party, and 
came out in print, I believe, with it. 

(,>. What reason did he give for thinking that Kellogg was not elected ? 
—A. He said that he was not in there fair; that the man entitled to it 
ought to have it. 

Q. ])id you say anything about a quorum being ])resent ?—A. No, 
sir; he said nothing about a quorum ; he might ami i might not have 
heard him. 

By Senator Cameron : 

(^. Which party were you acting with in 1874 ?—A. The Uepublicau 
party. 

Q. How long had you acted with them before ?—A. Never before ; I 
acted with them at no time before that; I was a Jlemocrat, and it was 
a matter of their ow n making that they put me there as commissioner. 

Q. Were you recognized in 1874 as a Eepublican or Democrat ?— A. I 
was recognized as nothing; I was not taking a part in imlitics, but I 
was always a Democrat; they were satisfied with my action at that poll, 
I know'. 

Q. You w*ere at that time a Democrat ?—A. I never w as any thing 
else. 

Q. But you were a Bei)ublican commissioner at poll No. o in 1874 ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, w’hat i)osition did j'ou hold in 1870 in connection with the 
election ?—A. 1 was commissioner at poll No. 0 in the seventh ward. 

Q. AVho were .your associates on the board ?—A. Mr. Hutton w'as one; 
he w'as the Kepublican, but I do not know' w ho the others were ; they 
were colored men. 

Q. Could you not give the names of the others?—A. I could not; I 
never knew' them until 1 met them in the polls that morning. 

(,>. Do you know' of any illegal votes being cast at that poll in 1870 ? 
—xV. There were votes cast at that poll in 1870 that I rejected, but I 
was in the minority-and they overruled me. 

Q. You thought they ought not to vote and the other odicers thought 
they ought, and as they were in the majority they overruled you t —xA. 
Yes, sir; they were all permitted to vote. 

Q. How' long have you been acquainted with Moore —xA. I believe 
since 1874. 

Q. When did you first have any conversation w'ith him in reference 
to the election of Senator Kellogg ?—A. It was during the last cam¬ 
paign. 

Q. In 1878?—A. YYs, sir; in 1878. 

Q. Bepeat the conversation you then had with him ?—A. xAt that 
time he was doing nothing; it was before ho went to work in the cus¬ 
tom-house, and he told me he w'as trying to get a position in the custom¬ 
house, and that he w'ould succeed, and if not, he would make them feel 
soinething—something he knew' he would tell, or he’d tell w hat he knew'. 

Q. 1 am getting at the first conversation, with Waters ?—A. This is 
the first conversation in regard to Kellogg; that was at his own domi- 
< ile, though. 


804 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. When was the next conversation —A. I never had any with him 
outside ; they were always at his own house. 

Q. When was the second conversation !—A. That was during the 
last campaign ; the last time was last summer, on Canal street. 

Q. You had no other than those two ?—A. 'No, sir. 

Q. And those were the conversations that you had with him on the 
subject of Kellogg?—A. Frequently he spoke of him to me during the 
campaign, and said that he was not entitled to his office, and damn him 
he ought to be out of there. 

Q. Where was that?—A. That was at his own domicile in the seventh 
ward. 

Q. When was that?—A. 1 cannot give you the dates. 

Q. When was that second conversation ?—A. Maybe a week or ten 
days after. 

Q. What was that conversation ?—A. The nature and substance of it 
was about the same thing as in the first. 

Q. Did he in substance repeat the same thing in each conversa¬ 
tion?—A. Well, the way it came about: This man Barrow, who lives 
in the seventh ward next door to Moore, and 1 got out there electioneer¬ 
ing, and it was then that calling at his domicile he used that language 
and before John Barrow and in his presence. I have never met him 
but once or twice since he has been in the custom-house, but since he 
has been in there I have heard him say nothing against Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. Of your own knowledge do you know anything about these things. 
Do you know them of your own personal knowledge all or any of what 
this man told you ?—A. About Mr. Kellogg ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. That is all I know; nothing but what he told me. 
I would not know the man if I was to see him, 1 don’t think (referring 
to Senator Kellogg). 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I am a shoe-fitter. 

Q. And you say you are now a Democrat ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. W^hich of the Democratic parties in the city are you allied to ?— 
A. With neither; I am neutral. I stand between the two. 1 have 
business to attend to and politics do not bother me. 

Q. Do you belong to the ring or the anti-ring Democracy ?—A. I do 
not know. I have friends on both tickets and I expect to vote a split 
ticket. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You said something of John Barrow?—A. John Barrow; yes, sir. 

Q. Is he a politician in the seventh ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know of him at the election in 1870?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know that he distributed false registration papers in 
1876?—A. I know him, sir; and it is my belief; that is to say, I think 
that between him and Moore they did distribute them. That is my 
belief, simpl 3 q sir. 


TESTIMONY OF OCTAVE DALIET. 

Octave Daliet, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. In the seventh ward. 

Q. Were you there in 1876 ?—A. Yes, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS KKLLOGG. 


805 


Q. Were you acquainted with W. J. Moore?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,). Were you acquainted with Gardeur?—A. Also witli him, sir. 

Q. And with Blackstone, a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear either of these parties say anythin" conceruiug 
the election in the seventh ward?—A. In regard to themselves ? 

Q. Y"es, sir.—A. Mr. Moore said that he had entered into certain 
combinations with the Nicholls legislature by which he was satisfied. I 
understood from that, that if he was not elected that he was satisfied to 
withdraw and let his opponent go in. 

Q. Did you hear anything about the election of Kellogg to the Sen¬ 
ate ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you hear Blackstone say anything about it ?—A. I heard him 
make remarks about the Senatorial contest goingon at the time. I do not 
remember exactly the language, but it was something about Mr. Spof- 
ford being i)ut out of the wa}'. At that time I paid very little attention 
to what he said, for I didn’t think he had any inlluenoe to control the 
election. Moore, Gardeur, and Blackstone were three Republicans, and, 
as they withdrew for the Democrats, I thought they had no infiuence 
and paid no attention to what they would say. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Hutton ?—A. I do; I served as United States 
supervisor in behalf of the Democratic party, and ^Er. Hutton was as¬ 
sistant supervisor of registration. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation between yourself and ^Er. 
Moore about the contests then in the seventh ward ?—A. Y"es, sir. At 
one of our former elections, we had two Democratic factions in the 
ward, and as 1 was working for one faction, Mr. Moore advised me to 
go on working for that faction, as he had three hundred fraudulent 
registration papers for use at our primary election. 

Q. What was that ?—A. Mr. Moore advised me to keep on working 
for the faction 1 was then with, as he had three hundred fraudulent reg¬ 
istration papers that we could use at our primary' election. 

Q. That was when ?—A. In 1870. 

Q. He said that he would let you have them ?—A. He didn’t say me 
personally, but my faction. He advised me to work on, and he said 
these three hundred papers he would furnish my faction, and we could 
land our candidates. 

Q. That was the primar;^ election, you say ? Was it a nomination ?— 
A. No, sir; it was for ward officers. 

Q. It wasn’t for the legislature then ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have an official position in connection with the election 
of 187fi?—A. I had. 

Q. What was it?—A. I was appointed by the Democratic party as¬ 
sistant clerk of registration to attend to the erasures of names at the 
custom-house. 

Q. Were you there when the books were carried there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see any of the names erased ?—A. Yes, sir; E saw them, 
although i protested against it in the name of my principals. 

Q. AYho erased them f—A. W. J. Moore. 

Q. How many?—A. The work was completed, and E suppose there 
were very near if not quite two hundred. It didn’t go (piite up to that, 
I suppose. Two-thirds of them were white and about one-thinE black 
wlio were stricken otf. 

Q. And you saw him yourself erase them?—A. YYs, sir. I was com¬ 
missioned by Governor Kellogg to be at the custom-house. 

Q. Moore was not assistant supervisor of registration, then ?—A. No, 
sir; he resigned the day before the election, and this was betore the 


•806 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


registralioii books closed and before tbe election; the time allowed by 
law is ten days, I believe, between the day of election and the time the 
registration closes. These erasures took place between that time and 
the second day. I think Moore was supervisor then, but he was not 
when the election took place. 

Q. Was that done to effect the election about to take place ?—A. I 
suppose so, sir; as that was previous to the election. 

Q. Were you familiar with the politics of the men who were stricken 
off'^ What party generally were stricken off?—A. Democrats. We 
didn’t expect any others to be stricken off. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Blackstone's general character for truth 
and veracity ?—A. Yes, sir ; I know it generally. 

Q. State whether it is good or bad.—A. He does not stand very good 
in our ward ; that is, so far as his character as a man of his word is con¬ 
cerned ; as for anything criminal, I do not know that he ever done any¬ 
thing that would send him to the penitentiary. 

Cross examined by Senator Cameron : 

Q. At what place in the custom house was the correction of registra¬ 
tion carried out?—A. If you go up the main entrance on Canal street, 
turn once to the right and then to the left, and then again to the right, 
there is a long room which seemed lo be unoccupied at the time except 
with planks put upon trestles. 

Q. Was that room open to the public ?—A. i^s'o, sir ; not at that time 
it was not public. 

Q. Who were present at the time Moore struck the names from the 
registration list?—A. Now, sir, there were some fifty or sixty persons 
in that room, but at our ward there were Mr. Moore, the assistant su¬ 
pervisor, Mr. Goiidolti, and a clerk whose name I do not know, a gen¬ 
tleman who was appointed United States assistant supervisor for the 
Democratic party, and myself. 

Q. There were two gentlemen representing the Democratic party, and 
three the liepublican?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q, What if, anything, did the clerk have to do with determining who 
were to be struck off?—A. Nothing. 

Q. Then there were four of you who had no right to say who should 
be struck off ?—A. Yes; the clerk, myself. I was a commissioner, and 
my voice went for nothing; my protests were not listened to. 

Q. You were clerk, too ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There was a Eepublican clerk?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the United States supervisor for the Democrats, who was he ? 
A. Yes, sir; Mr. Carradel. 

Q, Did he represent the Democratic party ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And who the Eepublican ?—A. Mr. Gondolfi and another clerk 
whose name escapes me. 

Q. Well, now, Mr. Daliet, how many Democratic factions are therein 
your ward now, and to which do you belong ?—A. Has that any bearing 
on the case ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. I favor the anti-ring. 

By Senator Yakce : 

Q. How were those registration lists changed?—A. They were changed 
on papers that had your name on them, and your name was put on the 
flap of an envelope, and the name was marked, and when these papers 
were returned underlined, then the name was erased. 

Q. AVas that the only evidence on which the names were stricken ?_ 

A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


807 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. State whether or not Moore struck off those names arbitrarily or 
by the consent of the Democrats.—A. It was arbitrarily done, and when 
I entered protest he would sa^' that I had nothing to do with it. I was 
but a clerk, and my colleague was an easy-going man, who understood 
nothing of these sort of things in politics. He couldn’t vouch for the 
men himself; that is, any of them that he knew nothing about. I said 
that he was doing wrong to allow the names on the blank envelopes to 
be stricken off. 

Q. Did he respect any protest that you made ?—A. Xo, sir ; not while 
there was an envelope there. 

Q. Would Mr. OarradePs protest have been respected?—A. I suppose 
his would have had more weight than mine. I know when 1 was United 
States supervisor he had to walk straight. 

Q. Do you know anything about a number of fraudulent registration 
certificates issued to Republicans and voted that day ?—A. The only 
knowledge I have as to that is about the three hundred that Murray 
said he had. 

Q. Have you any reason to believe that they were used ?—A. At the 
general election ? 

Q. Yes, sir ?—A. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Q. What is that reason —A. Well, sir; I have a reason. 

Q. Why do you think so ?—A. Because the census of the ward is far 
below the vote of the ward in 1874 or 187G. 

Q. What was the census of the ward in 1874?—A. I do not recollect 
the figures now, but I have them at home among some little political 
archives I have. 

Q. What was the vote in 1874?—A. It wasn’t far from four thous¬ 
and. 

Q. What was the census in 187G ?—A. That T cannot give you with 
the figures exactly, without referring back to the papers. 

Q. What was the vote in 187G ?—A. I do not believe it reached three 
thousand—the total vote. 

Q. What arrangement did Mr. Moore and the gentlemen who repre¬ 
sented the Democratic i)arty make in regard to striking off names ?— 
A. 1 was the one who suggested that when either party could vouch 
for anj^ party whose name was to be stricken olf that it should not bo 
done; Mr. Moore said it would give us too much advantage, and that 
where we could catch the name, age, and occupation of the parties it 
would give us the advantage, and he was going to stick to those envel¬ 
opes where the mail-carriers could not find the parties. 

Q. Answer my question, Mr. Witness, what arrangement was made 
between Moore and the gentlemen who represented the Democratic 
l^arty, with reference as to how these names should be stricken off*. You 
say you were a merei clerk.—A. There was none made, unless it was in 
my absence, and if it was made they didn’t act on it. 

Q. 1 didn’t ask you that.—A. Well, sir; there was none to my knowl¬ 
edge. 

(^. Did the Democratic supervisor enter any protest against any of 
the names that were stricken off ?—A. He entered verbal protests once 
in a while, but no written protests. 

Q. He made very few of the verbal protests, didn’t he ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What right had you in law to make any protest at all ?—A. I sup¬ 
pose the right of a citizen representing a political party. 


808 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You. were a mere clerk there?—A. Yes, sir; 1 was duly commis¬ 
sioned as clerk. 

Q. As a clerk ?—A. Yes, sir; as a clerk under the State law. 

Q. You understood it was under the State law. Will you please look 
at section 21 of the registration laws. (Handing witness a book.) 

The Witness (after examination). Under section 21 it says: l^o 
names shall be stricken off of the registrar’s books in his ward except 
on the written testimony of two electors of his ward. Then I say what 
right had he to strike off any man’s name on the mere writing of a mail- 
carrier who said he could not find a party, and that he didn’t know 
that they lived in the ward ? 

(Section 21 of the registration law of Louisiana was then read by Sen¬ 
ator Cameron.) 

Q. Now, you have had considerable experience as supervisor of elec¬ 
tions, and are more familiar probably with the State of Louisiana, you 
will iilease refer to that portion which authorizes a clerk to control the 
matter of striking off the names.—A. I doubt if I could find such an 
article in the act of registration. 

Q. Ho you know of any such provision in the act ?—A. I was once 
pretty well posted in this act. 

Senator Hill. Senator, I dislike to interfere, but the witness has dis¬ 
tinctly stated he interfered and protested as a citizen. 

Senator Cameron. Very well, I will modify the question. Now, can 
you refer me to that portion which authorizes a citizen, any other than 
a supervisor and representative, to interfere ? 

The Witness, (deferring to the book.) I believe there is one article 
in here which calls upon the existing executive to appoint a man of the 
opposite party to take the interest of that party in hand. If 1 am not 
mistaken there is an article to that effect in this act.' 

Senator Hill. I must object to your examining this witness on ques¬ 
tions of law. 

Senator Cameron. I submit. 

The Witness. When the rumor became current that the books were 
to be brought from the commissioner’s office to the custom-house, there 
was a iirotest made by Maj. E. A. Burke, and he requested to have a 
man appointed to represent the Democratic party, to go there and see 
what was done, and for my ward I was selected. I was appointed by 
Governor Kellogg as clerk without pay, to assist in the revision of 
these books at that time. 

Q. So far as you have any knowledge of that matter, didn’t Governor 
Kellogg appoint assistant clerks in all the wards?—A. Yes, sir; I be¬ 
lieve they were all pretty well represented. 

Q. Do you know whether it has been done since by any governor?— 
A. I do not know as the occasion required it. 

Q. I didn’t ask you that.—A. No, sir, there has not. 

Q. Then, if there is a provision of law requiring it, and it has not 
been done, the present governor has violated the law. 

Senator Hill. I object to the testimony being given on any question 
of law. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you not know as a matter of fact that no names were stricken 
from the registration books in 1876 except upon the affidavit of two 
residents of the ward ?—A. Do I not know it ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. W^ell, I do know that no names were stricken from 
the rolls upon the affidavit of two or more competent residents of that 
ward ; that is the custom here. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


809 


TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS GARRETT. 

Franci:s Garrett, witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. What is your name?—Answer. Francis Garrett. 

Q. AVhere do you reside?—A. At the half-way house. 

Q. Whereabouts?—A. In the city of New Orleans. 

(^). Are you acquainted with Mr. W. J. Moore f—A. William J. Moore ? 

Q. Yes ; the member of the Packard legislature from the seventh 
ward in 187G?—A. Y^es, sir, I am acquainted with one Mr. Moore, but 
I don’t know his initials. 

Q. Do you know Milton Jones, who was a member of the house ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. lie is a colored man, is he not?—,A. Y’es, sir. 

Q. State to the committee whether you were in the State-house, where 
the Packard legislature met, in December, 1870, or January, 1877.—A. 
Yes, sir. I went in there when the assembly met and remained in there 
until Packard walked out, and I went out with him. 

Q. What was the condition of things there—was the place barricaded ? 
—A. O, yes, sir; the place was barricaded there for some time. 

Q. Who were allow^ed in there and who not ?—A. Well, all the Re¬ 
publicans who belonged to the State legislature, and the State-house 
officers, and friends of the party w ere allowed in there. 

Q. Was the public at large admitted ?—A. I think not, sir. 

Q. Were you present during the voting and canvassing of the polls 
for United States Senator in the Packard legislature?—A. As I stated, 
I was there all the time. I seldom left except to go to my meals. I 
was assistant sergeant-at arms of the senate. 

Q. State whether there w^ere any there of a quorum.—A. On w hat 
particular day ? 

Q. Well, any day.—A. Well, sir, at one time there wasn’t a quorum, 
but whether it was made up afterwards or not I cannot say. I know 
one senator that wasn’t there, for I was requested to go for him, and 
that w’as Senator Breaux. I had a talk with him several days ago and 
he remembered the fact. 

Q. You say he remembered the fact that there w^as not a quorum ?— 
A. No, sir; I say there w’as at one time during the day not a quorum. 

Q. And you say you w^ere hunting for him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you don’t know whether a quorum assembled afterw'ards or 
not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. About what time of the day was it ?—A. It was the early stage 
of the proceedings. I think they had got there about one half of the 
votes. I think that is the stage of the proceedings that they had it. 

Q. Y^ou think they had got there one-half of the votes ?—A. Yes, sir; 
will state that I was sent in, being with another gentleman. Judge 
Mantz, of St. Clary’s. He has mentioned it to me several times in the 
street and I remember it. 

Q. Did you go for him ?—A. Y'es, sir; but I could not find him, and 
he said that he w’as not in the State house. He said so day before yes¬ 
terday. 

(i. Do you know anything about a rumor, or understanding, or no¬ 
toriety of money being paid and accepted by members for their votes? 
—A, Inside of the State-house it was the prevailing rumor all through 
the State-house duri-ng the time the vote was taken and that Governor 


810 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Kellogg was aunounced as a candidate. It was whispered that there 
waa money to be paid, and it was paid for votes. 

Q. For him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wasn’t it very difficult to keep a quorum there, or to get a qorum 
at all ?—A. I should say it was j they were playing hide and seek all 
around. 

Q. What was your politics—Republican, of course, I suppose.—A. I 
have been a Republican ever since 18G2, when Butler came in here. I 
joined a Butler regiment and have been with the Republican party ever 
since. 

Q. I asked you if you knew Milton Jones?—A. I know him very 
well. 

Q. Bid you see him in conversation with Senator Kellogg at an}’ time ? 
—A. I did. 

Q. At what time?—A. At the time the vote was being taken. 

Q. Where was Senator Kellogg at that time ?—A. As I stated, when 
I started on a hunt for Senator Breaux, I came directly through the 
hall towards Speaker Hahn’s room, and Milton Jones came through. I 
was going to pass, however, when he was stopped by Senator Kellogg 
and asked where he was going. He said he was going to the water- 
closet, and Senator Kellogg thought it looked very suspicious about his 
going to the water-closet, but without suggesting what proceeding, and 
after some words Senator Kellogg, I think, suggested a wash basin and 
finally a spittoon for Milton Jones to make water in. I think the Sena¬ 
tor will remember it very distinctly. I remember it as a good joke at 
the time, for Milton Jones stated he wasn’t going to vote for Kel¬ 
logg; that he was tired of being fooled with. It seems that he had been 
played that way before. He said it to me several times that he looked 
like a corn-field nigger, and have tried to treat him so. He said be was 
tired of being played with and he had been left out, and therefore he 
was not going to be left himself. I suggested before the rising of the 
Senate to go into the House. I suggested to get Milton to go and 
see Senator Kellogg, because I was a Republican and I saw he was the best 
man for the party. I saw Milton Jones, and Senator Kellogg said to 
me that unless he got every vote returned to the legislature, his seat 
would not be worth a cent. I said to Jones, I think he ought to go to 
see the Senator rather than leave it in that state, and he went, it seems, 
and came back and said he could not make anything out of it. Kel¬ 
logg took him into a corner and had a little talk with him after he got 
through making water, and when he came back I accused him of ac¬ 
cepting money for his vote. I spoke to him jokingly and he admitted 
that he had, but wouldn’t state the amount. I met him again after he 
came back from Washington, and he seemed boisterous about Kellogg 
and Spofford to them and 1 said, when are you going to swear again, and 
he said he was not going to swear again, and I said to him, did you 
get the money ? You got it, and you are all right. And he said it 
makes no difference, he wasn’t going to swear again; and I said to him 
in the conversation that they had a warrant, and don’t you know that 
you can be arrested for this making a thing one day and another the 
next day; and he said Governor Kellogg told them in Washington that 
they could not do it unless they went on the stand here. I said to him, 
how much did you get ? I said, just a gentleman, passed me and said 
to me that you got a thousand dollars. And he said it was a lie, and 
that the story about the thousand dollars was all a lie ; that he got a 
little, but not much, and they had promised him some place in the cus¬ 
tom-house, but they had gone back on him and fooled him. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


811 


He admitted that he ^ot some money from AVashin^ton ?—A. O, 
yes; he said so. He said that some of tliem knew more than he did, 
and they paid them more, and that they knew he would not j?o back on 
the party and would not swear against the party it they did not pay 
him. 

Q. He said that he did have it, and he got it, did he ?—A. Yes, sir; 
but he said that he knew more than these other witnesses, and they got 
more. I asked him how much they got, but he would not say. 

Q. He did not say what he got for it ?—xV. No, sir, he did not, and I 
said to him, as to Jim Lewis, I said I thought he was a meddling and 
he was bothering things, and he said, O, hell: I said, Hid he say 
anything to you on the train ? He replied that he said You are a 
Jtepublican, and he said. If you give the Democrats one seat in the 
senate you are a fool. 1 said to him, Did not Jim Lewis goon in the 
interest of the Kepublicans and Kellogg? and he said, Of course, he 
did. 

Q. Did you hear anything of Kellogg threatening to give up the gov¬ 
ernment to Nieholls unless he was elected Senator ?—A. 1 first heard 
that in the caucus. 1 heard Jones ask him about that that was going 
on in tlie caucus, and he said, you go to those who are in the caucus. 1 
went to three or four and asked them and 1 could get nothing out of 
them. After Oovernor Kellogg was elected it was talked about and 
universally known that Governor Kellogg went into the caucus and told 
these men that if they not did concentrate in holding the party together, 
and if they did not appreciate his services as much as to elect him 
Senator, he would go upstairs and turn the government over to Nicholls. 
I tell you they believed that he would. 

Q. And that was what was talked about, was it ?— A. Yes, sir. Just 
before the vote was taken I will state about Senator Twitchell. 1 
was in conversation with him several times, being sergeant-at-arms. 
1 asked him if there would be any difiiculty in Senator Kellogg’s elec¬ 
tion, and I found that he would hold on and pull through at last, and 
he said, yes, Kellogg will be elected, but he would hate to be elected by 
the same cost. He said there were not twenty votes that Kellogg could 
get without buying them, and that negroes broke faith; that if you 
would take them into your conlidence to-day they would break faith 
w’ith you to-morrow, and that you could not rely on them. 

Q. When did you come back from hunting for Senator Breaux ?—xV. 
I am not able to say, except that it must have been between twelve and 
one o’clock some time ; nearer one, i)erhaps. 

Q. Was the election over, or was it going on ?—xV. It was going on, 
but the vote had been comi)leted. 

Q. You didn’t see this man there afterwards that day ! —A. Xo, sir; 
1 did not. 

Q. He was not in the room when you returned t—A. 1 did not see 
him. 

Q. Did you see Kellogg give Alilton Jones money?—A. I saw him 
take an enveloiie out of his pocket and citiher something on the back 
of the envelope and say to him not to leave until he had voted for him ; 
that unless he got the entire vote his seat would be vyorthless. Then, 
as he started to move, I saw Jones make a movement like putting some¬ 
thing in his pocket. They were both there with their backs to me, 
standing by the washstand. Then we came in, and I spoke to him as 
he went into the hall, and I said, how much did he get out of Senator 
Kellogg? He had the money in his vest pocket, and he said he got 
some; that he made him come down. He said that other man fooled 


812 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


him; tliat be bad given some money to pay bim, but I can’t recollect 
'wboitwas; bat, anybow, be said that Governor Kellogg gave some 
person, some colored man from West Baton Rouge, money to pay Milton 
Jones, but be didn’t give it to him. 

Q. You said you knew W. J. Moore ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him on the subject of 
that election?—A. Now, I will answer that by saying I have had inter¬ 
views with several men, but they have been of a confidential character 
and I would like to be excused from answering that question. 

Q. You are compelled to give any evidence that is competent in law. 
—A. I know that; but what conversations I have bad with members 
of the legislature on that subject since this committee came here are 
entirely confidential, and I would not like to state them. 

Q. As a matter of fact, do you know that Murray was out of employ¬ 
ment last year ?—A. Yes, sir; I do. 

Q. Did be express a desire to get back in the custom bouse ? Were 
you ever present at a conversation between Mr. Moore and George 
Autz ?—A. That is in connection with this same thing that I wish to 
be excused from answering. 

Q. Do you know anything of any other members of the legislature 
being paid for their votes?—A. Not directly. 

Q. That is of your own knowledge ?—A. No, sir; not directly. I know 
that on the same day, about fifteen or twenty minutes before the senate 
went into the house. Senator Twitcbell and a man named Harris went 
to Kellogg’s office to see him, but I do not think they found him, because 
Twitcbell asked me if I had seen him. 1 was coming out of one of the 
adjoining rooms, the office of his private secretary. Afterwards he saw 
Kellogg, and I went into the senate chamber, and after they got in there 
I was talking to them about how those members were going about, and 
I said I thought it was bad faith to come to the legislature on Senator 
Kellogg’s money and everything of that kind, and then to try to sell 
him out. Senator Twitcbell said they had agreed and had the money, 
and the crowd was to vote for Kellogg that day. I do not remember the 
name of the man he mentioned, but some man was there who was kick¬ 
ing in the traces. It was Sutton, I think. 1 thought he was an easy 
man to satisfy, and was a particular friend of Kellogg’s. Senator 
Twitcbell mentioned some other man, and was speaking of how wrong 
it was for a man to try to break up a party in that way. He said that 
he had just been to see Kellogg again, and he had to pay out more money, 
and he sent a boy for a man, and this man Harris took some money out 
of Senator Twitchell’s vest pocket and put it into an envelope and sent 
it by the boy to some member’s desk. I do not know who it was. 

Q. Were you there promoting and aiding the election of Kellogg ?— 
A. Yes, sir; I was. Senator West was my friend, but as he was out 
of the field, I thought Kellogg was the best man for the Senate. 

Q. Was Jones a member of the house or the senate ?—A. He was a 
member of the hou^e. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with any one as to the im¬ 
portance of the seventh ward election as looking to Kellogg’s case and 
affecting it ?—A. That was in connection with the part of the evidence 
that I wish to be excused from giving, because it was a confidential 
matter. 

On motion, at this point, the committee adjourned to 10 o’clock Fri¬ 
day, November 28, 1879. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


813 


New Orleans, La., 

Friday^ Xovcmber 28,1879—10 o’clock a. m. 

The sub committee met pursuant to adjourmiient. Present, all the 
members ot the committee; also C. L. Walker,tioiinsel for the memo¬ 
rialist; the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford; and the sitting member, 
Wm. Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. Gentlemen, you will please come to order, and let us 
proceed with the testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS K. FLANAGAN. 

Thomas K. Flanagan, a witness called for the memorialist, was 
brought by to the stand. 

Py Senator Hill : 

Question. What is your name, sir ?—xVnswer. Thomas K. Flanagan ; 
but, gentlemen of the coiufuittee, before I am asked any (piestions 1 de¬ 
sire to make a few remarks as to the publication in the Picayune. In 
it it is reported that I should have said that all Kepublicans are ilamned 
scoundrels. 

Senator Hill. ]Mr. Flanagan, that report is not ollicial. 

The Witness. Well, sir, 1 should have said that some of them are 
gentlemen. A"ou asked me if 1 had beeu before the committee before 
and 1 said not, and since then a gentlemen has accused me of register¬ 
ing and vmting false votes in the twelfth ward and I came down to the 
^lorrisou committee and 1 testified there. That is all that 1 have to 
say. 

By Senator Hill : 

(^>. I believe you testified that you were one of the clerks of the return¬ 
ing board 1 —A. I was. 

Q. AVhat was the state of the returns wheu they came from the coni- 
inissioneis before the returning board acted ui)on them as to how the 
State had gone ?—A. The first time 1 saw them 1 had pretty much the 
full return, and as 1 stated 1 had moved in August and left all my papers 
in one of these desks and the drawer fell out in moving and some of 
them were lost, but 1 found a good many. Anyhow 1 found one mem¬ 
orandum containing the electoral vote and some of the parishes, seventeeu, 
1 believe. 

Q. You found the vote for seventeen parishes'?—A. Seventeen, sir. 

(,). Are you able irom your memorandum that you have and your 
recollection of the matter to tell the committee how the State did go in 
1870 by the returns of the commissioners '?—A. The State by the returns 
gave eight or nine thousand majority for Governor Nicholls. 

Q. How did the legislature go ?—A. Of course according to the re¬ 
turns it was Democratic. 

Q. Then the returns as they came from the returning board to the 
clerks for record changed that result ? 

Senator Cameron. 1 would suggest to the Senator that this thing had 
better not be gone into. It has beeu gone over time and again by 
dilferent committees. 

Senator Hill. 1 believe it has and I only want the testimony of one 
of the clerks who had not been examined before. 

Senator Cameron. Of course, 1 know that as the returns came in the 
Democrats had a majority, and possibly as much of a majority as the 
witnesses testified. 


814 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Hill. I think myself it is unnecessary to go into these mat¬ 
ters. 

Thereupon the witness was dismissed from the stand. 


TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. BARROW. 

Robert J. Barrow, a witness for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. General Barrow, are yon acquainted with George Andrew 
Jackson Sweazie?—Answer. 1 know him by sight, sirj he was raised in 
West Feliciana Parish. 

Q. What is his general character in that parish ?—A. It is bad, sir. 

Q. What is his reputation ?—A. That he is a murderer, sirj it is gen¬ 
erally believed he murdered Mr. W. D. Winter, and everybody there 
believed it. 

Q. Was he tried and acquitted ?—A. There was some evidence against 
him, sir, but the party went back on it. 

Q. Then there was not enough legal evidence against him ?—A. It 
was sufficient, sir, if the i)arty had not gone back on it. 

Q. Has he the reputation generally of being a peaceable or dangerous 
character ?—A. He is a dangerous character; everybody believes it, sir, 

Q. Are you acquainted with his general reputation for truth and 
veracity —A. Well, sir, a man of that kind wouldn’t have any. 

Q. From what you know of him, would you believe him on oath ?— 
A. No, sir, I would not, of course. 

Senator Kellogg at this point stated to the committee that he had 
taken out a subpiena for Milton Jones, who had gone to Pointe Coupee 
Parish prior to the election. He did not want to ask for a sergeant-at- 
arms, but he did not want to take the chance of Jones not coming; he 
wanted to have him before the committee and he would send a messen¬ 
ger after him. 

Senator Vance. Can you not telegraph for him? 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; but lean have him herein thirty-six hours. 
I want him to be here, and I will send for him ; I can get him here in 
thirty-six hours, 1 think. 

Senator Hill. You appoint a messenger and I will deputize the man 
to go and get him. 

Mr. Walker. What do you expect to prove by him. Senator Kellogg? 

Senator Kellogg. That Milton Jones was in his house and never 
left it, and that he could do nothing of the sort that has been testified 
about him. 

Examination of Robert J. Barrow resumed : 

By Senator Cameron, on cross-examination : 

Question. How long have you been acquainted with Sweazie?—An¬ 
swer. Well, sir, six or eight or ten years; about as I know colored men 
generally in the parish. 

Q. You have just seen him simply?—A Y^es, sir; as I have seen the 
others. 

Q. Your acquaintance with him is not intimate?—A. I don’t pretend, 
to have intimate acquaintance with such men, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


815 


Q. I didn’t ask you that; I asked yon if it was A. It was not. 

Q. What is his occnpatiou at this time ?—A. I don’t know ; he was 
raised in the parish and was owned by Mr. Sweazie before the war. 

Q. What is his occupation generally ?—A. 1 do not know, sir. Did 
you ask me about his raising ? He was raised by Sweazie. 

Q. No, sir. I asked you his occupation.—A. I think, sir, it was just 
the same as others on a plantation. 

Q. Who did you ever hear say they would not believe him on oath ?— 
A. There are very many persons I know who would not. I am giving 
yon, now, sir, his general reputation. 

Q. Give the names of any person who said or spoke of his general 
reputation for truth and veracity.—A. Well, sir, I miglit reply that men 
generally in the parish would not believe him. 

Q. Give the names of any person who ever said anything about his 
character for truth and veracity.—A. I never heard of any who spoke 
particularly of his truth and veracity. 

Q. AVell, now, sir, I am speaking of his reputation for truth.—A. I 
never heard it discussed, and I never discuss such matters myself. 

Q. Did you ever hear his reputation called into question ?—A. Well, 
sir, gentlemen don’t discuss such questions about such men. 

Q. Did you ever hear his veracity called into question ?—A. I do not 
know as I ever did. 

Q. You do not remember to have done so ?—A. I do not remember. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You gave your testimony and based it on his general bad charac¬ 
ter ?—A. Yes, sir ; his general bad character in the community. 

Q. Y^ou have no personal acquaintance with him ?—A. Ko, sir; but I 
have seen him as often as I have hundreds of others in the parish. 

Q. I want to ask you another question. Is it true that no well-be¬ 
haved colored man can remain in the parish with safety ?—xY No, sir; 
none that I ever heard of; that parish is quiet and has been for some 
time. 

Q. Was it quiet in 1875 ?—A. xVbout that time there was a good deal 
of commotion in the parish, and 1 did not reside in it. 

Q. How was it in 1870^—A-. I say that in those two years just passed 
there has been very little. 

Q. AVhen did it cease ?—A. There has not been any since Governor 
Nicholls was elected. 

Q. Do you know of any of it personally?—A. No, sir; I cannot say 
that I did. 

Q. AVas there any bulldozing before ?—A. Of course, when there were 
hundreds of armed negroes going through the parish threatening people’s 
liv’es there was a'good deal of commotion and trouble. 

Q. Is that all ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it not white people who did that ?—A. Y"es, sir; there were 
white people who did it after these colored people commenced it. 

Q. AVhen did they commence it ?—A. In 187(). I know that myself. 
I said in 1875, and it is true there was a good deal of commotion in the 
parish. The negroes came down there in armed bands, and threatened 
to murder all the white people. 

Q. How many white peoi)le were killed ?—A. There were several, I 
think. 

(,). Were there any negroes killed ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Were you present and saw them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How do you know they were?—A. I know they were. 


816 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How maDy were killed ^—A. I do not know. There were negroes 
and white men killed both. 

Q. When was Weber killed ?—A. In 1877. I was in town at the 
time. 

Q. AVhen was John Gear killed?—A. I heard of that, but he was not 
killed in West Feliciana. I think it was in East Feliciana, if I am not 
mistaken. 


TESTIMONY OF D. J. M. A. JEWETT. 

D. J. M. A. Jewett, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, was sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Jewett ?—Answer. In New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. How long have you resided in New Orleans ?—A. Four years. 

Q. Where did you reside prior to that time?—A. In various of the 
country parishes ; Caddo, Lincoln, and Bossier. 

Q. In what otlicial capacity were you in the Republican party in 
1876 ?—A. I was secretary of the Republican committee on registration 
and election. 

Q. I will call your attention in the first place to the testimony of Mr. 
Howser, given before this committee. It was to the effect that after 
the election of 1876, and prior to the election of Governor Kellogg to 
the United States Senate, you and Mr. Blanchard were frequently seen 
by him in Governor Kellogg’s house, in a room adjoining his office, and 
he frequently saw you writing on paper and that Blanchard admitted to 
him that you were fixing up the returns. Now state the facts.—A. Mr. 
Blanchard and myself were very frequently at Governor Kellogg’s house 
during that period; we were in his office, but never that I remember in 
any room adjoining his office. I do not remember of having done any 
writing at Governor Kellogg’s house unless it was to make some mem¬ 
orandum or write a dispatch. Neither Mr. Blanchard nor myself ever 
worked on any returns there, and I never saw any returns there at 
Governor Kellogg’s house. 

Q. So far as you have any knowledge, where were the returns kept; 
and what connection, if any, did you have with them?—A. There turns 
were I presume with the secretary of the returning board. I had no 
connection with them at all. 

Q. It has been stated that the registration books in this parish, after 
the completion of the registration and before the purging of the list, 
were most of them taken to the custom-house. State the facts as to 
this.—A. The most of the evidence had been accumulated in the office 
of the general supervisor of election, and that was the United States 
circuit court clerk, who has his office in the custom-house. I know on 
the 2d or 3d of November I asked Governor Hahn to ask of Mr. 
Wotfley the use of that evidence, in order that we might avail ourselves 
of it ill purging the list. Mr. Wolfiey consenting, the supervisors were 
notified of the fact and took their books there, making use of that evi¬ 
dence in his office. 

Q. It was stated by the witness Peter Williams that a dispatch was 
sent from his office.—A. Yes, sir; he was the chief clerk. 

Q. Of the board of registration ?—A. He was. 



817 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 

(). That telegram was directing the assistant supervisors of registra¬ 
tion to take their books to the custom-house, and I think Mr. 'Williams 
stated that he did not authorize the use of his name tor that purpose. 
Please state the facts.—A. The dispatch to the sui)ervisors was proba¬ 
bly signed with the name of Peter Williams, under the general author¬ 
ity tliat t had, that any dispatch I had to send pertaining to the busi¬ 
ness of his office should be so sent if I desired it. 

(,1 You stated that there was such a general order with Mr. Williams? 
—A. There was. 

Well a good deal has been said by different witnesses in reference 
to the purging of the list, Will yon state how and on what evidence 
they were purged ?—A. They were purged under the section 21 of the 
registration act. We adoi)ted a mixed method of canvassing. We 
sent out a sort of circular known as the sewing-machiiie atlidavit to 
about 30,01)0 voters, with a request-envelope. These were returned by 
the carriers when the i)arties were presumed not to live at the place 
where they were registered, the address on it being the same as that in 
the books—an exact coi)y of that on the registration books. Canvassing 
teams were then formed to go to these places to ascertain whether these 
parties lived actually at those addresses, and any of those not found there 
by the canvassers, or rather in case where the canvassers didn’t tind the 
])arties at that address, they made an affidavit now upon this blank 
[producing a paper]. These allidavits were made in any of the United 
States commissioners’ courts and the warrant was issued thereon, 
and an attempt at service made by one of the marshals, who in fact 
made a third canvass ot the voters. And those who were not found by 
the marshal were then returned into the court, and it was assumed that 
the persons so named were fraudulently registered, and on said evidence 
the lists were purged, and there were no other at that time. 

Q. It has been said by witnesses before the committee that names 
were stricken olt by Republican su[)ervisors at the time of purging the 
lists and iq)on the strength of those sewing-machines circular alone ?— 
A. That is not true, Senator, to my knowledge. 

Q. What knowledge or information have you in regard to the matter 
—1 mean what oflicial knowledge have you as to the i)urging of the 
lists ?—A. 1 had the general supervision of the matter, and a tiortion ot 
the erasures were made in my ])resence, and the erasures were made in 
l)art of the address and affidavits ; and more than that, the supervisors 
in the exercise of their ollicial distinction often refused to make the 
erasure on the affidavit alone. 

If you have any information as to where the aftidavits in regard 
to the registration made at this time went, state it.—A. They are now 
in the hands of i\latt. II. Carpenter, James Coleman, and John W. Bell, 
in Washington, as evidence in a suit against some i)erson there in a 
United States court. 

Q. It has been stated here that one poll in the seventh ward was 
thrown out and not counted. State whether or not that aftected the result 
of the election in that ward '?—A. One noil was omitted, in its com¬ 
pilation, for barely technical wrongs. iMy recollection is that it was 
poll .‘3, and the Democratic majority was exactly 200. It stood OO and 
200 as near as my recollection can make it. The omission of the poll 
from - 

C>. Governor Kellogg calle<l my attention to a motion. Will you 
please look at that [handing to witness the re[mrt of the Howe Senate 
committee], page 1125, in the testimony ot Stokes given about Ward of 
Grant Ihirish. Some of the testimony was given the other day in re- 

52 s K 



818 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


fereiice to Grant Parish. He said that Ward, the supervisor of registra¬ 
tion, came to New Orleans before he cora[)leted the registration and did 
not return to complete it, and it was not completed. I ask you whether 
or not you know that Governor Kellogg directed Ward, the supervisor 
in that parish, to return and complete the registration I—A. Governor 
Kellogg handed to me a letter directing Mr. Ward to return to his 
parish on the following day or the next day but one. I handed it to 
Mr. Ward. That was on the first occasion upon which I came u[) with 
him, but whether it was the next day or the following day I cannot 
remember. 

Q. Fix the time as near as you can that you handed that to Ward. 
—A. It was about the first of November ; I could not more particularly 
hx the time. 

Q. Will you please look at this paper ? 

(It is a statement showing the registration of the vote for a number 
of years in Orleans Parish). 

The AVitness (after examining the statement). According to the 
best of my recollection it is substantially correct. 

Senator Cameron. This can be all verihed, of course, by the official 
tables. This has been compiled from them. 

Senator Hill. When has it been compiled ! 

Senator Cameron. Pecently. 

Senator Kellogg-. Within the last ten days, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cameron. It brings all the figures together, and I otfer it in 
evidence. 

The i)aper was admitted in evidence, and is as follows; 


Statistic^ of roruLATiON, iskgistkation, anm) flection in Louisiana, 18G7 to 1870, inclusive. 

Sfatiatics of reginir ations and ilecticub in ihe State of Loumana,from the first registration nndtr the reeonstrncticn acts of Congress^ in 1807, to the general 

election of November 7,1870, compiled f)om official records. 


i 


6 

6 


d 

>5 


d 


ri 

6 


(?i 

d 

12; 


d 



r' 

. ^ z ;l -I, i ? -5 i ^ i z 1 i 2 i i 

if if -r — if -.' rd —" if if if if 

1 

s 

o' 

«£ 

2 3 

S' £ -3 = ^ 5 2 V. f-’ X i 12 2 ?. 
•lB.i30(uaQ‘[aiunp t-— *i i-o i-— o o o-. n m — 

o 

o 

if 

-I® 

o ^ ^ 

?Jx^Sd'x'l'f2.qur.sz5:« 

•UBOiiqndo^T ‘lUBtlBJf) CIO X l- X ~. X W — O -r -r — X 

a 



-* - - — - - 



X 

d 



SPOFFORD VS 

ernor, 

1, 181-2. 
Mitcb- 

'IBJOX 

&|=5 

•isil 

•jBJDoai3(i ‘Aaanaoj^ 


•aBDiiqndaji ‘xiJonox 


819 


« ■>? if rd -if n 7* 71 ?f Tt ^ —■ 

— 7t rf — —* —■ —' — 71 —' -T 


ii 

•i = 
-U 


•l«Iox 

inilO pnB nBipai 


"■ i 2! if Z i 2' f 2' Z 

rc r- M "Xj X -n* 


I — 


'35 


II 

~ =ir 


•pajoio3 


mmmm 


•aiiHAV 


. — tc r; 

> If} inS 

?? 2 Z 5 

— OOSf^CVS — 'r0-^J'*0 0'» 

—* -r o' s-r -jf x' o' 'X* o' i d rT rd cd" 


'01.81 JO nojiB-usiSoH: 


smmmmnf 

5i" rd ud 7f n 7f rd 7i' if ■?!' —T -if 


II 

2 3 
4i P 


l^iox 


ismmm 

7> if rd if — 


s 


‘?B.iooaio(j ‘aoBji 




o z 


•aBDT^qndo^I ‘Ltaqnop 


'8981 JO aoiiB-nsiSoH 


4)'^ 
> = 
O C 3 

PC_ 


l^jox 

•oajojBiiBX 


11 


•qionuBAV 


s i - 
•2-5 

- = w 

* 3 « 


.^ss 


'IBJOX 

•pa.io [03 


•OJRAV 


If If d - if - _r _r if - 

32S*il2dl222?iZ 1 

Cl 

z 

i 

id d if -r if id if if id if if 

B ^ 

IglliliSliS s 

if if -r —' id-«' -f -f d if —“ 

O 1 

?r ' 

isirpssiss i 

o 

s 

in 1 

1 1 ‘-s ‘i 5 i 1 ‘1 s i 

-'if -■ if 

r' 

Z' I 

■5 -r ti lO 

S O 3 S 3 

—' -o' o' —' —■ 

— s a e 

s 

i 

2' 1 

3 ^ 1* £ 

o X II M II 

-r' id id —' —' 

2 i S I s 

o' id if if 

i 


i 

J3 


ccjz 






£ si= o ■? ts-=o 

--- S£-5a 


I ® I = 2 


•.Dquin^Sj 




























































































Statistics of roruLATiox, iiEOiSTnATiox, and klfction in Louisiana, 1807 to 1870, inclusive. 

JSlatistics of reyislrations and elections in the Slate of Louisiana, from the first registration under the reconstruction acts of Congress, in 1807, to the general 

election of November 7, 1870, complied from official records. 


820 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


O 


o 



ir S 

l| 

•w^x 

i7 






TBJOOniafr 'snoqDijC 


0 

..X 



A 

-SlZ- 




c P 

•UBOiiqiidaa; ‘pjwqoBj 



•-^ 

•l«I0X 






A 

c; j-.. 

•pdJ0[0Q 


A 

GO •“ 




5c 




•QIiqAi 


c s 
c 5 
^ ® . 

c C- i- 

4^ OC 

^ 

-r c; o 
^ P" CO 


C5 . 
<C n* 

s- t- 




■TO O -f O ' 

*7 iT: c: — X — 'C 

^ nr- ^ 


lO O 2 

c; o o ci ^5 ci oc o in 

yT c-T yf r^' yP —* i— c? 


ir: 


‘X —‘ X 'Ti O *-• C7 c; ^ 

-r c; o o 'TJ f 

Tp c: -r -r c; o '71 


i- o' 
X X ' 
X — ( 


t <7? <71 

'*r2 

X 7^ 
<71 

• 7< O 

/ X r: 

* 71 O 


— — 7»— 

<77 7^ r7 r: -- r: ' o 77 < 

^ 7f O J'- O *“ X ’>7 — !'• t 
— 7^ X i'- ^ t- X C- O 7J ’ 


tc ^ IC ^7 c; — 77 77 W ' 

•Cl l 7 X ^ 7v* 77 X l7 < 

X 77 X 77 'C 7J C- Ci X 77 *C i 


7 ^ 77 '7' 7J 1-7 71 77 77 77 

—4 77 —' 7i 77 7-> ( 

- C: 'C C. 7> -t- 77 L7 C'. — f 7> *7 i-* ' 
T 1- c; Ci -r X T 77 X c; 77 C 'C 77 ■ 


^ zr 


I- — O • 7 ' 
— O 7.r 71 
O i- 7^1 4-- 


-T X 71 — 
t’- -- -r L7 
77 O 'C 71 


I'- 77 O 
O X 
I'* 71 O 


L7 -X 
77 i- 

71 yi 


71 77 71 i 
71 7: 1^ 


! 71 77 71 


71 

71 71 77 
— u7 — ^ ■V C; C 71 
X ^ 77 — l 7 ii7 71 

7 ’' V y .7 Ti" 77" 71 71 " 77" y: C 7 " ^ 


X' 22 u7 

0 C 77 *c 


77 71 77 
O 4 - 71 
— O 77 


»7 

X X 
'C 1.7 


1 

•paaoioQ 1 

17 77 — 71 a- X 77 — »7 7/ f— 17 X »7 0 I'- 

X -r 7117 71 — X 71 71 71 r- »-7 X' L7 71 ^ 

L7 71 77 o; 1-* *7 71 77 •T' 71 

71 " ^ 71 ' ^ 

4-7 

x 

L'IT 

•8IRAi 


r: 7 : ‘.c 71 77 -T 0 X 0 *>C X 'X 'T* X 4r7 0 

71 0 T. .y. 71 C- t'* 0 X X v7 *— - *7 c: — 

71 0 C7 71 *0 0 W 77 X.tr: *.7 71 cr. 71 77 

71 77 77 ^ 71 -H 71 ^ 71 71 71 ^ 

5 

x*" 

71 

•IBlox 

^?7^TO*1*71w’^7--^»C 77 7»--Cii7 

0 iT. -r 77 X -T 77 0 10 iC l 7 i- — 71 

i- 71 77 77 77 0 -r 71 0 0 »7 TT. '.C --i? 

71 77 71 77 71 77 71 71 77 77 — — ^ 

71 

•mjoiiqnd-iy; ‘lapnqiiQ 


”1* L7 — w iC 7 : i-* l7 C: 71 C; 77 — ’T 17 

47 0 0 X 7 ; 4^ '-t* — 77 t'- — r- 0 '.c u7 71 

•.0 X 0 c; -4 t*. X ^.3 {-* r- l7 77 0 •7’ 77 

71* I-T t-T —" 

Cl 

'O 

•'Iijjooiuad ‘^Jnonoj^f; 


4 ^ X 77 -P »7 »<7 1(7 U7 i'- 71 X 0 — 4^ —’ < 7 ; 

-r C: 0 -T -r -r 0 C: — <'• ui x o 0 7. 

0 <77 77 ‘(7 — 0 r: 0 X "V 71 c; l7 .1 c; ^ -71 

717177— 471 ^ — —*7171 

1.7 

0 

71 

S 


o 

'A 


A 


•l^iox 


C T— J I 

; 


(71’^7I717777’-h— ^ 


•pajoio^ 


' X 'C C -r t- X -f : 
O 17 77 C*. I'- — O < 
o r; *c X o tc I 




' 77 X 

; <C ^ 

' i7 


'C —' *C 1.7 'C ‘X — 

^ [X X- Z« S 


X 71 ' 

*C 71 ^ 


-jj ^ 5 ^} j) ^ 


^ i: 

o 

I ^ 

O - 
Cl 
C I- 
MTC 




•IBJ,>oini(i ‘Ai9naoj\[ 


•nuoqqnday; ‘Soopax 



unox 


• A XI 

bl — 

* 

c 3 


•pa.io[o3 


— Cl Cl Cl — » Cl l.C C. X i-C — 

Xicrcxc»— — cic;-T<ci-:o^ — 

Ci S Cl C-. — O O « X CC X f- — lC 

fc' o' x" Cl o' cc o cc re -r" o' —T—' cf 

' “ S ,9 Lz 2; ic 'Cr ^ X 

— c rjo f s Cl X i— Cl ro Cl O Cl T 

:'^oox'o;co'^cr. 


-' r- o ' 


I Cl Cl 


•aiRAi 


Cl ^ Cl = O O — Cl r- X -r f- -c o O 
^.^xo-r.-'Xorr'rccicoxrc — i^ 
cr cc t’ Cl X !c o 0 c; X' o cs Cl X' 
Cl cc' ■' 1 "' -h' cf cf cf Cl cc' cf cf —' 



•aaqcunx 


J 
























































































































SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


821 


By Senator Vance : 

Q. ]Mr. Witness, you say that no natne was stricken ofif the registra¬ 
tion-rolls upon the autlioi ity of those sewing-machine circulars alone ?— 
A. No, sir; not to iny knowledge. 

Q. And that every one struck off was stricken off after the affidavits of 
two registered voters of the ward had been taken under section 21 ?— 
A. Two voters of the parish ; yes, sir. 

Q. Then, why did they send out those sewing machine circulars?—A. 
To save time in making the canvass. 

Q. Howjlong were the returns, or registration-books rather, in the cus¬ 
tom-house before you sent them in to the returning-board ?—A. They 
went in on Saturday night. 

Q. What portion of the city had these canvassing men covered in that 
time ?—A. The canvass had been made long before that time, and com¬ 
pleted. 

(,>. VV^ere these certificates made out before that time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you say that Ward was before back to Grant Parish ?—A. Yes, 
sir; about the first of November. 

Q. The election was held on the 7th ?—A. Y>s, sir; it was. 

Q. Doesn’t the law require the books to be closed nine days before the 
election ?—A. Ten, sir. 

Q. Then going back would not have remedied the difficulty of his com¬ 
ing away ?—A. His return would have enabled them to have held a le¬ 
gal election on such registration as had been had before he left. It 
was practicady closed when he left. 

Do you know whether he went back or not ?—A. I know he started 
and didn’t get to Grant Parish. 

Q. And wasn’t present on the day of the election, as the law requires? 
—A. He was not present. 

J>y Senator Hill : 

Q. Y^ou stated that he had practically closed the registration before 
he left ?—A. I understood that it was practically closed when he left 
on the 2oth of November, I think. 

Q. AVasn’t it the 20th or the 22d that he got here ?—A. No, sir; I think 
it was the 2r)th. 

Q. It was more than ten days, wasn't it, before the election ?—A. Y^es, 
sir. 

Q. Y"ou are certain ^t was more than ten days before that election ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know who made these out ? (Referring to the tables just 
previously introduced.)—A. I do. 

Q. Do you know who made these pencil marks here ? 

Senator Kellogg. I did, Mr. Chairman. 

(^. (By Senator Hill). Under whose auspices was the census of 1875 
taken ?—A. Captain William Wi ight, the State register of voters. 

Q. Republican auspices ?—A. Yes, sir; Republican auspices. 

(j). These statistics, you say, are substantially correct. Have you 
compared them with the official list?—A. I have not. 

Q. Would you like to say, then, they are correct?—A. They are, to 
the best of my recollection. 

Q. Wern’t all these figures made out under Republican auspices and 
by Republican officials ?—A. The registration, election, and census there 
noted all took i)lace under Republican administrations. 

Q. i\reyou the gentleman who wrote the circular to the supervisors, 
in substance, that they were expected to bring up their registrations to 


822 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


a Eepublican majority ?—A. I wrote a circular to the supervisors calling 
tbeir attention to the results of the census in parishes, and urging them 
to bring up their registration to those limits. 

Q. Have you a copy of it ?—A. I have not. 

Q. Has it ever been printed since?—A. Yes, sirj I think it has by 
nearly every committee since that time. 

Q. You wrote it, you say?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. At whose instance ?—A. At my own. 

Q. As a Republican manager ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You wanted them to make the State Eepublican, and you wrote it 
to spur up the managers ?—A. I wrote it to spur them up to their fullest 
efforts. 

Q. And to make the State Republican ?—A. Y"es, sir; as I judged it 
was. 

Q. Well, that was the result you wished to urge upon them ?—A. It 
was. 

Q. I want to ask you a few questions for myself, Mr. Jewett. In this 
election of 1876, which occurred on the 7th of November, you spoke of 
various conferences, of going to Kellogg’s room, you and Mr.'Blanchard. 
Answer me this: If it was not the great end and aim of the Republican 
party at that time to change the results of the election as reported by 
the commissioners from a Democratic to a Republican victory ? Just 
answer the question ?—A. It was not, sir, as you put it. 

Q. Then put it your own way ?—A. It was the object of the Repub¬ 
lican managers to prove what they esteemed to be frauds in the Demo¬ 
cratic management, and to secure the State to their party if it could be 
legitimately be done. 

Q. Were you not going to do it any how, legitimately or otherwise ?— 
A. I never heard a suggestion of that character. 

Q. You may not have heard a suggestion, but do not you know that 
that was the object ?—A. No, sir, I do not. 

Q. Was there any fraud in Grant Parish ?—A. I know nothing upon 
that subject, except from hearsay, except from the statements of Mr- 
Ward, upon his returns here, that he had been driven from the parish. 

Q. Ward had been driven from the parish; that was Mr. Ward’s state, 
ment, was it ?—A. That is what he stated. 

Q. Mr. Jewett, I want to read to you from the statement of a lady. 
She is asked, “ Are you acquainted with D. J. W. A. Jewett,” is that 
your name ?—A. It is, sir. 

Q. “ Did you ever hear any conversation between him and Mrs. Ward 
and your husband as to his appointment as supervisor of Grant Parish ? ” 
And she answers that she did, and that you did not seem inclined to 
have Ward go back, because she says you did not want the vote of that 
parish taken, that it was a Democratic parish, and that she afterwards 
asked Ward about it, and he said that he was not to return. Is that 
correct ?—A. It is not. 

Q. You say it is not correct, sir ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never said that to Mrs. Ward ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor to anybody in her presence ?—A. No, sir; never at all—no, sir. 

Q. You have seen here the blank copy of an affidavit regarding these 
sewing-machine circulars which you say were to accomplish the object 
of the Republican party; was it not for the purpose of complying nom¬ 
inally with the law, but intending at the same time to reach the result 
any how ?—A. No, sir, it was not. 

Q. Have you not admitted under oath before that everything was 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 823 

done to make the State Kepublicaii iu the election ?—A. Xo, sir, not in 
that s(*nse. 

Q. Did you not say before tbe Potter committee, in reply to a ques¬ 
tion, that “all means were used to make a Kepublican majority —A. 
All legitimate means were used, certainly. 

Q. Answer me if you made that statement, ‘‘ All means were used to 
make a Republican majorit.y V’ Are you correctly reporte<l ?—A. I can¬ 
not say whether I am or not. 

Q. Did you or not state that?—A. I cannot say whether I did or not. 
If 1 did, 1 said it in that sense. 

Q. I want to ask you a few more questions, and I wish you to under¬ 
stand that I am not impeaching your veracity, or trying to <lo so. There 
were a great many things done during that time with which you are 
familiar. There were a great many things done in open session and in 
secret session. AVe see men walking as trees, you know. Did not you 
and Mr. Blanchard have private papers, and did not the Republican 
managers generally have i)apers, showing the result in the State immed¬ 
iately after the election ?—A. I had information of the results of the 
election immediately after in various ways. 

Q. Tlien you did not have to wait to get the returns in the regular 
way to know the state of the poll ?—A. Xot substantially, sir. 

Q. Well, now, in having these interviews with Mr. Kellogg, between 
him and you, and Blanchard and otliers, was he not anxious to have it 
fixed uj) so that there could be a Republican majority ?—A. 1 cannot 
recollect that Governor Kellogg ever expressed to me, or in my pres¬ 
ence, anything more than an ordinary anxiety that the legislature, as 
well as the State government, sliould be Republican. I mean by that, 
that Governor Kellogg never evinced any exclusive or extraordinary 
anxiety about the legislature. It was the general desire that the result 
shouhi be in favor of the Re[)ublican party, both as to the legislature 
and the State ticket. 

Q. You just stated, a while ago, that the Republican managers were 
in favor of using all means to change the result as reported by the com¬ 
missioners, from a Democratic to a Republican majority by all legiti¬ 
mate means, I believe you said. Abni mean by “legitimate ” such means 
as you Rei)ublicans considered legitimate ?—A. I'recisely, sir. 

Q. And you considered it legitimate to send and get protests and 
aflidavits after the time expired f(*r them to be tiled ?—A. 1 do not re- 
menber that such was the case, in fact. 

i}. MYre any allidavits brought here and made out in the custom¬ 
house ?—A. The affidavits of very numerous witnesses in support of 
protests were made in the custom-house. 

Q. AVere they made out as the law reipiires at the polling places, and 
did they acconqiany the returns?—A. In some cases they did, and in 
some thev did not. 

Q. Did you Republicans think it legitimate to do that, to send for 
them in tliat way f—A. I had instructed the supervisors before the elec¬ 
tion that where it was dangerous or unadvisable to make them with the 
returns, as under section 21, they could make them out under section 43 
in s(‘parate packages, and they generally availed themselves ot that 
privilege. 

(,). Were not some of them made here in the city after the returns 
reaclnul here ?—^V. I think so. 

Were not some of them made concerning intimidation, where 
none was at the polls ?—A. I thiidv so, sir. 

Q. And that you consider legitimate means ?—A. 1 think so. 


824 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. As I uiulerstaud, there was what was called supervisor’s pro¬ 
tests?—A. There are two protests meutioued in law; one by the super¬ 
visors, pertaining to registration and the entire subject, and one by the 
commissioners, pertaining only to evidence occurring the day of elec¬ 
tion and count and return ot the votes. 

Q. ]S^ow, that supervisor’s protest. Didn’t the sui)ervisors come here 
to the city of New Orleans, some without protests and some who com¬ 
pleted the protests here, and filled them out liere ?—A. They undoubt¬ 
edly did, in some cases. 

Q. Well, there was a good deal of purging done of the registration 
outside. Was there any done in the interest of the Democratic party 
or in the interest of the Republican party ?—A. I was only in charge of 
the interest of the Republican party. 1 can only speak for it. 

Q. Well, ]Mr. Jewett, I am going to ask you some more question's upon 
my own hook, so to speak. I want the facts in this' case, if 1 can find 
them out. What about that quorum in the Packard legislature ? Do 
you know anything on that subject ?—A. I know nothing about it. I 
am personaliy unable to answer, sir, whether there was or not at the 
time Kellogg was elected. 

Q. Or when at the time it was organized ?—A. Nor when it was or¬ 
ganized, sir. 

Q. Was not there an effort made to put in men there to make up a 
quorum who were not elected ?—A. I can’t say that there was. 

Q. Were not men put in there who were afterwards admitted not to 
have been elected?—A. There were several returned by the returning- 
board who were marked elected on the jiapers. 

Q. Were there not several who admitted afterwards they were not 
elected, and retired without making a contest after the Packard legisla¬ 
ture went down ?—A. I know nothing myself. I was absent from the 
city at the time the legislature dissolved. I left in February, 1877, and 
did not return until Nov-ember; so, as to those facts, I am unable to 
state anything. 

Q. Now, in this election in West Feliciana Parish, it seems from the 
records in evidence that two Democratic candidates in that parish re¬ 
ceived between 1,200 and 1,800 votes and the Republicans less than 
800. Now, there was no evidence and proof accompanying these re- 
turas; but the Rej)ublican members, this Mr. Sweazie among them, 
were returned as elected. Now, in returning these Republicans as 
elected, were they not governed by what they pretended or believed 
ought to have been the result; that is, assuming the colored people all 
to be Rei)ublicans and the white people all to be Democrats, the result 
in the parish was so many negroes and so many whites, and as the ne¬ 
groes are very largely in the majority, and the election a Democratic 
majority, didn’t they refuse it on the assumption that the negroes ought 
to have voted the Republican and not the Democratic ticket?—A. That 
is a question which I am hardly competent to answer. The supervisor 
of that parish made the protest in this city, I think, alleging that he 
was not able to make it out at home. That protest was supported by 
certain evidence ; I cannot remember what now, though, perhaps, I knew 
at the time; the party thought it satisfactory, and they acted on it; or 
at least I am constrained to think so, as they acted upon the evidence. 
As for myself, I will say at that time I would not have been content to 
believ^e that the parish, which was v^ery heavily negro in population, was 
any other than legitimately a Republican parish. 

Q. And you consider it legitimate on the part of the Republican 
management, on the assumption of that fact, to return it Republican 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


825 


wluMi the election returns showed that it was Democratic ?—A. No, 
sir ; 1 don’t say th.at. I would not think it was legitimate to proceed on 
that assumption alone. I i)resume that in what they did they went on 
the evidence. 

Q. Tl)at is an assumption of your own ?—A. I say I presume they 
did ; I do not know whether they did or not. 

(^. Do you know anything of the election in the seventh ward, whether 
it was fair ?—A. I have no i)ersonal knowledge of it. 

Q. Did you at any time meet any of the su[)ervisors of registration in 
a i)rivate otlice of the post-oftice, and inspect or see their returns ?—A. 
I met some of the supervisors of tlie fourth Congressional district there 
in November, and drafted their i)rotests for them ; it was during Novem¬ 
ber, as ai)pears in my testimony before the Potter committee. 

Q. flow many of them ?—A. I drafted the protests, I think, for 
three. 

(^. Which three ?—A. Of the parishesof Webster, Bossier, and De Soto. 
The supervisor of Webster was (L H. Moore; of Bossier, T. 11. IJatton; 
and of De Soto, C. L. Ferguson. 

Q. Did you ever meet the supervisor of Bed Biver Parish there ?—A. 
I think he was there at the time. 

Q. What was his name ?—A. A. W. Cornog. 

Q. Well, who else was there ?—A. I think Frederick E. Heath and 
Samuel Gardiner, of \Vel)Ster, and ))art of the time Price Baker, of Bos¬ 
sier, and George L. Smith, a (candidate for Congress from that district, 
and for a part of the time, 1 think, 1). D. Smith, commissioner of the 
post-oflice. 

Q. Is that all that you ieniend)er ? 

Well, Mr. Jewett, what was the object of that meeting ?—A. ^Ir. 
Smith requested me to meet him there about nine o’clock one evening, 
and on my arrival he wished me to prepare the protests for these super¬ 
visors. 1 pi‘e])ared the protests for those three, simply embodying the 
statements made by them. They copied them or had them copied, and 
afterwards made oath to them in the United States court. So far as I 
know, the meeting had no other object. 

Q. Were the returns themselves there, or copies of them ?—A. Yes, 
sir; the returns themselves were there, J sui)pose. 

Q The original returns were there ?—A. Yes, sir: 

Q. When was the date of this meeting ? There were several of them. 
AVhat was the date of this?—A. There was only one, and I think the 
date of it was about the lioth of November, but I will not now be posi¬ 
tive as to the date. In my former testimony before the Potter commit¬ 
tee I fixed the date then as best I could. 

Q. Were the returns brought there in a completed state with the ex¬ 
ception of the i)rotest?—A. I think they were. I thiidv they were com¬ 
plete at that time. I can’t say how they were when they were first 
brought theie. . 

Q. J)o you know Tom Murray ?—A. I know him by sight. 

Q. What about his credibility ?—A. I don’t know anything of him sa 
far as to be able to answer that question. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Peter Williams'?—A. Ido, very well. 

(,). How about him ?—A. His creditability, sir ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Well, sir; I used to think that Peter was a pretty 
good sort of a fellow. 

Q. J)o you know George Sweazie ?—A. I know him very slightly. 

How about his creditability?—A. Well, 1 have been accustomed 
to believe the statements made to me by (Jeorge. 


^26 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You stated that some protests were made by supervisors in this 
•city. State, as you understand it, the reasons why they were made 
here and notin their specific parishes or precincts?—A. The reasons 
-alleged were the usual ones, I think, in every case, that it would have 
been personally dangerous for the supervisors or others to have made 
them at the poll. 


TESTIMONY OF WEBSTER LONG. 

Webster Long, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. 61 Marigny street. 

Q. Were you in this city in December, 1876, and January, 1877 ?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. Were you much about what was called the Packard legislature?— 
A. I used to go about there occavSionally. 

Q. I will get you to state to the committee what was the general 
rumor about members being bought to keep up a quorum and to vote 
for Kellogg ?—A. So far as that goes, the rumors were mixed up. There 
were all kinds of rumors and street talk, but I paid no attention to 
Ihem. 

Q. Do you know whether there was a rumor there to that effect, or 
have you any belief on the subject?—A. I do not know. I never was 
in the legislative hall, and I do not know whether there was a session 
there or not. I was not interested in it and I paid no attention to it. 

Q. You know nothing of the efforts made to secure a quorum ?—A. 
One day I was there and I know there was an effort made and they 
sent out and hunted them up. 

Q. Do you know what day that was ?—A. No, sir; I do not. I made 
mo study of it. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Gardere and Blackstoue, who represented that 
Seventh ward in the legislature?—A. 1 know them all. 

Q. What is Blackstone’s reputation ?—A. I do not know anything 
about him except that he was a i)reacher, that is all. He used to hold 
club meetings down there, but I do not know anything about him 
Turther. I rented the club room from him. 

Q. How long did you live in the Seventh ward?—A. I never did live 
in the seventh ward, but in the eighth ward. I have lived since I 
was born there, and I am going on fifty-eight years and have got grand¬ 
children. 

Q. Well, we do not want anything about your grandchildren.—A. 
Well, sir; you ask me the question and 1 tell you. 


TESTIMONY OF H. H. WALSH. 

H. H. Walsh, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex- 
-amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Are you acquainted with Tom Murray ?—Answer. Y^es, sir. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 827 

Q. What is liis character !—A. I have known him fifteen or twenty 
years and I always thought he enjoyed a good character. 

Q. As good as negroes generally have ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ould you believe him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Have you ever heard any one say anything in regard to his repu¬ 
tation for truth ?--A. No, sir; not generally. 

Q. Well, i>articularly ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear it discussed at all ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. With which political party do you aftiliate, Mr. Walsh '?—A. I am 
a Democrat, sir. 

Q. Aren’t you a pretty active Democratic worker?—A. I do not 
know, sir, that I am very active. I do the best I can for the party. 


TESTIMONY OF H. T. BROWN. 

II. T. Broavn, a witness called for the 'memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answ’er. In this city at present. 

Q. How long have you lived here ?—A. Since July, 1878, I have been 
here. 

Q. What is your employment'?—A. I have none at present. 

Q. Were you ever employed in the United States custom house '?—A, 
Yes, sir. 

Q. When ?—A. From the first of Julv, 1878, to the third of March, 
1879. 

Q. In w'hat department ?—A. In the internal revenue department, as 
stamp clerk. 

Q. Were you under Morris Clarks ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Marks refuse to reappoint you ’?—A. Yes, sir ; and I never re 
quested him to reappoint me, sir. 

Q. What reason did he give for not continuing you ?—A. He gave a 
great many. 

Q. Did they have any connection with this Kellogg-Spofford case ?— 
A. He said that he was compelled to do it. 

Q. What did he say he was comt)elled to do ?—A. It was not relative 
to myself that he made a certain remark. He made the remark about 
certain parties saying so and so against him, and he said, “ I cannot 
take care of any of my friends now’ w hile this fight is going on about 
Kellogg. I have to appoint a set of God damned curs and hounds to 
keep them from squealing on Kellogg.” 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When and where did you hear Marks made that statement ?—A. 
In his private ofiice. 

Q. When ?—A. Some time in the month of July. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. Was that in July last?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. After you were discharged?—A. I never w’as di^scharged, sir. 

Q. Well,"afteryou had ceased to act there?—xV. Yes, sir. 



828 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You ceased to work in March ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Aud this was in July?—A. I am not positive whether it wt.s in 
July or not. It w^as the last part of Jane or the first of July. 

Q. Who w^ere present at the time ?—A. No one; him and I. 

Q. He was in conversation with you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had you applied for continuation of your employment?—A. I 
never ai)plied when he said to me that my resignation would be accept¬ 
able and he would get another place for me in that building. He had 
sent for me to come, and he would have first one position and then an¬ 
other. I despaired of hope in that direction, and 1 thought nothing 
about my reinstatement. We were talking then about parties who were 
fighting him and asking for his removal when he made that remark. 


TESTIMONY OF PAUL TREVIGNE. 

Paul Trlvigne, a witness called for the behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In the third district. 

Q. On what street?—A. No. 155 Columbus street. 

Q. In what ward of the city!—A. In the 7th ward, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided there ?—A. For fifty years, sir. 

Q. What official connection, if any, did you have with the election 
there in 187(3 ?—A. At that date I was a commissioner of election. 

Q. What instructions did you receive, if any, from your sui)erior offi¬ 
cers with reference to allowing or rejecting votes that w’ere offered that 
day at the polls?—A. We had printed circulars on which it was stated 
that in case a voter would be refused to vote on account of the erasing 
of his name on these lists, that if he could prove by two citizens of the 
ward that he w'as a resident of the ward, he could vote. Mr. Clarke 
was the Democratic commissiouer at the time aud a Mr. Cardere. I 
don’t know whether he was a Democratic commissioner at the time or 
not. We agreed that every man who would prove by two citizens that 
he was a resident of the ward and entitled to vote, would be allowed to 
vote at that poll, but we had no chance to exercise it—no one presented 
himself. We refused some, but unfortunately for our side they were 
all Republican voters. 

Q. At what poll were you a commissiouer?—A. Well, sir, that was 
two years and over ago, in 1870 ; but I think it was poll No. 0. So far 
as I can remember, we had six or seven polls, but I can’t remember 
which was mine; but I think it was No. 0. I can give you the locality 
of it, if you wish to know. 

Q. Give it, if you please.—A. It was at the corner of Lapeyrouze and 
I think Prieur, if I am not mistaken in the name of the other street. 
It is the fault of my memory. 

Q. You state that the officers at that poll agreed that any man whose 
name had been stricken from the registration list, if he would make the 
proof by two citizens of the ward that he was entitled to vote, should 
be allowed to do so ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that he was a resident of the ward ?—A. Yes, sir; among the 
many arrangements we made for the conduct of the election this was 
one of them. 

Q. And they would be allowed to vote under those circumstances ?— 
xV. Yes, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 829 

Q. At tliat time could a vcter vote at any polling-place in the ward ?— 
A. Ves, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did you ever write a letter for A. E. Miloii, of Plaquemiue Parisb, 
to Governor Kellogg f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wbat did be wiite that letter for ?—A. He came to my office and 
asked me if I wanted to write a letter for bim, and 1 said I would. I 
bad done it for biui many times previously. 

Q. Wbat did be want from Governor Kellogg?—A. It was rumored 
that be bad made an affidavit in this city in tbe case of Governor Kel¬ 
logg, and be seemed to be indignant about it and wanted to write a 
letter and deny it. 

Q. Did be want Governor Kellogg to give bim anytbing?—xV. No, 
sir; be was at my office in tbe custom house. 

Q. O, you are in tbe custom-bouse, too?—A. A"es, sir; but I didn't 
suppose that bad anything to do with this case. 

Q. How long have you been in tbe custom-house ?—A. Since 1877. 

Q. Wbat is your office ?—xV. 1 am at tbe entrance and clearance 
desk. 

Q. Wbat is your salary ?—xV. A thousand dollars a year. 

Q. At whose instance were you appointed in tbe custom-house?—xV. 
Judge King ai)pointed me. 

Q. Who recommended you to Judge King ?—A. Myself, sir. I met 
Judge King in Saint Landry in 1872, where 1 was making French 
si)eecbes in tbe parishes for my party's benefit. I got acquainted with 
bim there and be seemed to like me. I am a Louisianian and be is too, 
and when be was appointed in tbe custom-house 1 wrote bim an appli¬ 
cation for a place ; and I am proud to say I went in on my own merits. 


TESTIMONY OF J. T. ALLEYN. 

J. T. Alleyn, manager of tbe Western Union Telegraph Office, re- 
calle<l to tbe stand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. In noting those telegrams which you have furnished to the 
committee, I see there must have been answers to them by Governor 
Kellogg; can you find them?—Answer. No, sir; not now. 

Q. Why not; where are they ?—A. They are in New York. 

Q. When did you ship them there?—A. On Tuesday last. 

Q. Who instructed you to do that?—A. I do not know, sir, but I 
suppose it was tbe general office in New York. 

Q. Wbat was tbe reason for it?—A. I presume it was to get them 
out of tbe way. 

Q. Who have you bad a discussion with in reference to these tele¬ 
grams since you have been before this committee?—A. Nobody. 

Q. Have you bad anj: communication with anybody ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you receiv^e any instructions in regard to them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. If you were called upon and received them at your office could you 
produce them ?—A. If I bad been called upon for them I would have 
brought them. 

Q. Did not your subpoena say “to and from Senator Kellogg”?—A. 
It did not. I could only follow tbe instructions of tbe memorandum 
which I was instructed to follow out. 




830 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. The uiulerstandiog was, Mr. Alleyn, that by sending these tele* 
grams oat of the city you were discharged from the responsibility of 
producing them —A. Yes, sir. I understood I was discharged on Mon¬ 
day, and I sent them away. 

Q. What did you send away ?—A. The May and June business. 

Q. And that included all the telegrams from Governor Kellogg to 
parties in this city*?—A. I did not examine them myself; the clerks ex¬ 
amined them, but they did not examine the received telegrams in the 
business. There were no instructions with regard to them. 

Q. There are none others, then, in 3 ’our office that you can get?—A. 
Ko, sir. 

Q. Who gave you the information upon which you sent them to Kew 
York?—A. The superintendent. 

Q. Who is he?—A. C. G. Meriwether. 

Q. Where is he ?—A. In Mobile> 

Q. He instructed you to ship them to Xew York ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What time did you get that order ?—A. Tuesday’, and I shipped 
them at once. 

Q. Did Meriwether make any inquiry of you about what you had 
delivered or whether you had delivered any telegrams to the commit¬ 
tee?—A. 1 notified him that I had delivered them. 

Q. According to the memorandum given you, and you say the mem¬ 
orandum did not say ‘Go and from Senator Kellogg”?—xV. I have the 
memorandum here, sir. 

Q. Did you not understand the order to be “to and from Senator 
Kellogg”?—A. I thought you mentioned it verbally, but I was in¬ 
structed to follow the memorandum that the committee furnished me. 

Q. But you knew the committee wanted all the telegrams “to and 
from Senator Kellogg”?—A. I understood that it did at first, but as the 
memorandum was furnished to me I confined myself strictly to the mem¬ 
orandum. 

Q. Have you got your subpoena ?—A. Yes, sir; it is at the office. 

Q. What does it say; “to and from”?—A. No, sir; it says “to Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg,” and there is nothing else in it. 

Q. And you thought you could send those telegrams off with impu¬ 
nity ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know why Meriwether was in such a hurry to send them 
oft ?—A. I suppose because you might call for the others, and we try, 
for it is a rule of the company, to keep them from getting out if we can. 
We do that even iu Congress. There are one or two cases in Saint 
Louis now pending where the question is up, and it is the policy of the 
company to prevent the production of telegrams whenev'er they can. 

Q. Can you give us the cipher to these ?—A. No, sir; I cannot. I do 
not know more of them than of any other ciphers. 

Q. 1 thought that you might know.—xV. Mr. Walker suggested that 
I might know, but he ought to know that I would not know it. 

Senator Hill. No, sir ; I suggested it of my own accord. 

Mr. Walker. I never suggested anything of the sort. 

The Witness. Any man of common intelligence would know- 

Senator Hill. Stop ; we will not receive lectures from you. I asked 
you a question, and you answer it. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When did you receive instructions from Mr. Merewether to shij) 
the dis})atches?—A. I received it Tuesday morning. 

Q. What was the order ?—A. “ Ship the May and June business to 
Clarence Cole, attorney to the Western Union Company, New York.” 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


831 


Q. Was there any comment, or anything of the sort to it?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill. W. Alleyn, 1 do not want to have any trouble with you, 
but I want 3011 and Mr. ^Nlerewether to understand that this is an at¬ 
tempt to evade the order of the committee on a technical construction 
of a word, and I want to give j’ou notice that we shall bring this matter 
before the general committee in WashingtoTi, and those telegrams had 
better be forthcoming. You are not bound to do that, but I will be 
glad if you will try to get that information to them. We regard this 
as a direct disregarding of the order of this committee. 

Senator Cameron. ]\Ir. Allej ii I think has obeyed the order of the 
com mittee. 

Senator Vance. He has not obeyed the order of the committee. 

The Witness. (To Senator Hill.) You said so here at the table, that 
I should furnish the telegrams to and from Senator Kellogg; but yon 
said to Mr. Walker, I think, to furnish me a memorandum of the tele¬ 
grams he wanted, and he did so; and I have followed up that memo¬ 
randum. 

Senator Hill. Never mind any further explanation. I say it is a 
technical evasion of the order of the committee. 

Senator Cameron. Mr. Alleyn states that he communicated to his 
superior officer that he had produced the dispatches in response to the 
orders of the committee, and thereupon, or some time after, his superior 
officer order'd him to ship the May and June business to New Y^ork. 
Of course ^Ir. Alleyn obeyed his superior officer, and I do not think he 
ought to be lectured for doing so. 

Senator Hill. 1 was not lecturing Mr. Alleyn. I am after the West¬ 
ern Union Telegraph Company, and if 1 can reach them with any power 
that can be used for the purpose I will doit; and I think tliat Mr. 
Alleyn, if he had been disposed to do right by the committee, ought to 
have remembered that it was a technical omission of a word. 

The Witness. It was the same thing, Mr. Chairman, in the order to 
the other manager. 

Senator Hill. Well, never mind, Mr. Alleyn ; you have escaped by 
the letter of tlie law, but you are guilty in si)irit. 


TESTIMONY OF W. J. MOORE. 

W. J. Moore recalled to stand on behalf of the sitting member and 
examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Y^ou have been sworn in this case, Mr. ]Moore ?—Answer. 
Y"es, sir. 

Q. In looking ovqr your testimony I observe that I omitted to ask you 
a question the other day, and that (piestion is this: Were any names 
stricken from the registration simply and alone on the strength of those 
so-called sewing-machine circulars, or did you, in addition to that, re¬ 
quire an affidavit i)ursuant to the section 2 L of the registration law 
A. I do not know the modus operundi by which those affidavits were ob¬ 
tained. They were made before the United States commissioner, and I 
supi)Ose the record will appear there. 

Q. Before what commissioner were they made ?—A. Commissioner 
Southwoi th. They were sworn to and signed before him, but I do not 
know the parties who made them. 



832 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. I unOerstand that, but you do not understand iny question. Did 
you strike any names, without an affidavit?—A. No, sir; never. 

Q. Do you understand that you eomplied with the requirements of 
the law by having the affidavits of two reputable citizens of the ward ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF GEOEGE GRESHAM. 

George Gresham, colored, a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you live ?—Answer. In Algiers, in the fifteenth 
ward of the parish of Orleans. 

Q. How long have you lived there ?—A. Since 18G2. I was born 
there, and I removed from there up to Jefferson Parish, and resided 
there thirteen years, and moved back to Algiers in 1862. 

Q. Were you a member of the legislature in 1876 ?—A. I was. 

Q. From what parish ?—xi. 1 represented the thirteenth district of 
the parish of Orleans. 

Q. Were you a member of the Packard house, so called ?—A. I was. 

Q. I will ask you what action was taken by the members of the Pack¬ 
ard house in reference to stationing doorkeepers at the different doors 
of the senate chamber on the day of the election of Senator Kellogg; 
what was done?—A. I remember, in the Eepublican caucus, there was 
a resolution passed requesting the si)eaker, on that particular da.y, to 
enforce the rules, so as to prevent members from going out of the house 
during the balloting for Senator. 

Q. State whether it was enforced during the balloting?—A. I be¬ 
lieve, to the best of my remembrance, that it was. 

Q. Do you know Milton Jones ?—A. L do ; I served with him in 1875, 
1877, and 1878. 

Q. Do you know who his preference was for United States Senator ? 
—A. I met him sev^eral times in the caucus, and he stated very enthu¬ 
siastically that the parish of Point Coupee was solid for William Pitt 
Kellogg. 

Q. That was before the election.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And before the day of the election ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. What did Jones do on the day of the election of Senator in the 
matter of the election ; 1 want to know whether he was active in pro¬ 
moting the election of Kellogg ?—A. 1 cannot state as to his activity, 
but I can state that he voted for him, and mentioned the name of Kel¬ 
logg without any hesitation. 

Q. Did you see him in the chamber during the calling of the roll ?_ 

A. 1 did. 

Q. State as to his going out at any time during that session ?_A. I 

cannot state as to his going out previous to the calling of the roll or 
afterwards, but I know he was there then. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Why was it necessary to keep them in there ?—A. It was sug- 
ge.^ted in case that it was necessary to do so. 

A. That was to keep them in; was it?—A. Y>s, sir; that was wdiat 
was intended. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


833 


TESTIMONY OF W. H. MANNING. 

W. II. Manning, a witness called for tlie memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. What is your name ?—Answer. AVilliam II. Manning. 

Q. Do yon know Tom Murray, Mr. Manning?—A. I do. 

i}. How long have you known him 1—A. I knew him first in ISfiS. 
He .served under me on the police force. 

Q. Do you know his general character in the communitv ?—A. I think 
I do. 

Q. State it ?—A. It was very good at that time. 

Q. Well, now, from your knowledge of that general character, would 
you believe him on oath in a court of justice?—A. I have no rea.son to 
speak otherwise of him. 

Q. Do you know a colored man named Cicero Bridges ?—A. I cannot 
say ; I may know him by sight, but not by name. 

Q. Do you know his character?—A. I do not know ; I do not know 
him by name. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. I am captain of police. 

Q. How long have you been on the police ?—A. At this time ? 

Q. At any time.—A. Twenty-odd yenrs^ off and on, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear the truthfulness of Torn Murray called in ques¬ 
tion ?—A. Not until I .saw it in the papers that it had beeu done before 
this committee. 

Q. You never heard it before, you say ?—A. I read the papers and 
I saw it in here (referring to a daily paper held in his hand), that the 
committee was here, and that Tom had been impeached. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You say you never heard his veracity questioned until now ?—A. 
No, sir ; I never did. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Ever at all ? Did you never hear it spoken of?—A. He always 
made a good police officer, and I never heard of his being impeached in 
court. 

Q. Did you never hear anybody speak of him as being untruthful ?— 
A. No, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do you know I.saac W. Falls ?—A. I know him by reputation, and 
that is all. He is justice of the peace in the seventh precinct. 

Q. Are you sufficiently acquainted with his general reputation as to 
give testimony as to his character ?—A. No, sir ; I am not. 

Q. Do you know a man named Salvador S. Francisco ?—A. No, sir; 
only by what 1 have read of him in the papers. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Do you speak of Murray from what you know of him and his char¬ 
acter vourself, or from what others say ?—A. From what I know my¬ 
self. He served under me on the police. 1 was then commanding the 
second district, which took in from Felicity Road to Canal street. 

Upon inquiry no otiier witnesses were found in attendance; where¬ 
upon the cornniittee agreed upon a recess to 2 o’clock, p. m. 

53 s K 



834 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


Friday, Xov. 28—2 p. m. 

The committee reassembled pursuant to its order taking a recess. The 
testimony was resumed. 


TESTIMONY OF A. J. LEWIS. 


A. J. Lewis, a witness called for-the memorialists, sworn and exam 
ined: 


By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In the city of New Or- 
Jeans. 

Q. How long have you resided in the city of New Orleans ?—A. All 
3ny life, except such periods as I have been absent. This has always 
been my home. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. I am by profession an attorney-at- 
law, and also hold a position as notary public tor Orleans Parish. 

Q. Look at that paper (handing witness the paper purporting to be 
the adidavit of Benjamin Franklin). Hid you ever see that jiaper be¬ 
fore ?—A. Yes, sir : that is iny signature and seal as a notary public. 

Q. What did that purport to be?—A. That is an affidavit sworn to 
before me in my official capacity as a notary public. 

Q. AVas it an affidavit made before you and executed before you ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. By the man who purports to have signed it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hid he do so voluntarily ? What is this paper? (handing to wit¬ 
ness the alleged affidavit of Jeremiah Blackstone). 

A. The one just handed me is the affidavit of Jeremiah Blackstone. 

Q. Well, sir, here is another (handing to witness the alleged affidavit 
of James Kelley).—A. Yes, sir ; it was likewise signed and sworn to be¬ 
fore me in my official capacity. 

Q. AAffiose handwriting are these in ?—A. Ho you mean the names ? 

Q. Yes, sir; who signed them ?—A. James Kelley signed that one. 

Q. YMu say he signed that and swore to it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How about this one of Benjamin Franklin?—A. He signed by 
making his mark. 

Q. Were they personally known to you?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Would you know them now if you were to see them ?—A. Such a 
thing is possible; but 1 do not know whether I would or not. They 
were entire strangers to me. They came in and wished to swear to these 
affidavits. 

Q. In whose handwriting are these documents?—A. I do not know, 
sir. 

Q. Ho you know any of the witnesses to them ?—A. Yes, sir: Mr. 
Seymour I know'. It w’as he who brought them into my office. His sig¬ 
nature I know well, as it is a very peculiar one. 

Q. Well, they were Blackstone and Kelley that he brought ?_A. Yes 

sir. ^ 

Q. Hid they know^ the contents of the paper they were signing ?_A. 

Yes, sir; because these documents were read to them in toto. 

Q. In your presence ?—A. By myself, sir. 

Q. They were read by yourself ?—A. Yes, sir; and the jurat was read 
to them in full, and they swore to it, and neither one, to my knowledge 
had I ever seen before. They were strangers to me. ^ 

Q. Hid you know anything of the affidavit of Jeremiah Blackstone. 
Here is a copy of it (handing this paper to the witness). Is that the 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. • 835 

orignal ?—A. If my memory serves me right on that (lay there were 
three parties, aiul Jeremiah Blackstmie was one of the three. 

Q. Did you know him personally f —A. No, sir. 

Have you known him since ! —A. No, sir; he was a candidate on 
the Hepuhlican ticket for the house of representatives in my ward. I 
recognized the name at once. Jeremiah Bhickstone is rather a singular 
name. 

Q. Did he make an affidavit the same day before you ?—A. That is 
my impression. 

Q. Did you read it over to him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Canyon remember the contents of the affidavit ? or can you tell 
by looking it over whether it was the one he signed?—A. I remember 
the general purport of it; but to identify now each allegation, I cannot 
say that I could. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. (Handing the paper to the witness.) Please read that over. 

The witness read the paper over. 

Q. (By Senator Hill :) Mr. Lewis, state now whether the affidavit you 
read at the time differed much from that, whether it differed with it in 
.substance ?—A. The affidavit which was sworn to before me was one in 
which the allegations were made that Wm. P. Kellogg had supplied him 
with funds for corruption and bribery, but as to each distinct allegation 
I cannot remember that. My impression is it was longer than the others 
and contained a great many details, purporting to give an account of the 
manner in which he had disbursed this corruption fund. 

Q. Well, bribery and corruption for what ?—A. To secure the election 
of iNIr. Kellogg to the United States Senate. 

Q. You say it was read over to him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he signed it?—A. Yes, sir. I remember there were three of 
them, and I am positive Jeremiah Bhickstone was one of those three. 
The documents were carefully read over to them and they all persisted 
in them, and they were sworn to with due regularity and formality. • 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. How long have you been ac(]uainted with Mr. Seymour ?—A. I 
think, sir, pretty much ever since the war. 

Q. What is his business ?—A. He is a notary public. 

Q. Was he a notary juiblic at the time he accompanied these men to 
your office ?—A. 1 think he was. 

Q. How far is your office from his or was it at that time ?—A. At 
that time I think it was where it is now, on Custom house street, near 
Chartres ; previous to that time it was on the opposite side. 

Q. Who accompanied those three men to your office, except Sey¬ 
mour, if any one?—A. I cannot say, sir. I could not be positive who 
it was. 

Q. Could you state whether any one did accompany tho.se three men 
to your office?—A. My impression is that there were other persons in the 
office; how many 1 cannot now state. 1 was engaged at the time they 
came in, sitting with my back to the door, and I did not see how many 
entered. 

(}. W'hat is your recollection as to whether any person or persons ac¬ 
companied those three men and Seymour to your office?—A. My im- 
IM-e.ssion is there were more than four. 

Q. Are you able to give the name of any one who accompanied them ? 
_A. I think, sir, there was a white man nlong who was a stranger to 


836 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


me. IIow mail}' more there might have been I would uot undertake 
to say. 

Q. Do you know a white mau named George Dicks ?—A. I am not 
ac(juainted with him. 

Q. You do uot know Dicks ?—A. I saw his name signed there, sir. 

Q. But you are uot acquainted with him —A. No, sir. 

Q. And you were not at that time*?—A. No, sir; to my best recollec¬ 
tion I am uot and was uot. I knew there was a person of that name 
in the city. 

Q. Did Seymour or any of the persons present explain to you w hy 
Seymour didn’t take the affidavits, but brought them to you ?—A. Mr. 
Seymour said to me something about there were some affidavits which 
had been prepared and which had to be sworn to before a competent 
authority, and he desired me to do it, stating that it was in this matter 
between Kellogg and Spoffiord. I at once laid down what I was doing 
and went through with them in the manner I have described. Then I 
went to my professional duties again. 

Q, Then, as I understand you, Seymour did not take these affidavits? 

Senator Hill. What is that question ? 

Senator Cameron. I inquired of him whether Seymour, being a no¬ 
tary, told him why he didn’t take the affidavits himself. 

Senator Hill. Ah, yes. Go on. 

The Witness. I could not be positive about that, sir. He said some¬ 
thing to me in presenting the documents. As I tell you, I was engaged 
in other matters, and they came in upon me and presented these 
documents, and I then engaged with them in the work of swearing to 
them. 

Q. How long did they remain, do you think, as near as can be stated ? 
—A. As long, sir, as was necessary to transact that sort of business 
with strict formality. 

Q. Who, if any one, paid you for your services ?—A. Nobody. I made 
no charge for it, asked nothing, received nothing, and wanted nothing. 

Q. At that time yon were not personally acquainted with Blackstone? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. Y'ou had not seen him before to your knowledge?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Had you before that time seen any of these men to your knowd- 
edge, except Mr. Seymour ?—A. My impression is that I may have seen 
Dicks before. 

Q. But you had no acquaintance with him?-.-A. No, sir; I cannot 
say so, but the others were entire strangers to me. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You know Mr. Seymour w^ell?-^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How much money was it Blackstone swore, according to your recol¬ 
lection, that Kellogg furnished him for this corruption purpose ?—A. It 
was a good round amount. 

Q. But you could not state it?—A. No, sir; but it was considerable. 
It was a good round amount. 


TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK J. STOKES. 

Frederick J. Stokes, a witness for the memorialist, recalled to the 
stand and examined: 

By Senator Hill : 

• Question. Judge Stokes, you testified before the committee the other 




SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


837 


<liiy in relation to Ward leaving the pariah of Grant, and coining down 
here, and to an interview between yon, him, and Kellogg, *S:c., and then 
between Jewett ami IManchard. Now, dewett lias been before the coni- 
inittee, and says that Kellogg, about the time of this first interview, 
issued an order tor ard to return to that parish. Do vou know whether 
he did or not ?—Answer. I never did, sir. 

Q. Do you mean that, lie never started ?—A. Tie never starte<l. It 
was no calculation to have him start. In the first [dace to have started 
on the first of November he could not have gotten there. He told Kel¬ 
logg at the time that the only way to the mouth of the Ked Kiver was 
to take a stage. 

(^. And he actually did not go back there ?—A. He actually did not. 
He went to his house and staid there two or three days am’l kept od' 
the streets. 


TESTIMONY OF A. J. IdDVLS. 

A. J. Lewls, a witness for the memorialist, recalled to the stand at 
the request of Mr. Walker, counsel. 

By Senator Hill: 

Question. Do you know anything of the o])erations of the elections at 
[)oll No. 3, ward 7, in 187b ?—Answer. I remember on the night following 
the day of the election I [uissed around my wanl to see how things were 
going on, and when I reached this [loll, at the corner of Ivampart and Col- 
leret, 1 found the counting had not begun although it was some time after 
the [)oll closed, and I impiired what was the cause of the delay ; and they 
said there was some ditliculty inside between the commissioners; that 
thre were two Uepulilican votes found in the box rolled u[) together; 
that the I )emocratic commissioners insisted on not counting them, and the 
Ke[)ublicans insisted on counting them, and I called out and said it was 
a trick, and I said you know this is a poll that casts a large Democratic 
majority, and I sai<l to Mr. Townsend, who was the Ueiuiblicaii commis¬ 
sioner, I called his attention to the law, where it said if two or more 
tickets were rolled up together you shall reject them, and I said to him 
it was nothing but trifling when you refused to reject it. Nothing was 
done to it, and I went in to see if measures could not be taken to make 
them confoi'm to their duties. 

Q. Is there anything more about it ?—A. I then left the hall and I 
understood afterwards they consented to reject those votes and go on 
counting, and I understood the box from that t»oll was not handed in in 
time, although there was a known majority there largely in favor of the 
Democrats. 

Q. Do yon know W. J. Moore, of the 7th ward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is his character for truth and veracity 1 —A. I do not know 
much about his relations in [irivate life, but in [uiblic life it is rather 
unsatisfactory. 

<}. Would you believe him on oath in a political question where his 
interests were involved ?—A. I had some little exi)erienoe with him 
while he was registrar in that ward. 

(^. In a matter atlecting his [larty or his interest, you think he would 
not be truthful i —A. I do not think he would be. 

(J. Have you ever heard any one speak of his reputation for truth ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 



838 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Who?—A. I have heard it questioned by some colored men who 
had business with him. 

Q. Wiil you give us his name?—A. Anacharsis Carlon and a man 
named Graves. Carlon is now dead, but Graves has went from here, I 
think to Hancock County, Mississippi; but whether he has retunied 
I do not know. 

Q. When did you hear them question his reputation ?—A. Several 
years ago. They had some business transaction with him. 

Q. Well, how long ago ?—A. I cannot tix the time precisely. 

Q. As near as you can ?—A. I cannot. 

Q. Was it five years ago ?—A. No, sir j I do not think quite so long; 
possibly four years. 

Q. Who else did you hear question his reputation for truth and ve¬ 
racity ?—A. I heard it only, as 1 stated, si)oken of by those two colored 
men. As a public character, he has been pretty" well ventilated. 

By Senator Cameron ; 

Q. You say those two men are the only ones you have heard speak of 
his reputation, one of whom is dead, and the other removed to Mis¬ 
sissippi ?—A. i say, in matters of private life and business matters, but 
in party affairs it has been pretty well understood and ventilated. 

Q. Give me the names of those you have heard question his reputation 
about anything.—A. In the matter of such current rumors it is pretty 
difficult to locate who told the thing. I remember on one occasion 1 was 
in the neighborhood of the registry office in the seventh ward, and my 
attention was called to the manner in which Mr. Moore was discharging 
his duties, and I went in and remonstrated with him, and endeavored to 
discuss the law with him. There was a Mr. Shepherd who was there; 
Mr. Bogers was there. I believe on that occasion Mr. Letten was 
there. 

Q. Who?—A. Mr. Letten—L e-t t-e-n—John A. Letten, and some 
others. There was general talk on that occasion. It was that Moore 
would do anything to secure the ward and a fraudulent Republican reg¬ 
istration. That is the only thing I heard against him, and that was, 
that in his official capacity he would not hesitate to issue fraudulent 
registration papers. 

Q. That is all you say you have heard against him ?—A. Yes, sir ; for 
1 never had any dealings with him. His private character is what I told 
you I heard from those two negroes. 

Q. Were Rogers, Shepherd, and Letten all Hemocrats ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were a Democrat, too ?—A. Yes, sir; and that is the rea¬ 
son why I spoke to him. They thought that I had more education than 
they and was a lawyer, and asked me to go and see him; and I know 
there were white men entitled to register—he refused to do so. I was 
president of the ward club there at one time, and took much interest in 
politics. 

Q. You did take much interest in politics?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you now ?—A. Yes, sir, somewhat; but since the success of the 
Democratic party there is not so much necessity for it. 


TESTIMONY OF W. J. BEHAN. 

W. J. Behan, the witness called for the memorialists, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In New Orleans. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


839 


Q. IIow loll" have you resided bore ?—A. All my life. 

Q. What is youroeciipatioii A. I am a merchant. 

Q. ])o you know Tom Murray f—A. I do, sir. 

Q. h rom your knowledge of his ^?eneral character, would you believe 
him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. I would. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you know what his general reputation for truth is in New Or¬ 
leans ?—A. I have never heard it questioned. 

Q. J)y you know what it is ?—A. It is good. 

Q. I ask you do you know ?—A. I never beard it que.stioned, sir. 

Q. Is that the only knowledge you have of it?—A. That is the 
knowledge I have of people whom I merely meet frequently. I have 
known him about ten years. 

Q. Would you believe every man on oath whom 3^011 had known ten 
years and never heard anything against ?—A. Yes, sir; I would if I 
knew him. 

Q. How often did you see Murray ?—A. Four or five times a month, 
maybe, just jiassing backwards and forwards. 

Q. What business relations have existed between you and him?—A. 
None, sir. 

Q. Did you ever converse with him ?—A. Yes, sir ; I frequently have. 

Q. When did 3 'ou first begin to converse with him ?—A. About ten 
years ago. 

Q. Then you say you never had an 3 ^ business relations with him?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear any one speak of his reputation for truth 
and veracity?—A. No, sir; I never have. 

Q. When did you last have a conversation with him ?—A. About a 
week ago. We accidentally met in passing on the street. 

Q. You are a Democrat, of course?—A. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY SAMBOLA. 

Anthony Samrola, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined : 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In this city. 

Q, Whereabouts in this city ?—A. I reside at No 8 La Harpe street, 
porner of Villere, in this city. 

Q. [u what ward is that?—A. In the seventh ward, sir. 

Q. You reside in the seventh ward, 3^011 say ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you reside there in 1870 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do .you know anything about the election and registration in 
that ward in 1870, or about any frauds that were perpetrated there ?— 
A. I know of several persons who were entitled to vote, and who were 
refused. 

Q. Kefused registration ?—A. Not registration, but to vote. 

Q. Were they Democrats or llepublicans ?—A. They were Demo¬ 
crats ; I took their attidavits or, rather, I went with eight or ten of 
them to make them ; 1 looked this morning for the affidavits and I 
found a few of them. I gave the names of well known citizens. At 


840 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


the time they were refused I took their affidavit, attached the regis- 
tratiou paper aud ticket; they came to vote and were refused; the of¬ 
ficers said their names were not on the lists; they identified themselves 
and were again refused, aud I told them to come to the justice of the 
peace and make an affidavit on a blank form like this [exhibiting one of 
the affidavits]; I went with twelve or thirteen persons, and I took their 
affidavits and laid them away, and found some of them this morning. 
Here are some of them [exhibiting a batch of papers]. 

Senator Hill. We thought your name was on some of these other 
affidavits that have been introduced ; it may have been on some like 
those that Major Burke produced. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) Do you know the general reputation of W. J. 
Moore ?—A. As a politician, I do. 

Q. From that reputation as a politician, and in matters affecting bis 
party, would you believe hiji on oath in a court of justice ?—A. No, 
sir ; 1 would not. 

Q. Do you know Jeremiah Blackstoue ?—A. I know him by reputa¬ 
tion as a politician. 

Q* you know his general reputation sufficiently to testify to it?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know Gardeur ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present at the taking of any of these affidavits made by 
Kelly, Blackstoue, and other parties ?—A. I know and remember 
Blackstone’s; I know that affidavit was made by him. 

Q. You recollect what about it ?—A. 1 don’t know now ; it was some¬ 
thing about politics; I remember he came with Seymour, and I remem¬ 
ber having signed it as a witness. 

Q. Did Blackstoue know what that afiidavit was?—A. His conduct 
showed that he knew what it was, sir. 

Q. Do you remember anything of the contents of it ?—A. No, sir ; I 
do not; it has been so long ago ; most of the acts passed by Mr. Lewis 
1 generally sign as witness. 

Q. Is that the affidavit [handing the paper to witness].—A. Ob, yes, 
sir; and I know him; he came with two others; I know' he wms the 
genuine man who came to Lewds; I know' him and his doings. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. How' long have you known Mr. Seymour ?—A. O, for years, sir; 
since the war. 

Q. Is he a notary public?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How^ far is the office he was at, at that time, from Mr. Lewis’ office I 
—A. It was just across the street—about one hundred aud fifty yards. 
^ Q. Did you hear Seymour explain to Lewis why he did not take the 
affidavits himself instead of coming to Lewis ?—A. I don’t know why; 
I know he often comes there. 

Q. I am not asking that ?—A. I believe he did give a reason. 

Q. Can you giv^e it now?—A. No, sir; I cannot. 

Q. Can you detail any of the conversation that took place between 
them in that office at that time ?— A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you hear the affidavits read ?—A. I believe they were. 

Q. Do you know' that they were!—-A. I think they were like other 
acts passed in the office. The parties were there and signed them, and 
they called on me to witness them—that is, acts that required a wit¬ 
ness. 

Q. And you a lawyer ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you require witnesses to affidavits in this State ?—A. Some¬ 
times they do. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 841 

Q. Do you require it, although, to all afhdavits ?—A. Xo, sir: it is 
not usual. 

Q. Is it not very unusual ! —A. Xo, sir. I have taken aftidavits sev¬ 
eral times, and had them witnessed, and est>ecially where the party 
makes his mark. That is the usual way. All the blanks of notaries 
public have si)aces for witnesses. 

Q. \ on say the blanks have s[)aces left for witnesses ?—A. Yes, sir j 
it is sometimes done so, but not always. 

Q. Who asked you to sign these aftidavits as witness?—A. Mr. 
Lewis. I guess i have signed more than three hundred acts for Mr. 
Lewis. 

What do you mean by an act ?—A. 1 mean anything in his line of 
business. 


TLSTLMOXY OF B. GALVIX. 

B. Galvin, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and exam¬ 
ined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. What is your name ?—Answer. B. Galvin. 

Q. Where do you reside ?—A. In Xew Orleans. 

Q. How long have you lived there?—A. Since 1845. 

Q. Do you know Tom Murray ?—A. The negro Tom Murray ? 

Q. Yes, sir; he is a colored man.—A. Yes, sir; I know him. 

(^. How long have you known him ?—A. 1 have known him person¬ 
ally for eleven years, 1 think. 

Q. From that knowledge of him and his general character, would you 
believe him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Caaieron. 

Q. Have you ever heard anybody talk about whether Tom was a 
truthful man or not ?—A. Xo, sir; 1 have not. 

(^. Have you ever had any biisiness relations with him ?—A. He 
worked under me in 1807 and 1808, prior to my resigning from the 
I)olice, and 1 have talked with him trequentb'. We ditter in politics. 
He w'as the first colored man appointed on the police at that time by 
Mayor Heath, and 1 found him very truthful, and 1 i)ut him on i)rivate 
duty on the back part of the ward, and 1 have been on the police since, 
but never known anything wrougof him. 

Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, before a witness is sworn for the other 
side hereafter, 1 would like to know: whether the witness has been sub¬ 
poenaed, and, if not, what is expected to be jjroved by the witness. 

Senator Hill. There are none to be examined, 1 believe, who have 
not been subpamaed ; that is, none that 1 know' of. 

Senator Kellogg. I do not know' but 1 have the right to call here 
any who should choose to come. If 1 can get any who can testify to 
anything in my defense, 1 think 1 ought to have them, and if they can¬ 
not, and 1 ascertain that, w hy then 1 will stop right here. 

Mr. Walker. 1 desire to know', when a witness is put up in that 
manner, what is expected to be proven, so that 1 can get the witnesses 
to rebut it, if necessary. 

Senator Kellogg (excitedly). If any such requirement as that is to 
be made of me, then 1 will stoi); 1 shall not do it; I shall not submit 
to it. 



842 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Hill. Well, never mind, gentlemen ; we will try to arrange 
(his matter. All these witnesses who have come in here will tell the 
others what they have testified to anyhow. 


TESTIMONY OF MIIS. E. E. KEMP. 

Mrs. E. B. Kemp, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron ; 

Question. How long have you lived iu New Orleans ?—Answer. Since 
1802. I came herein February, 1862. 

Q. Do you know Francis Garret f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVere you at one time h’s wife ?—A. I was. 

Q. When were you married?—A. On the 2.5rh May, 1802. 

Q. Where at?—A. Herein New Orleans. 

Q. When were yon divorced from him ?—A. In 1876—in May. 

Q. Do you know what his character is ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it good or bad ?—A. Very bad. 

Q. Now you may state any crime he has committed or that he has 
admitted to you that he has committed. 

Senator Hill. I object to this manner of proving crime. If it is in¬ 
tended to prove a crime against the witness, it must be done by the evi¬ 
dence that it was a legal crime, and that, too, by legal evidence. I de¬ 
sire to say that I do not propose that these private squabbles shall enter 
into this investigation. I object, and T propose to do so continuously. I 
leave it to Senators A^ance and Cameron to decide. 

Senator Vance. Is it the object of this testimony to impeach the char¬ 
acter of a witness ? 

Senator Cameron. That is what it is for. You have not asked any 
of your witnesses who have been examined for the purpose of impeach¬ 
ment whether they know the general character of the party they are im¬ 
peaching. There is a difference, and a wide difference, between char¬ 
acter and reputation. 

Senator Hill. I think the rule of law is si)ecific on this matter. 
There is a rule in my State that these domestic broils shall not be 
brought into court, and 1 do not think they should be brought into 
an investigation like this. 1 think I am discharging what I consider 
to be my duty when I object to this testimony. This woman, if she is 
examined, must necessarily testify to what will be illegal evidence, no 
matter whether others have done so or not. 

Senator Cameron. I am rather sorry that the chairman feels it nec¬ 
essary to enforce the rule against this witness in this instance. 

Senator Hill. If the other side had done the same thing, I would 
have done exactly as I am doing now. 

Senator Kellogg rose to attempt to make a statement. 

Senator Hill stated to Senator Kellogg that he could not make this 
statement to introduce the facts that he expected to prove by this 
woman and have it go down on the record. 

Senator Kellogg. Then I refuse to make the statement without its 
going into the record. 

The examination of the witness was resumed by Senator Cameron : 

Q. You stated that you did know the reputation of this man?—A. 
Yes, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 843 

Q. State wlietlier it was "ood or bad.—A. I have known it to be bad, 
and I have never beard anything good of him. 

Q. Do yon know what Ids reputation has been since you were divorced 
from him ?—A. No, sir, I do not; I do not know anything of him. 

From what you know of him, would you believe him on oath in a 
court of Justice?—A. No, sir; 1 would not. 

Senator Cameron (to the chairman). Will you allow this lady to 
state why she would not ? 

Senator Hill. No, sir; not unless it is done by cross-examination. 
Yon know the rule. Senator Cameron. 

Senator Cameron. 1 know the rule, but 1 thought you would make 
an exception. 

Senator Hill. I know that you know it. 

Senator Cameron. I am done with her. 

Senator Hill. You may go, madam. 


TESTIMONY OF MILES SHAKKEY. 

Mii.ES Sharkey, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. What fs your name ?—Answer. Miles Sharkey. 

Q. Where do you live f—A. 244 Julius street. 

Q. Do you know Tom Murray?—A. Y>s, sir. 

Q. Do you know his general character ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the general character of Tom Murray 
for truth ?—A. Y'es, sir; I should think I was. 

Q. Well, state whether it is good or bad.—A. It is very good for me. 

Q. From that character, would you believe him on oath in a court of 
justice?—A. Y'es, sir. He has lived opposite my mother’s house since 
18G7, and 1 have known him, and he is generally liked, and my mother 
and the neighbors like him very much. 

Senator Cameron. I object to the testimony being taken in that 
shape. 

Senator Hill. Then I will turn him over to you. 

Senator Cameron. That is all. I have no questions. 

On motion, the committee adjourned to IG o’clock a. m. Saturday, No¬ 
vember 21k 1879. 


New Orleans, Saturday, Xovember 29, 1879—10 a. m. 

The committee reassembled pursuant to its adjournment. Present, 
all the members; also C. L. Walker, counsel for the memorialist; tlie 
memorialist, Henry M. Spofford, and the sitting member. Senator Will¬ 
iam Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. The hour is arrived for the committee to convene. 
Who is the tirst witness that we will liave this morning ? 

Mr. Walker. I desire to recall Peter Williams to the stand. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER WILLIAMS. 

Peter Williams, a witness called for the memorialist, was recalled 
to the stand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Have you read or seen any statement of the testimony of 
Mr. Hutton in this case?—Answer. I have read the newspaper account. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


M4 

Q. Ill which he said he was present at a conversation between yon 
and Mr. jVIoore ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he in a position to hear that conversation ?—A. Yes, sir; he 
was present and could hear it. I made an appointment witli Mr. Moore 
and he was present, and Moore said, “ I have made an ap[)ointment with 
.Mr. Williams, and I think we had better have a jirivate talk. I said, 
We all three are together and 1 see no reason for secresy.” Mr. iMoore 
did the talking and Mr. Button heard it all. 

• Q. Do you know Vincent Dickerson, the member from Saint James 
Parish, in the Packard legislature?—A. Yes, sir; I know him inti¬ 
mately well. 

Q. bid you know what his tinancial condition was at tlie date of the 
election of Kellogg ?—A. I know when he camedown here from tlie parish 
of Saint James he didn’t have any money; he resorted to or dealt at 
the store of a friend of mine, where I was in the habit of calling every 
day, and I met Mr. Dickerson there frequently', and I know he was run¬ 
ning an account there some time. 

Q. Did you ever hear him say anything of receiving money for his 
vote?—A. Well, no, sir; 1 have never heard him say anything about 
it. 1 know that very shortly after the election, that he turned out in a 
brand new suit of clothes and paid his account, I think 8-7.00 ; one of 
the bills was a twenty dollar bill and on the back was t vo hundred and 
fifty marked in red pencil ; a man who was there (I wasn’t there when 
the account was paid) called my attention to it; the rumor was that 
there was a good deal of money paid out to secure the election of Kel¬ 
logg, and called my attention to it, and it looked very suspicious. 

Q. Do you know J. J. Johnson, of De Soto ?—A. 1 do, sir. 

(,). What about his financial condition ?—A. Well, he had no money ; 
he visited my office every day during the session of the legislature; he 
was introduced to me by a friend of his, with whom I was very inti¬ 
mate, Henry Taylor, from the same parish, and he was at the office 
every day, and he had no money until the election; the day afterwards 
he came to my office and he had two hundred dollars; he and the man 
Taylor counted it at my desk, and he gave Taylor ten dollars; he came 
from Souer’s room into mine and counted the money. 

Q. You say he came from Souers room into yours ?—A. Y'es, sir; his 
room was adjoining to mine. 

Q. What connection, if any, did you have with the census of 1875 ?— 
A. i compiled them ; I was compelled to compile them, as I was working 
on them some time; I was assistant clerk in the State registrar’s office 
at the time. 

Q. Was that census made in the interest of the Kepublican or Demo¬ 
cratic party ?—xV. It vras the intention of the office that there should be 
a correct census taken, but in some of the parishes, 1 believe, a correct 
census was taken, and in others a political census, and in the city there 
was notably a political census by this man Moore. There were several 
complaints made to it, and his attention was called to it. 

Q. You testified to the admissions Mr. Moore made about that cen¬ 
sus before and about what lie was going to do ?—A. Yes, sir ; I testified 
to them before verbatim, as near as I could recollect. There was one thing, 
however, I forgot in that portion of the testimony. At the time Mr. 
Mr. Moore appproached me, Mr. Gla was in the rotunda, and walked up 
to Mr. Moore and remarked to him and said, “A few days ago you were 
finding fault with Mr. Marks, abusing him, and now you are finding 
fault with Governor Kellogg,” and he said I was mistaken about Marks, 
and he, Gale, said, “ They are all a set of damned rascals anyhow, and 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


84.> 

1 vyouUl bt‘ jjlad to see tliem all put out.’’ He liadaloii^ talk about Mr. 
Dejoi, and about all the eustoin-house ; be, it seems, was put out of the 
custom house, and it was the same with Moore; he also felt sore, and 
Moore pro[)osed to him that he also enter into the agreement that lie 
and 1 were in. 1 would also, in the mean time, correcjt of my testimony 
that wasn’t published as 1 gave it. It was in reference to those certi- 
licates that were carried to Moore. It was in the jiaper tliat 1 cari'ied 
them to Moore ; that wasn't correct; he came an<l took them awav him¬ 
self. 

Q. Have you any information of when or where these certificates were 
filled ?—A. Well, sir, Hunton called to see me and told me that he tilled 
them out. . 

Senator Cameron. How soon after Dickerson came to the I*ackard 
legislature in 1877 did you see him ! —A. O, I saw much of him pretty 
nearly every day. 

1 did not ask you that; when was the first time you saw him ?— 
A. I saw him next day. 

Q. Whereat?—A. At this grocery store. 

Q. When did you have any conversation with him ?—A. Nearly every 
day. 

C^. At what time ?—A. I cannot give you the time; I cannot remem¬ 
ber the exact time. 

Q. Can you tell anything that you conversed with him about ?—A. I 
cannot now recollect. 

Q. When did you see him next ?—A. My recollection is I saw him 
every day. 

Q. When was the next time?—A. Well, sir, if 1 saw him every day,, 
it was the next day. 

Q. What conversation did you have with him the next day?—A. I 
cannot tell you. 

Q. What did you have with him at any time?—A. I cannot tell you 
that. 

Q. What information, if any, have you of his financial condition at 
that time ?—A. My information is that 1 saw him buying things at this 
store ; that he didn’t have the'money to jiay for it. 

Q. How do you know ?—A. Well, sir, I suppose a man that buys a 
thing if he has cash to pay for it certainly will not buy it on credit. 

Q. Is that all the information you got?—A. That is all, except that 
the gentleman who kept the store, he was telling me that Dickerson 
owed him an account for several months, and the session before he went 
away leaving an account of fifty or sixty dollars unpaid. 

Q. 1 am not going back to that. Wliat information did you have 
about his financial condition in January, 1877 ?—A. That is all, sir. 

Q. What is that?—A. That he sometimes went to that store, and 
sometimes took a toddy there and conldidt pay for it. 

Q. And that is all the information you have?—A. That is all. t 

Q. When did he pay his account at that store ?—A. He paid it, I 
tiiink—I cannot say definitely, but 1 think a day or two after the elec¬ 
tion of Kellogg. 

Q. Did you see him pay it!—A. No, sir, I did not; they called my 
attention to it; the keeper of the store he called my attention at the 
same time to this marked bill, which he had gotten from him. 

Q. Vou do not know that he got it from Dickerson ?—A. 1 heard that 
from tliis grocery keeper. 

Q. Did Dickerson ever tell you he paid him that bill?—A. No, sir; 
J never (piestioiied him on that. 



816 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. I did not ask you that. Did you see him pay that bill ?—A. I did 
not, sir. 

Q. What amount did Dickerson owe that man ^ do you know of your 
own knowledge ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Dickerson ever tell you !—A. He did not. 

Q. What time did you see Johnson, of DeSoto, when became here in 
1877 to attend the legislature A. I cannot tell exactly, but it was a 
day or two afterwards he was introduced to me by this man Taylor. 

Q. What conversation did 3 011 have with hijii ?—A. I cannot tell you ; 
1 had a conversation with man.y of them, but not that man alone. 

Q. What conversation did you have with him^—A. I asked him whom 
he was going to vote for for the Senate, and he told me emphatically 
that he would vote for the man who paid him the most money. 

Q. Who was present when he told you that?—A. This man, Henry 
Taylor. I do not know that anybody else was present. Those are the 
impressions made on my mind. 

Q. Where is Taylor !—xV. I do not know, sir ; I have not seen him for 
a \ear. The last 1 saw of him he was living out on Cypress street, No. 
170. 

Q. Is he a colored man !—xV. Yes, sir; he was assistant sergeant-at- 
arms down there. 

Q. What other conversation did you have with Johnson ?—A. I can¬ 
not remember, sir. 

Q. Did you have any other ?—A. I cannot remember. 

Q. Have you detailed all the conversations that you ever had vvith 
Johnson?—A. 1 have, I think. 

Q. What information did you have with regard to the financial con¬ 
dition of Johnson?—A. I have often heard him speak of having no 
money. 1 heard him saj’ on one or tw'o occasions. Previous to the 
election of Senator Kellogg he was complaining of being out of funds, 
and wanted Henry Taylor to borrow^ from his friends. He said that he 
had an old mother and wanted to help her out. 

Q. When and w'here did you hear him say that ?—A. A day or two 
before the election of Senator Kellogg. 

Q. You stated a while ago that you heard him say so frequently ?—A. 
1 do not remember any other time than that, sir. 

Q. Then if you stated frequently were you mistaken ?—A. I suppose 
I was, sir. 

Q. You stated that you heard him frequently complain that he was 
out of funds, and now you say that you heard it but once ?—A. I cfid fre¬ 
quently hear him say so on this occasion. He wanted this man Taylor 
to borrow^ for him. That is about all that 1 heard. 

Q. About all; now, how many times was that?—A. That is about all. 
I say I think that is about all, if that pleases you. 

Q. It pleases me for you to tell the truth. Ilow frequently did you 
hear him say that !—A. Not much, sir. I say frequently, only"referring 
to that occasion when he wanted Taylor to borrow the funds. 

Q. How frequently did he state it'?—A. He stated it on no other oc¬ 
casion that I can remember except what I have already stated. 


TESTmO^Y OF JOHN FITZPATRICK. 

John Fitzpatrick, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is your name, sir ?—Answer. John Fitzpatrick, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 847 

Q. Where do you reside ?—A. Two hundred and seven South Kiun- 
part street. 

Q. How Ion" have you resided in New Orleans?—A. All my time. 

Q. Are you the present criminal sheriff of this parish ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How lonjj have you held that office?—A. Since last November; 
about a year now, less a few days. 

Q. Are you ac(iuainted with Francis Garret ?—A. By general reimta- 
tion, sir 

Q. Do you know bis character by general reputation ?—A. I know he 
is a man who would be looked upon as a man not to be trusted. 

Q. That is the information you have about him ?—A. Yes, sir ; from 
hearing people talk about him. 

Q. From what you know of his reputation would you believe him on 
oath in a court of justice ?—A. No, sir; I would not. 

By Senator Hill : 

. Q. Do you know Mr. Dickerson, a member of the legislature from 
Saint James Parish ?—A, No, sir. 

Q. Do you know a ma!i named Salvador S. San Francisco, ex-police¬ 
man, and mulatto?—A. I do not know, sir, whether 1 do or not. If 1 
could see him before me I could tell you. 

, Q. Do you know a man named John Vigers?—A. There are many 
Vigers. I do not know which is John. I believe I call them all John 
when I meet them except one, whose name is William. 

Q. Do you know a man named Kafael St. Armand f—A. I know him 
by reputation. 

Q. What is his reputation ?—A. I do not hear anybody say anything 
bad about him. 

Q. Do you know Sims, the member of the legislature from Saint 
James Parish ?—A. No, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF FHRISTOPUEK MADDEN. 

Christopher Madden, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem. 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In the city of New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. How long have you lived here?—A. Ever since IS40. 

Q. Do you know Francis Garret ?—A. I do, sir. 

Q. Do you know what his general character is?—A. It is bad, sir*. 

Q. From what you know of his general character would you believe 
him on oath in a court of justice?—A. I would not, sir. I know of his 
robbing a government station of which he was in charge. 

Senator Hill. Stop him. 

Senator Kellogg. I wish it noted that the precise question that is 
asked this witness was asked General Barrow as to Sweazie. 

Senator Hill. That was on cross-examination, or rather it was in re¬ 
lation to whether he was a dangerous character or not. I say frankly 
that character has nothing to do with this question, in my opinion. I 
asked the question of Sweazie, who denied that it was because of his 
dangerous character that he was not well liked by the people of West 
Feliciana, and I asked General Barrow whether that was true or not. 

Senator Cameron. Well, we will waive the point. You may have the 
witness. 




848 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 

By Seuator Hill : 

Q. Where are you employed !—A. In the custom-house. 

Q. In what position ?—A. Inspector of customs. 

Q. How long have you been there ?—A. Ten years, sir. I have been 
there ten years this month. 


TESTIMONY OF M. KEBNBERGEE. 

M. Kerneerger, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside !—Answer. 240 Saint Louis street. 

Q. How long have you resided tliere!—A. Since 1864. 

Q. How long have you been in New Orleans ?—A. 1 have been Ifere 
ever since 18G4, with the exception of about nineteen months that I have 
been in California, and my family has been here all the time. 

Q. Ho you know a man named Francis Garret! 

Mr. Walker (interrupting). I would be glad if the committee would 
establish some rule as to the number of witnesses who are to be called 
to discredit a witness. If this is to discredit Garret, then it is the fifth 
witness who has been summoned for that purpose. That leads to so 
much confusion, and requires us to produce so many more witnesses. 

Senator Kellogg. Very well, we will try to stop it. 

Senator Hill. The trouble is. Senator Kellogg, that it necessitates 
the bringing in of so many witnesses to contradict the witnesses whom 
you produce to discredit the witnesses on the other side. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Do you know the general character of Francis Garret, what it is?— 
A. Well, sir, he is a bad man entirely. He cheated myself j he swindled 
myself. 

Q. From what you know of his general character, would you believe 
him on oath in a court of justice?—A. I would not. 1 asked him once 
myself—— 

Senator Hill. Stop. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Are you a Democrat or a Republican ?—A. I am not strictly a 
party man. I used to be, but for the last six years I voted for the Dem¬ 
ocrats and worked for the Democratic party." There is a gentleman who 
knows it (indicating some gentleman in the room). 


TESTIMONY OF THOMAS MURRAY'. 

Thomas Murray, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill: 

Question. Do you know Dickison, of Saint James Parish ?—Answer. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Since 1870: about nine 
years. 




SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


849 


(}. \\ hat do you know of Diokisoii’s character? Wliat sort of a char¬ 
acter has he ^’ot; I mean what is iiis reputation ?—A. As far as my per¬ 
sonal knowledge fjoes, it isn’t veryg:oo<l. 

(}. From his cliaracter for truth, wou'd you believe him on oath in a 
court of justice ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Well, Tom, have you been reading the testimony taken in this case 
in relation to yourself ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. 1 wish you had, for I don’t want to repeat it. Do you know a man 
named John Vigers ? John Vigers came before this committee and testi- 
hed to some conversation that you had with him once before going to 
^Vashington, and in which you said you were going to make a good deal 
of money, and after you came back you showed him a roll of money that 
you said you had made ?—A. There is not a bit of truth in that. John 
Vigers is no avssociate of mine, lie never was in my house nor I in his; 
and I never showed him any money. He is a man of bad reputation, too. 

Q. You wouldn’t believe him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. I 
might under oath, but not in political matters. 

Q. You would not believe him, then, if there was any advantage to 
him in telling a lie ; this statement about you you know to be untrue?— 
A. \"es, sir. 

(J. John Fitzsimmons; did you ever have any renting transaction 
with him ?—A. Never in my life. I rented a house from his mother for 
seven years ; he was a minor. 1 paid her thirty-live dollars a month for 
live years, and thirty dollars for two ; she is dead now. 

Q. Was she satislied with your transactions with her?—A. Always 
perfectly satislied, sir. 1 paid her the last month on lifteen days’ no¬ 
tice, and left the house at the end of the month. 1 staid there seven 
years; and I borrowed money from her, a hundred dollars, and fifty 
dollars, at a time. Our pay was bad iu the city-hall, and she was a 
business woman, and I never fell out with her. 

Q. Well, this man Dickison, from Saint James. He appeared before 
the committee and says “ that this ^lurray come to me some time ago, and 
said that Kellogg was going out, and 1 had better go and make terms 
with the Democrats. And Murray said that if 1 was disposed to do 
what is right 1 could make terms with him. He said to me that I was a 
damn fool,” and so on, “ and if I made a proper statement I would make 
myself famous throughout the United States.” And goes on and said 
that “you sought to agitate his mind on this subject of making a state¬ 
ment lor two or three weeks, and that,” he said, “ if Kellogg paid any 
one he <lid not pay him.” What about that?—A. Weil, sir, i never had 
any such conversation with him. I had two conversations with him, 
but none of that kiml. I went to see Dickison once after I had seen Mr. 
Cavanac, during the constitutional convention. He told me that he 
had got paid for voting for Mr. Kellogg, but he didn’t pr.)povse to give 
it uj) for nothing, and I said I had nothing to do with that; chat he must 
see Mr. Cavanac ; I wasn’t authorized to make any proposition. “ 1 just 
wanted to know if you were willing to make an allidavit.” That is what 
1 said to him. He went to see .Air. Oavanaci then, I understood. Two or 
three days afterwards he saw me, and said he was going to consider 
the matter, and I said to him all right, that it wasn’t any of my l)usi- 
ness ; and he said he was not going to give away a. Senator for nothing. 
Those were the only two occasions on which 1 conversed with him. I 
have seen and 1 have never had any conversation with him since. 

(,). Did you in any manner try to get anybody to make a false state¬ 
ment in tliis matter?—A. No, sir; there was no need of it. 1 had no 
need of it. 1 knew all about the transaction, and I said to every one 

54 iS K 



850 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


that came to me about it, I said I am in it. I do not care what you 
do. I tell you what I would do.” I said I would make an affidavit, and 
tell the truth. 

Q. And you always advised them to tell tlie truth?—A. Yes, sir; I 
said I was going to do that whether it cripi)led anybody or not. I never 
said anything to anybody about wffiat I was to get or not get. 1 never 
spoke to Judge Spofford a dozen words in my life. A good many people 
have asked me wliere I was going to come in at, and I said I doiFt 
know.” I had never offered an}" of them a cent. I never had a cent to 
offer them. 

Q. You mean to say that you were never authorized to offer anybody 
a cent?—A. Nobody ; nobody ever talked a dollar to me. I have said 
so myself, personally, but I never offered a dollar to anybody. 

Q. Do you know George Bird ?—A. Yes, sir; I was raised with him. 

Q. What is his rei)utation for truth?—A. I alvvays found him a very 
square man then; but I haven’t heard from him in about twenty years. 

Q. You say you knew him twenty years ago?—A. I mean to say that 
I have seen him two or three times since, but I don’t know what his 
reputation is. 

Q. What was his reputation before that time?—A. His reputation at 
that time was that of a bull-driver. 

Q. Not his occupation, but his reputation ?—A. Well, sir, at that time 
he was a boy. I was raised there right with him, but on oath I wouldn’t 
believ"e him, politically. I might do it in a court of justice. 

Q. Did you know George Bird as a member of the Packard legisla¬ 
ture?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him ?—A. I did, several 
times. 

Q. That you remember?—A. I don’t know what I said to him. 

Q. But if you remember anything that relates to this case tell what it 
was.—A. He was one of the men who laid my light; there were five of 
them who laid it. 

Q. You mean in your favor ?—A. Yes, sir ; I was beat by the admin¬ 
istration, and they wouldn’t stand it. They taken my election into the 
bouse an(l beat the administration. We have always been personal 
friends until this fight came up*. 

Q. Did you kuow anything of members receiving any money, or any 
statements made by him to that effect?—A. 1 heard him say that he 
had. 

Q. What for ?—A.. Voting for Governor Kellogg for Senator. 

Q. How much did he say he got?—A. He said he got two hundred 
dollars, and they still owed him fifty. 

Q. Do you know anything about Simmes ?—A. Yes, sir; I stated in 
Washington what I knew about him, and what he told me. 

Q. What you stated there was true, was it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Simmes’ reputation for truth and veracity ?—A. ATes, 
sir. 

Q. Is it good or bad ?—A. I have never known him to tell the truth 
in my life. 

Q. Then you wouldn’t believe him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. 
No, sir; 1 would not. 

Q. Have you had any conversation with Simmes or kuow anything 
else about him since your return from Washington ? If you do, tell it. 
—A. No, sir; I never had any conversation with him since my return 
from Washington about this case. 

Q. Do you kuow a man named Miller?—A. J. C. Miller? 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


851 


Q. \ i\s; I believe that is the man.—A. Yes, sir; I know him. 

i}. He is a witness who appeared before this committee and testiQed 
that .von and he were on a bridjie on some street- 

The Witness. Meli)omene street; yes, sir. 

And dohnson, of He Soto, came alon^?—A. Johnson, of Terre 
Bonne, 1 think. 

(,>. It was the Johnson who testified in Washington ?—A. He didn’t 
testily—lie cut up a good deal of shines there. 

Q. It was Johnson, of Terre Bonne, yon say ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that yon and Johnson had a conversation ? 

Q. xVnd that after that conversation you asked him (Miller) if he had 
lieard tliat conversation, and hesaid “No”; and that snbseipiently you 
asked him if he would come before the committee and swear that" he 
heard Johnson say that what yon testified in Washington was true. 
Now, what are the facts as to that ?—A. One evening last summer, I had 
been sick some time and was out taking a walk, and 1 came along down 
^lelpomene street and 1 saw ^liller sitting on the bridge, and I sat down 
alongside of him, and him and 1 commenced talking. Johnson came 
u]) and leaned on the railing between ns, putting one of his liands on 
Miller’s knee and one on mine. 1 said to him, “Johnson, von made a 
uniform out of your Washington trip,” (he had on a night insiiector’s 
uniform, with brass buttons) “ by going back on me.” He says, “ Mur- 
ra.v, you know how I came to go back on yon in Washington; that is 
all right. A\)u will find out when the committee comes down here next 
fall 1 will give different testimon.y to what I gave in Washington.” 
Says [, “Johnson, the thing is all over now, and we are ])ersonal friends; 
did 1 tell the truth in Washington or did I lief” His answer was to 
me, “ Murray, you told the truth in Washington and all the boys know 
it.” Miller was as close to him and me as this gentleman (the stenog¬ 
rapher) :s now. He had one hand on Miller’s knee and one on inine. 
Miller lieard every word of the conversation, and that is about all that 
l)assed in the conversation. Johnson walked off, and 1 repeated to 
iMiller, “What do you think of a man of that kindf” Miller said, 
“Everybody believes yon told the truth in Washington; nobody be¬ 
lieves .vou lied.” That was his answer to me, and that is all that was 
said. I never spoke to Miller any more about it until I heard he had 
been snb[)(enaed here as a witness. 1 went uj) to his house to see him 
and he wasn’t at home. 1 went to his place of business on i’oydras 
street, and he was rolling roulette. I said to Miller that I wanted to 
see him on business. 1 saiil, “ Yon have been subixenaed before the com¬ 
mittee, and 1 think I can have it withdrawn for yon.” He said, “ What 
do yon want it withdrawn for f ” 1 said, “ I thought yon were in the 

custom-house and did not want to lose your situation.” I said, “ What 
will you testify before the committeef” and he said, “ About that con¬ 
versation you and Johnson had,” and then went on and repeated it about 
as 1 liave here. 1 said, “That will do,” and I came out and got a cab 
and came to JMr. Walker’s oflice. That was the night before the com¬ 
mittee met. 

Q. Did you go from New Orleans to Washington with the witness last 
June f—A. 1 did. 

Q. You were one of the witnesses yourself?—A. I was. 

Q. Were you on the same train with Jim Jjewis f—A. I was. 

Q. Did Jim Lewis say what he was going to Washington for; did he 
talk with the witnesses or say iiny thing to them about their testimony ? 
—A. He talked to me and to the witnesses on the way to Washington. 
He went there to help ISenator Kellogg. That is what he said. 


852 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. He sai<l tliat?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is, ill conversation with the witnesses?—A. I do not know, 
sir; he never talked to them in my presence. He never talked to me much, 
but every time we stopped he would take them out and talk with them. 

Q. wiiat was his conversation with you ?—A. That I ought to stick 
to the party; that this was a national fight, and it' I stuck to the party it 
would stick to me. That was in one of the conversations on the first 
night, and the next day after we left here he had another conversation 
with me, and he told me he tliought that if I would fall in line the 
thing would be all right. I replied to him, Jim Lewis, I am going to 
Washington to tell the truth. If I had $500 I would give it to be out 
of this fight now, but I am in, and I am not going to lie for Governor 
Kellogg or Judge Spofibrd neither. I am going to tell the truth, and 
that is what I expect to do. I have adopted a line of policy and I am 
going to carry it out.” 

Q. Who met you all at the depot in Washington ?—A. Sweazie, 
Walsh, Wright, Randall, Tom Kelly, Mr. Mollaire, and a number of gen¬ 
tlemen whom I do not remember. Those are the names of the parties 
I know who went over to the hotel with us. I think General Sypher 
was there at the depot too. 

Q. Were they there to meet the witnesses?—A. I suppose so, sir; for 
they were all there. 

Q. Who told you where to go?—A. I disremember who said that 
now. We had agreed to go to Mrs. Brown’s, but we all agreed to go 
together, and I think it was Jim Lewis who made the arrangement for 
us all to go together. 

Q. You were in Washington at the time the witnesses were testi¬ 
fying?—A. I was. 

Q. Do you remember the excitement that was created about the wit¬ 
nesses going back on their affidavits ?—A. I do, sir. 

Q. Where were you staying; down at the same hotel with the wit¬ 
nesses and Jim Lewis?—A. I was not on the same floor as Jim Lewis, 
but in the same hotel. 

Q. State whether there was any talk there among the witnesses about 
their testimony ?—A. There were no witnesses staying with me, but it 
was the general talk down there around the table and in the saloon. 
Kelly was staying with me and nothing was said by him. He was Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg’s friend. The first night we got there we all went out to 
get washed. I went out with Bill Randall, and they went, I think, to 
the hotel. George Sweazie had been there several days, three or four 
days before, and they went with him from the hotel, I think, but I do 
not know where to. 

Q. Was Jim Lewis there taking an active part in this case?—A. Yes, 
sir; he was taking an active part for Governor Kellogg, both going up 
there and in Washington. He took an active part, as active as I did on 
the other side, and I think I was pretty active; I got in jail for it. 

Q. You wanted the witnesses to stick up to their affidavits ?—A. I 
had no affidavits to stick up to, but I told them all here to tell the truth. 
I had a talk with them on Sunday before we left here. 

Q. Well, go on.—A. On Sunday we bad a talk over the affidavits that 
had been made. I told them that I am going up there as sergeant at- 
arms of the legislature and you as members of the legislature, to talk 
about the money that was paid you, and if 1 were you I would stick to 
the affidavit; whatever inducement there is, I advise you to stick to the 
truth; and they agreed to do it. I didn’t know then that Jim Lewis 
was going with them, but that was on Sunday evening. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


853 


Q. Did any of them tell you their reasons for j;oin" back on the afll- 
davitsj—A. (.nly one ot them who told me, ami that evening we got 
into Washington; that was DeLacy. 

Q. \\ hat did he say ?—A. lie said that Sweazie had made arrange¬ 
ments with Governor Kellogg for him, and he advised me to let him 
make arrangements for me, that he was going back on his signature and 
deny that it was his. 

Q. Did you see Darney Williams there '?—A. A"es, sir; I saw him here, 
I think. 

Q. What was he doing?—A. He was watching me. 

In whose interest was he watching you ?—A. Governor Kellogg’s. 

Did he make any otiers to you ?—A." Yes, sir; several times out of 
his mouth. 

Q. You say he made it out of his mouth. What did he say! 

ISenator Cameron. I object to that. 

Senator Vance. Why, Senator ? 

Senator Cameron. Williams was called by the contestant and testi¬ 
fied, and nothing was said to him by us about any offers made to Mur¬ 
ray, and now you are tr\ing to sustain him by your own witness. 

Senator Vance. That is usual, isn’t it ? 

Senator Cameicon. No, sir; I think not. 

Senator Hill. 1 would like to know how else you would do it. We do 
not want the witness to prove that Williams had authority to make the 
the offer, but we want him to testify, if it is true, that the offer was made, 
as corroboratory of Williams. The objection will be noted and over¬ 
ruled. Goon, Mr. Witncvss. 

The Witness. Barney Williams came there to my room the afternoon 
before I went on the stand ; 1 went on the second day. and the after¬ 
noon before he came up there to see if 1 was going to take the stand 
the next day. I told him I thought I would. I thought my taking the 
stand would give my boys a little backbone, and he said he had a lit¬ 
tle proposition to make to me, provided 1 would keep it as confidential; 
and I said if it is confidential 1 will keep it, and he said he was author¬ 
ized, but he didn’t say by Governor Kellogg, to make a jiroiiosition to 
me. And 1 said, ‘‘ Well, make propositions to me.’’ Then he stepped 
downstairs for two brandies, and as I did not drink any whisky, I drank 
beer. He said he was authorized to offer $l,o()() to me to go back on my 
testimony, that is, to go back on Sjiofford and support Kellogg. I said, 
“That is too little money, Barney”; and he said, “How much do you 
want?” I said, “ I don’t know, but that is too little.” We drank and 
smoked there that afternoon, and he got up and went away and asked 
for another interview with me that evening. He came back and said he 
thought I could get 82,000; and 1 said, “If 1 were to take 8^?,000 1 
could not go back home; that 1 would be assassinated by the people, 
the white people, on the streets, and if you will make the inducement 
sutlicient 1 might do it. The next morning he came back before 1 went 
on the stand and took breakfast with Jim Lewis, and said to me, “ I am 
authorized now to give you 8o,000,” and to take me to Detroit, Michi¬ 
gan, and stay there until we could come back, and I said that was not 
enough, and he said, “Well, then, how much do you want?’’and I said 
half a million or a million, because I was always looking out for him, 
and I had lieard they had a deei) laid ditch for me, and 1 was look¬ 
ing out lor him to drag me into it ; but, I went on the stand that 
day, and that night another gentleman came to see me, but I don’t know 
as I c.an go into that. 

(^. Yes, tell it.—A. It was a gentleman named Callahan, and I had 



854 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


iievor seen him for some years. He came to ineand said, Flalloa, Mur¬ 
ray,” and 1 sai(i, “ You iiave got tlie advantage of me.” I said, “ Who 
are you,” and he said, “ Don’t you remember that I was on tlie detect¬ 
ive force in New Orleans ?” and I said, ‘‘ Are you Mr. Callahan f” He 
said, “ Yes,” and I said, “ Where did you come from ?” and he said, I 
come from New York specially to meet you.’^ I said, “To meet me*?’ 
and he said, “ Yes.” He said, “ I want to make a proposition to you.” 
I said, “ Well, approach me with it,” and he said, “ I want you to stand 
by Kellogg, and I am authorized to make you a very handsome offer,” 
and I said, “ What does Governor Kellogg know of this,” and he said, 
“ He knows nothing; but some of his friends are very anxious that he 
should retain his seat,” and he said, “ They want to make you a present 
of $5,000, and want you to take a trip to Canada.” I said to him, 
“ What for ? ” and he said, “ Well, they do not want you to testify in this 
case.” I said to him, “1 can’t do that. You wait until I get off the 
stand, and when I do then you can make me the present.” When I did 
get off the stand he met me and said, and read to me a whole rigama- 
role off that I was to go on the stand and say and make a general denial 
of all that I had testified ; and I said that 1 would not do it, and he said 
that I could go off to another country if I did not want to stay here, 
and they would send my wife to me at no expense to me. He said, “ If 
you do not do it I tell you what will happen, old fellow ; if you don’t do 
it you will have to go to jail.” I said, “ That if they put a man in jail, 
in Washington, for telling the truth, I will have to go,” and I went to 
jail that evening, but 1 said, “ I would not go back on the truth.” 

Q. You were arrested that evening ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And put injair?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, now, Murray, how long did this man Barney Williams sta^" 
there?—A. Well, sir; I left him there. 

Q. You found him there and you left him there?—A. Yes, sir; I 
found him there and I left him there. 

Q. Was he going up to the Senate and showing an interest in the 
case?—A. Every day he was there before the committee met and staid 
until it adjourned every day ; that was his habit. 

Q. Sweazie, in his testimony, testified that you and he had been friends 
until you went to Washington. He did not like your conduct and con¬ 
cluded not to speak to you, ami on one occasion afterwards slapped you 
on the shoulder and made friends witli you. What do you know about 
that?—-All I know about that was that De Licy told me that Sweazie 
went there to make terms for him. He told me that, and when I got to 
Washington Sweazie was there and took De Lacy and roomed with him. 
Sweazie was in my room every day up to the morning I went on the 
stand to testify. He smoked, and all that, with me, and said that he 
had always been my personal and political friend, and by God if I went 
on the stand and testified and gave away a Senator to the Democrats 
for nothing he would try to send me to hell politically and every other 
way. 

Q. Who made that affidavit to have you arrested in Washington ?— 
A. Sweazie. 1 do not know that it was an affidavit ; it was a warrant 
and it was made out by Sweazie. 

Q. Did he charge you with perjury?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Aristide De Joie?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was a member of the Packard legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with him about getting money from 
Governor Kellogg?—A. No, sir; I never had any couversation wii h him. 

Q. Did you ever see him receive any ?—A. I never heard him say 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


855 


that lie received any. I heard him say that he paid ott' some there in 
the State-house on pay-day—the daj" they paid otf the members for 
votiii" for Governor Kellof;^. 

(^>. For what? For voting: for Governor Kello^ff?—A. Yes, sir; that 
was on Saturday after tlie election. The boys said that they were paid 
otf. The election taken place on Wednesday, and Saturday they were 
all paid otf. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. On what day did you arrive in AVashington ?—A. I think I ar¬ 
rived there on Wednesday afternoon. Yes, sir, I think it was Wednes¬ 
day afternoon. 

Q. What day did you go on the stand as a witness ?—A. I think I 
stated awhile ago that I was uncertain about it; but I think it was 
two or three days after I got there. My best recollection is, that it was 
the second morning after I got there. 

Q. You are certain of that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are as certain of that as you are of anything else ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I am certain of that. 

Q. You stated that Sweazie was in your room every day until the day 
you went on the stand ?—A. I did not say every day. I said h^ was 
in there until the day I went on the stand. He was in there that day. 

Q. And then you had the conversation with him you have detailed ?— 
A. I did not say that I had any conversation with him. He had it 
with me. 

Q. J)id you make any responses to him ?—A. No, sir; none to that. 

Q. AVhat has been your occiniation since you have been back from 
AVashiugton ?—A. I was iiressing brick, and part of the time I was 
sick. 

Q. AVhat do you mean by “pressing brick’’?—A. I mean walking 
around and doing nothing. 

Q. Well, never mind that. You have already established your repu¬ 
tation as a witty person in AVashington ?—A. I was born a witty child. 

Q. AVliat has been your occupation since your returu ?—A. I have 
been walking around the streets. 

Q. AVill you please answer iny ipiestion ?—A. That has been my oc- 
cnpation. 

Q. Have you had any regular occupation ?—A. No, sir; if jmu had 
asked me that at first 1 would have told you so. I have had no regu¬ 
lar employment since 1 returned. 

Q. AVho of the witnesses who went thereat that time, at Washing¬ 
ton, were arrested besides yourself?—A. Johnson and J>e Lacy. 

Q. Were they sent to jail, too ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who made the affidavit on which they were arrested ?—A. I 
don't know, sir; 1 heard it was Air. Cavanac. 

Q. Did you see the affidavit on which they wore arrested ?—A. No, 
sir. 

(*). Do you know the first name of this Air. Calliham, with wdiom you 
say you had an interview in AVashington?—A. No, sir; I don’t know 
his first name. 1 have not seen him for a long time. I know he was 
here on the detective force, but 1 reckon 1 have heard it; but I don’t 
dare say what it is. 

Q. Do you know' about wdieii he left New Orleans ?—A. I think he 
left here in soventy-twm. 1 would not be certain about it, but it was 
about that time 1 missed him here. It w’as some time betw'een then 
and 1873. 


856 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Yon say that Barney proposed that you should go to Canada by 
way of Detroit, Mich. ?—A. To Detroit, Mich. That is what he pro¬ 
posed to me—yes, sir. 

Q. Did it occur to you, at that time, that that would be the most 
direct route to Canada?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you were not acquainted with the geography of the country ? 
—A. No, sir ; I was not acquainted with the geography of the route; 
but I thought it was a job, anyhow, and I did not pay much attention 
to it. 

Q. Do you reside now in the city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whereabouts?—A. 112 Saint James street. 

Q. How long have you lived there?—A. Several months. 

Q. Where did you live before you moved there?—A. 137 Liberty-' 
street. 

Q. How long did you live there?—A. Three years. 

Q. Have you a family ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How much of a family ?—A. A wife and three children. 

Q. How much rent do you pay now ?—A. Twelve dollars. 

Q. How much money have you received for any labor or services y-ou 
have performed since your return from Washington ?—-A. I do not know 
how much I have received. If I had my day-book here, I could tell you 
every cent up to Saturday night. 

Q. How much do you think you have received ?—A. About one 
hundred and eighty dollars, I reckon. 

Q. What labor have you performed for which you received that?— 
A. 1 went to the Democratic convention—the day of the Baton Kouge 
convention—and took charge of the room, and waited on some of the 
gentlemen, and I made one hundred and ten dollars. That is one hun¬ 
dred and ten of it. I done some other things around town, and made 
some money. 

Q. Did you gamble any ?—A. Yes, sir; I made one hundred dollars 
one night. I run it up from ten to a hundred dollars; then I lost 
eighteen dollars. I am eighteen dollars behind the game, since I came 
here. I gamble whenever I feel like it; but I don’t know one card 
from another, and I anything—‘‘ seven up,” and poker. But I will take 
a five dollar bill, and go in and shook it at my game terribly. 

Q. What is your favorite game ?—A. Monte. 

Q. Do you consider yourself pretty good at it ?—A. Best in the 
country, sir. 

Q. How long have you been familiar with that game?—A. Ever 
since 1 was in the Mexican war. 

Q. You learned it in Mexico ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Y"on must have been quite a small boy then ?—A. I was between 
nine and ten years old. 

Q. Did you know the man named Toney Clark ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Ever since he was driven 
out of East Feliciana. 

Q. When was he driven from there?—A. In 1875 or 187G. 

Q. Have you had any conversation with him about this Kellogg- 
Spoiford case since you returned from Washington ?—A. I have had 
several conversations with him. 

Q Did you ever go to Mr. Clarke’s house and have a conversation 
with him about this?—A. Yes, sir; and he has come to my house. 

Q. When had you one at his house ?—A. I had one there in the dark 
days of last summer, when I was walking around; he sent for me to 
come there. 


spot FORD VS. KELLOGG. 


857 


Q. Did yon say to him that Watson had no right to make any afli- 
davit against Kellogg, as none of the members of tlie legislature had 
received a cent from Kellogg?—A. No, sir j 1 had no such conversation 
with him. 

Q. Did you state that or anything like it to him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you propose to him that if the friends of Governor Kellogg 
would pay you fifteen hundred dollars you would go to Mexico ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You did propose it ?—A. I did sir. 

Q. Did you make it in good faith or not?—A. Why don’t you ask me 
the rest of it, how I came to came this proposition ? 

Q. Did you make that proposition in good faith ?—A. I have answered 
that. 

Q. You have not. I ask you did you make that proposition in good 
faith, agreeing to leave New Orleans and go to Mexico if you were paid 
that money ?—A. I will answer it when you ask me right. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Murray, the question is a proper one, perfectly so, 
and you must answer it. 

The Wi'i'NESS. Then I answer you that I did not make it in good faith. 

Q. Whom were you trying to deceive then?—A. lie was trying to 
deceive me. 

Q. Whom were you trying to deceive?—A. I wasn’t trying to deceive 
anybody. 

Q. Well, if you were not trying to deceive anybody, you did make it 
in good faith. 

Senator Hill. Mr. ^Nfurray, when Senator Cameron asks you a ques¬ 
tion you must answer it; and after you have answered it, if you have 
any explanation to make, you can do so. 

Senator Cameron. I don’t think he has any right to explain until I 
get through asking what questions I desire in reference to that partic¬ 
ular conversation. 

Senator Hill (to the witness). You answer Senator Cameron’s ques¬ 
tion, and you will have the right to explain afterwards. 

The Witness. I will put myself in contempt of the committee before 
I will answer that question of Senator Cameron’s unless 1 am allowed 
to explain how I came to go there. 

Senator HiLL. Do you think it necessary to your protection ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cameron. I would like to go a little further when this ques¬ 
tion is decided. (To the witness.) Did you state that you went into 
this tight grievously, and that Mr. Salles treated you wrong in putting 
you out ? 

The Witness. Are you ready now ? 

Senator Cameron. Did 5 on state that? 

The Witness. Mr. Salles never put me out. 

Q. I did not ask that. 1 asked you did you make that statement ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you tell him that Jonas, Ellis, and King had talked to you, 
and had every confidence in you in this matter ?—A. No, sir; 1 might 
have told him that Mr. King had. 

Q. Did you tell him that Spotlord or some of his friends had paid one 
hundred dollars on your furniture and that the whole ofitcost one hun¬ 
dred and sixty-tive dollars, and that they paid it for you until you got 
back from Washington, and that you paid sixty-five dollars, and there 
was one hundred dollars still due ?—A. No, sir; and I won’t answer any 
questions on that subject until I am allowed to explain mj’self. 



858 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you tell him that you would take him down toOav^anac’s office 
and he would see how Oavanac worked with you; that when Jackson 
talked with you he would put Clarke in another room, and when he 
talked to Clarke he would put you in another room —A. No, sir ; I never 
told him that in any such conversation, no such thing. I am too sharp 
a i)olitician to do that. 

Q. Did you tell him that Jones said that Spofford could not whip this 
fight without you—A. No, sir ; I never said any such thing. Now I 
won’t answer these frivolous questions any longer. 

Q. Did you tell Clarke that ten thousand dollars had been pub up in 
Washington to secure Spofford’s case, and that those boys down here 
could have their share of it if they did the fair thing, or anything to that 
effect?—A. I will not answer any more questions. I always do what I 
say, and I won’t answer any more until I am allowed to explain. 

Senator Cameron. Now tell me about what was done there at that 
time. 

A. I won’t answer. I will be in contempt of this committee first. 

Senator Cameron. You won’t be in contempt of this committee, I 
guess. 

The Witness. Yes, I will. I think this is the highest authority in 
the country, but I won’t be treated as a child, I am a man. 

Senator Dill. We must stop this controversy, and I rule that the wit¬ 
ness has the right to make the explanation. I think it’s an immaterial 
matter between you. 

Senator Cameron. I hold that I have a right to question him, especi¬ 
ally on this conversation; then afterwards he could make the explanation 
he desires to make. 

Senator Vance (to Senator Cameron). What is the difference to you 
whether he makes his explanation now or afterwards ? 

Senator Cameron. I will answer you in the Yankee way. What is the 
difference to the witness ? 

Senator Vance. He thinks that it will damage him not to give the 
explanation at the time, it may make no difference and it may ; I could 
tell better after I heard it. 

Senator Hill. I think it is an immaterial issue; the difference is that 
he thinks he is damaged and hurt by testifying to a part of the conver¬ 
sation without giving the proper explanation to it. I want to save time 
in this nmtter. 

Senator Cameron. It is not necessary to go over what I have said on 
the subject, but if the majority of the committee desire to overrule me 
in favor of the witness I will have to let it go so. 

Senator Hill. You know the rule. Senator Cameron, when a witness 
answers a question and then desires to make an explanation, the court 
always allows it. 

Senator Cameron. That depends on circumstances. 

Senator Hill. I thiuk under the circumstances in this case it should 
be made. 

Senator Cameron. 1 differ with the chairman. 

Senator Hill. Go on, Mr. Murray, and make your explanation. 

The Witness. I have concluded to answer all his questions now. 

Q. Did you say to Clark that ten thousand dollars or other large sum 
had been put up there in Washington to secure the seat of Judge Spof- 
ford ?—A. No, sir; and now I want to make that explanation. Clark 
sent to me last summer to my room where 1 was sick and I could not go, 
and he came around and said he wanted to see me and he didn’t talk 
there that time but he wanted to see me. And I went to see him but 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


859 


lie wasn’t there. I tohl his wife to tell him 1 had been there but T would 
be back the next evening. The next evening I went there and met him 
at the corner grocery, and he asked me to go down to the house and liad 
a bottle of whiskey and wanted me to drink, and I said Xo,” I was 
sick, and we had a little conversation, and he said he could get five thou¬ 
sand dollars to have me quit this fight; and t said, “ Do you mean busi¬ 
ness and he said ‘‘ Yes.” I said, If you will go to get me fifteen hundred 
dollars I am the man who will be oft to Mexico.” Jle said he was to get 
that for me, and I said, ‘‘All right.” L said, “ Xever mind about the 8o,()()0, 
you go and get that amount, it is only one third of wliat you projiosed, 
and you go ami get the money and I am off.” He said, “ i will give you 
an answer to-morrow.” I knew where that was all coming tn, you bet. 
I knew it was all coming here. 1 got there the next evening before he 
got there, and he came after a while and slapped me on the shoulder, 
and said, “ Old boy, it is all right.” I said, “Have you got the money ?” 
and he said, “Xo, but it is all fixed,” and 1 said, “Well tliere is nothing 
fixed with me without the money.” lie said “George Xorton is going 
to raise it.” “ Wliat time is he going to raise it,” said 1; and he said 
ten o’clock next day, and that I would meet him the next day and 
see about it. Tliat is what he said. He said “I want another conver¬ 
sation with you,” and 1 said, “Well,” and he said, “How much money 
has old Siioftbrd ])ut up?” and I said, “ I do not know, you see how I 
am.” I said that I had not a cent for my wife and children ; and 
he said, “ Wlio is managing this fight?” and I said, “1 don’t know.” 
He said, “Is Jonas doing it ?” and J vsaid, “Xo; 1 think Gavanac is.” 
He said, “ Will you go down there with me?” and I said, “ YYm know 
the way, and you go yourself.” He said he wanted to know Avho was 
there, as he tliought he could scpieeze them if he found out. I said, 
“You can’t get more than 1 know their prices on negroes; I 

am about as sharp as any negro in politics, and I can’t get into them a 
cent.” I said to him wlien I came back tlie next day, “ Have you got 
the money?” and he said, “Xo; Xorton has not had time to talk to me;” 
and I said, “Xo, and you won’t have time”; and he said he would get 
the money; and I vsaid to him, “The custom-house won’t touch me; you 
can bet on that” I said, “When you get the $1,500, you come to me, 
and I am gone.” Do you know the reason I said that to him ? J don’t 
let no nigger play me without my iilaying him. J was going to take the 
money if he got it, and show him, ami have him imt in jail. Xow, when 
tlie Senate committee came here, he came out to my house on Saint Jane 
street, and came in there and talked to me and said the $1,500 was ready. 
I said, “Clarke, you are too late; if you had brung this two weeks ago, 
it would have been all right, but you are just two weeks too late.” He 
said, “ What do you want to do”! and we had a terrible conversation, 
and finally parted with the understanding that we would not do any¬ 
thing. That was since the committee got here ; and the following week 
lie met me u]) at Mr. Walker’s, and made a proiiosition to me, and I can 
tell the ])ropositions. I tell the committee I have acceiited everyone of 
them. This offer is not the only one that was made me not only by ?\Ir. 
Clarke, but by others; but he is the one you have centered on. He 
asked me what amount Spofford jnit up, and he thought they could 
squeeze some of it out of tliem; and now he comes and brings those 
things that we said here. I kept myself straight in all these things. I 
know about them. J knew they were coming here just as soon as this 
committee got here. 



860 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you at any time employed in tlie mint in this city?—A, 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Where at?—A. I was emjdoyed there last year, and I was dis¬ 
charged the 31st December. 

Q. What for?—A. Well, sir, I was not dischargedj I don’t mean 
that; I was suspended. 

Q. What for ?—A. They said it was for the reason that they had too 
much force. I explained that to the committee in Washington; and I 
kicked up about it, and they finally showed me some ch arges they had 
against me. 

By Se^iator Hill : 

Q. That is the same as the thing you were questioned about in Wash¬ 
ington ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you had any conversation recently with Mr. W. J. Moore ?— 
A. W. J. Moore ? 

Q. Yes, sir5 he is in the custom-house in some way?—A. Yes, sirj I 
have. 

Q. He was the former supervisor of registration in the seventh ward ? 
—A. Yes, sir; but I had no conversation with him about the registra¬ 
tion, but about this case. . 

Q. When was it ?—A. Since the committee has been here. 

Q. What was that conversation?—A. It was relative to the quorum 
or relative to Thomas. 

Q. You say it was relative to a quorum in the legislature?—A. I think 
so, but it don’t amount to much. 

Q. What was it?—A. I think we had a conversation one day this 
week, or the first part of last week, about if I would stop the fight, that 
they could not substantiate the fact that Thomas was not in the house 
that day. 

Q. That they could not do what?—A. That they could not substanti¬ 
ate that Thomas was absent. 

Q. Murray, who were the persons who were represented on the record 
as being in that house on the day Kellogg was elected who were not 
there? 

Senator Cameron. Did not the witness go over all that in Washing¬ 
ton?—A. Yes, I did, fully. 

At this point the committee took a recess of one hour, it being 12.30 

p. m. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


861 


TESTIMONY OF J. M. CARVILLE. 

J. M. Carville, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. You were in the house at the time of the election of United 
States Senator ?—Answer. In 1877 ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Yes, sir; I was in the house. 

Q. Please state what parish you represented.—A. I represented the 
parish of Iberville. 

Q. Did you notice the roll-call specially?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Did you notice that Thomas, of Bossier, was present ?—A. Thomas, 
of Bossier, was present; and I will state the reason why. I knew him 
well, for I had served two years with him before, and I knew him per¬ 
fectly well. He was there at the time the ^United States Senator was 
elected in 1877. 

Q. Do you know whether Milton Jones was present or not ?—A. Mil- 
ton Jones was also present. 

Q. Do you remember of a rule being adopted, and the speaker direct¬ 
ing the doorkeepers not to allow any persons to pass out ?—A. Yes, sir. 
I remember it distinctly. There was rather a critical condition of af¬ 
fairs, and we exerted ourselves to Iceep our organization, and preserve a 
quorum; and no members were allowed outside tlie door without the 
direction of the speaker. I recollect that particularly. 

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Jones was always a particularly out¬ 
spoken friend of mine ?—A. Yes, sir; he was. 

Q. Was he in the house at the time the vote was taken ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say he was there when the vote was taken ?—A. Most assur¬ 
edly. We were all looking out for anything of that kind. The situa¬ 
tion demanded carefulness and watchfulness. At that time we were 
under peculiar circumstances, if you remember. 

B}^ Senator Hill : 

Q. If Mr. Jones wanted to go to the water-closet, for instance, could 
he not go ?—A. I do not think he could. We could not tell whether he 
was going to the water-closet or not. 

Q. IIow would you manage that in such a case as that ?—A. God 
knows; that was a thing for him to attend to. I know that we would 
not permit him to go. 

Q. IIow did you manage when you wanted to go out?—A. Well, sir, 
I did not try to take any back sttq^s, but they would not let me go; only 
the officers and civilians. I know they would not let me go out. 

Q. Did you try to go out?—A. I do not know that I tried to go to the 
water-closet. I tried to go out of that building. 


862 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Was that during the roll-call?—A. I do not know whether it was 
during the roll-call or not, but I tried to go out. 

Q. You say they kept watch on the members?—A. We kept a close 
watch because we were in a close fight. 

Q. About what?—A. I think you are chairman of this committee, are 
you not ? 

Q. That is not the question.—A. We were concerned just about that 
time about the bayonets in the streets; we were concerned about the 
military, and that probably required us to keep a close watch on things. 

Q. Was it the bayonets that kept you from going out to the water- 
closet?—A. I said nothing about your water-closet. 

Q. Well, now, could not he—could not Milton Jones go if he had 
wanted to ?—A. Well, sir, I suppose a man could stay an hour or two 
in a session without wanting to go out. 

Q. He could go if he desired to ?—A. I think not, because he might 
have wanted to go somewhere else. 

Q. Why would he want to go somewhere else, and where do you think 
he would have wanted to go ?—A. I don’t know. God knows. 

Q. You had apprehensions, then, about keeping a quorum?—A. Ho, 
I did not j I had none. I think the members of that house desired to 
keep the party intact. 

Q. Well, tell me why they agreed they would not let the members out. 
—A. That is the rules of Congress, that they won’t let members go out. 

Q. Please answer my question. You say no man was allowed to leave 
that hall without an order of the speaker, and that you all watched to 
see that nobody left; why was that necessary? Were you afraid of 
the breaking of a quorum f—A. It was because we were in a peculiar 
condition at that time. 

Q. What was the peculiarity ?—A. Why, sir, we were going to elect 
a United States Senator, and we needed a quorum to do that with. 

Q. I thought you stated that you were not afraid of the breaking of 
a quorum; and you thought all of them were ax)prehensive as to that 
and you staid ?—A. I don’t know. I beg your pardon; I did not say it 
that way. I beg your pardon; 1 did not. 

Q. Well, it is put down as you said it. 

The Witness. I don’t know how you have put it down. 

Q. What was the object of that rule, to keep them all in?—A. Well, 
then, admitting then- 

Q. Tell me the fact, why did you adopt that order; what was the 
reason that the whole house adopted an order that no man should leave 
without an order of the speaker ? 

The Witness. I may be misunderstood. It was of course to preserve 
and protect a quorum. 

Q. You thought they would go off, and it took an order to keep them 
by force ? 

Q. You had to keep them by an order and by force ?—A. I have not 
said anything about force. 

Q. You sustained that course ?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Hid you stand guards at the various doors ?—A. Ho, sir; we did 
not. 

Q. Who kept them from going out, then; did you have watchmen or 
guards at the doors; or were the doors locked ?—A. I suppose you are 
trying to get me cornered in this thing. 

Q. Well, sir, if you get cornered, you will corner yourself; answer 
my question.—A. If you will let me alone, I will tell you; you have 
some understanding about this thing- 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


863 


Q. Stop, now, Mr. Witness; I don’t want to have to speak to yon 
a^ain about your impertinence ; answer my question. I asked you this: 
What made you pass an order that no man should leave the hall without 
an order trom the speakerand you have answered that they could not 
go to the water-closet even, because they might go off; and now I ask 
you what means you adopted to keep them from going out; did you 
stand guards or watchmen about the place ?—A. Now, Mr. Chairman, I 
will explain to you why we had those rules of the house. We had a cer¬ 
tain rule, in my recollection, if it don’t deceive me, that we can ask the 
speaker to prevent members from leaving the hall; the speaker orders 
the doorkeepers, if you want to know who guards our doors, not to let 
any members leave; it is a rule instituted in Louisiana for several years; 
it was used in the legislature the last time. As to those people going 
out to the water-closet, and to attend to a call of nature, there has been 
occasions in this and other legislatures when for ten minutes or less a 
man could not go out—no man could. 

Q. Now you have stated that the order was adopted that no mau 
should leave that hall without an order of the speaker; now you say 
finally the object was to keep a quorum.—A. Most assuredly that was 
the object. 

Q. Now I want to know how that would keep a quorum, unless you 
adopted certain means to force the men to stay in who wanted to go 
out!—A. Let me correct you, Senator; I don’t mean that we adopted 
that as a special rule of the house, that we asked the speaker at the 
time to enforce. 

Q. Was there a special request that day?—A. Yes, sir; there was a 
special request made by the caucus. 

Q. What means did you adopt to stop members from going out; that’s 
the point I want to get you to ?—A. The doorkeepers were ordered not 
to let members go out. 

Q. And you state that Jones did not go out ?—A. I do not say that, 
during those two or three times, but I say he didn’t go out during the 
election of United States Senator. 

Q. Who would have prevented him ?—A. Well, nowq you want me 
to swear what 1 know about you ? 

Q. But you say i\Ir. Jones could not have left that hall during the 
balloting for Senator.—A. I say Mr. Jones did not. 

Q. If he had attempted to do so, what would have prevented him 
from going out ?—A. Nothing, except the orders of the speaker and in¬ 
structions to the doorkeepers that no members should pass out. 

Q. Were you in the house in 1875 and 187G, and the preceeding legis¬ 
lature ?—A. 1 was in the house in 1875 and 187G. 

Q. Were you elected in 1874 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was Thomas a member of that house ?—A. Yes; Thomas, of Bos¬ 
sier, was. 

Q. Why did you think there was such danger about a quorum that 
day ? Was there a quorum there the day before ?—A. The day before 
what ? 

Q. The day before the election of United States Senator.—A. Let’s 
see. Monday thej" met, Tuesday they balloted. Yes, sir; we had a 
quonim that day. 

Q. Wednesday, what did you do ?—A. We Aveut into joint session 
and elected. 

Q. Did you have a quorum all of these days?—A. Yes, sir. 


864 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Are you certain, a majority?—A. I am speaking now of the house. 
Yes, there was a quorum. 

Q. You say you were there that day; now, where was Thomas, of 
Bossier, sitting f—A. I think he was sitting to the left; I can’t recollect 
just exactly where he was sitting, for that’s several years ago. 

Q. Was he sitting in his seat?—A. At what time? 

Q. During the election of Senator?—A. I don’t know, he may have 
been in some other person’s seat; but I will tell where and why I know 
he was there; I can tell you where I sat myself, if you want to know it. 

[At this point Mr. Spofford rose to a personal explanation, which re¬ 
lated to a certain dispatch in the National Republican, in which it was 
alleged that some hired bully, probably instigated by Judge Spofford, 
had attempted to raise a personal difficulty with Governor Kellogg. 
Judge Spofford desired to know whether, i3ending tliis investigation, 
special correspondents were to be allowed to misrepresent and falsify 
gentlemen engaged in it in that manner. The chairman received the 
disclaimer of several of the correspondents present and then warned all 
of them that they must not abuse tlie i^rivileges accorded them by the 
committee.] 


TESTIMONY OF T. M. G. CLARK. 

T. M. G. Clark (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined: 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you live?—Answer. I live in the city of New 
Orleans. 

Q. How long have you lived here?—A. Since 1875. 

‘ Q. Where did you live before you came to New Orleans?—A. In 
West Feliciana. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Thomas Murray ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him?—A. About four years. 

Q. Have you had any conversation with Tom Murray in regard to 
this Kellogg-Spofford case, as it is called?—A. Yes, sir; several times. 

Q. Now begin at the beginning and detail to the committee the con¬ 
versation.—A. Well, sir, just before the witnesses from this city and 
State were summoned to Washington I met Tom Murray. I think it 
was on Carondelet street, early in the morning, and he mentioned about 
him going to Washington. He said that he would have to go on to 
Washington to testify about this case. He wanted me to go into it, and 
I told him I didn’t know anything about it. I told him I was not a member 
of the legislature, and I knew nothing about it. He stated that there 
were money in it if I would go, and I was a fool not to go into it with 
him, and I said that I would think of it, and see him again; and him 
and I talked it over time and time again, and I think it was on the Ith of 
August last, that he said if I would get fifteen hundred dollars from 
those fools down to the custom-house—and he mentioned George L. 
Norton’s name—that he would abandon his fight and go to Mexico, so 
that when the committee came down here to investigate this case he 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 865 

would not be here. I made him believe that I could do such a thing 
ill order to go on with him and see about this thing. 

Q. Go on, jMr. Witness, and tell what he said.—A. He said there was 
$10,000 put up in Washington to defray the expenses of the Spotford 
witnesses, and I said to him that if there was tliat much mouey in it, he 
ought go and get assured, and he said he would, jirovided the matter 
talked of between us was completed. I cannot begin to remember all 
we said, for he come and talked so often. 

Q. Tom testified this morning, and he rather conveyed the idea that 
he was trying to fool you?—A. Ko sir ; he wasn’t. He was in earnest, 
but I wouldn’t have trusted him with that $1,500 lie would not have 
been here to-day, but he thought at tliat time that he wouldn’t make 
anything out of tlie other side. Now, if the committee will permit me, 
I have something written here. JMonday, August the 4th, IMuiTay said 
that the wituesvses had no right to make affidavits against Kellogg, as 
none of the members receive from him (Kellogg) money for their votes. 
I said it is money I want, and I will stay here and "make this tight 
against Kellogg. That is what Tom said unless we can effect this bar¬ 
gain. He said of course the fifteen hundred dollars will be paid. Said 
he if you do that, and I go away, all will be right. Well, I can stay 
here and work for Spoffiord, and make $3,()()0. I le said if I had remained 
in the custom-house I would not have made this fight. 

Senator Hill. j\Ir. Witness, you must stop reading from your mem¬ 
orandum. You can read it to refresh your recollection, but you must 
testify without referring to it, and reading from it. 

Senator Cameron. Go on and state the facts, now, as briefly as you 
can. 

The Witness. He said that Mr. Jonas had told him on Saturday that 
the Democrats could not win this fight unless he and the others stuck 
to their affidavit made in New Orleans. He said that Mr. King—J. 
Floyd King. I think—and Jonas and Ellis talked to him about the 
matter, and that they had every confidence in him, and if he would con¬ 
tinue in the case he would not be a poor man any longer. If he would 
continue making the fight on Kellogg he would not be much longer as 
he was. He said he had a set of furniture that cost him $300, and I 
think he said all had been paid on it except $100 or $105, I do not re¬ 
member which, but that that balance now had been paid by those fel¬ 
lows. 

Q. What fellows ?—A. I came to the conclusion from the way that he 
was speaking about these men, that “ those fellows ” were Jonas, Ellis, 
and King. lie said “ those fellows,” but he didn’t call any particular 
name. 

Q. What was it he said about the furniture and the money?—A. The 
l)rice he said was $300, but the balance due Avas $ 105. He said of course 
he could make $3,000 by staying here, but he was willing to make a 
sacrifice on account of his party, that is, by taking the $1,500 and go¬ 
ing to Mexico. 

Q. Did he tell you anything about his being in ^Mexico during the 
Mexican war, and learning the national game of monte?—A. No, sir. 
That is his favorite gamej 1 know that. 1 know some of the boys told 
me that. 

Senator Hill. NeVer mind what the boys told you. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. State the coin^ersation as nearly as you can remember it.—A. He 


866 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


said lie told De Lacy about the sum of $10,000 being put there in Wash¬ 
ington in thousand dollar bills; said he saw it counted out there j but I 
don’t remember at which hotel I told De Lacy the money was j and said 
if he would stick to the affidavit he had made, they two could get $5,000 
and he would give De Lacy two and keep three himself. This would be 
done, he said, if they got tlie evidence to suit Judge Spofford. 

Q. Was there anything else?—A. Yes, sir. He said that after he 
made this money, no matter what side he makes it on, then both sides 
can go to hell, so far as he was concerned. That was the next day. I 
do not remember the day, but I see I have made a cross-mark here and 
crossed it out. 

Q. Have you had any conversation with him since that time ?—A. 
Since when; the 4th of August ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. I think I have, but my memory is not fresh on it. 

Q. Do you remember of his speaking to you or you to him about this 
matter, a day or two ago?—A. Well, I taken a drink with him, I be¬ 
lieve, yesterday, and he told me that he was going to get on the stand 
to-day. He said, “I see that you are around with those Kellogg wit¬ 
nesses, and I hope you are not going to give away anything that trans¬ 
pired between us.” And I said, ^‘Tom, you know I am all right.” Of 
course I was not going to tell anything. 

Q. What did Tom drink yesterday ?—A. I think he drank beer and I 
took whisky. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did you write that memorandum ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you write it yourself?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You said that you were working in the interest of Kellogg ?—A. 
Yes, sir; I was. 

Q. How are you employed ?—A. I am working in the custom-house. 

Q. You are emidoyed in the custom-house, are you?—A. Well, sir, I 
cannot say I am employed; I have no regular emj)loyment there. I 
worked last week. 

Q. Weren’t you trying your best to keep Tom Murray from testifying 
against Kellogg ?—A. Well, Tom Murray’s testimony is not worth much 
anyhow, but I was attemi)ting to get the testimony to show that it was 
Tom Mnrray’s object to get money out of this things 

Q. And you would not do that sort of thing yourself?—A. Ko, sir; 
I would not; I would not do anything dishonorable. 

Q. What do you know about Tom Murray?—A. I know he is a man 
who will deceive others. 

Q. Well, do you think that it is honorable and right to testify to a lie ?— 
A. Well, that would depend with me on which way it was going. It is 
right to deceive anywhere; anything in the world is honorable in 
politics. 

Q. Do you think to deceive another is honorable ?—A. I believe there 
is an honorable way to deceive a man, and I think the way I deceived 
Tom Murray is an honorable way. 

Q. Well, haven’t you been calling at Tom Murray’s house within the 
last two weeks in order to get him to testify in this case ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. When was the last time you were at his house ?—A. The day be¬ 
fore the committee came here. 

Q. Were you trying to keep him from testifying in this case ?—A. Ko. 
sir; I was not. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 867 

Q. AVliiit Avhat is for ?—A. It was to sliow up what kind of a man Tom 
]\I array was. 

And you projmsed to do that by your own testimony ; do you think 
everybody would believe you and not him A. I don’t know, sir; I 
leave the world to judge. 

Q. But, if that was your object, ^Ir. Witness, you did not take any 
witnesses and all that along with you ?—A. I think for some of it I 
have some witnesses. 

Q. Well, now look here, Mr. Witness, Avhen he told you that he 
would take $1,500 to go awaj", didn’t he tell you would go away for 
him ?—A. Xo, sir; I said 1 would see. 

Q. Didn’t you tell him you could get it by a certain day—the next 
day ?—A. He said to me, “ You go and get it; I will give you until 10 
o’clock, and if it is not gotten then, I won’t do it.” 

Q. Are you the man who had Jhirney Williams ari'ested the other 
day ?—A. No, sir; I don’t know Barnej" AVilliams. 

Q. Are you in Souer’s department in the custom-house?—A. No, sir; 
I am not in any department. I work with the laborers. 1 am in the 
storekeeper’s department, if any ; that is Antoine’s. 

Q. Was he the former lieutenant-governor?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, isn’t he in Souer’s department ?—A. Y^es, sir ; 1 suppose lie 
is, but he is appointed by the collector. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Why did you go into these negotiations with Tom Murray ? State 
your object.—A. I liave already stated that I knew Tom ^Iiirray had 
gone into this thing to make money out of it, because Tom Murray told 
me so; and, as Governor Kellogg was my Senator, and a Kepublican 
Senator, I thought 1 had a right to do this thing. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Who have you been conferring with in this matter—Governor 
Kellogg?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who with ?—A. George Norton is the only man 1 have been con¬ 
ferring with. 

Q. And Souer?—A. No, sir; 1 never spoke to him in my life. 

Q. The auditor, Johnson?—A. No, sir; he would not know me if he 
saw me, nor would I if 1 saw him. 

The witness was here dissmissed. 


TESTIxAIONY OF O. J. FLAGG. 

O. J. Flagg, called for the memorialist, sworn and examined. 

B}" Senator Hill: 

Question. Do you reside in this city?—Answer. No, sir; I claim my 
residence in the parish of Saint Charles, but I have interests here. 

Q. Do you know Francis Garrett?—A. Yes, sir. 

(J. How long have you known him ?—A. Ten or twelve years. 

(^. Do you know his general character for truth ?—A. I know him, 



868-872 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


and have known him as a gentleman. When I first knew him he was 
holding a position under the Federal Government. 

Q. Do yon know his general character ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Fi’om that knowledge wmnld you believe him in a court of justice 
on oath”?—A. Yes, sir; I would. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Y^ou say when you first knew him he was holding a position in the 
Federal Government. What position was it?—A. I think he was in 
the Freedman’s Bureau—assistant snbcommissioner. 

Q. Did you know him wdien he was in the custom-house here ?—A. I 
knew him and met him frequently and had conversations with him. 

Q. You did not know much particularly about the man, did you?—A. 
I cannot say that I am any particular confidant of his. 

Q. Have you ever had any conversation about his truthfulness ? Did 
you ever hear it talked about or discussed, or mentioned by anybody ?— 
A. I do not remember that I ever have. 

Q. What is his business now, do you know ?—A. I am not positive 
what is his business. 

Q. Has he any?—A. I don’t know, sir. 

Q. IN'ow, would you believe him in a court of justice, under oath, from 
anything you know of the man, or because you never heard his character 
discussed, or don’t know anything about it?—A. Well, sir, there would 
be various reasons why 1 would believe him: First, because his char¬ 
acter for truth and veracity has never been called in question, to my 
knowledge; and next, because he has held at least one position of trust 
and several other official positions, and I have been informed he was a 
sort of detective for one of the city or State governments. 

Q. Did you ever hear that he was dismissed from one of the govern¬ 
ment stations—a quarantine station—tor stealing the i)roperty of the 
government?—A. It occurs to me that I remember about some position 
he held and that there was some sort of difficulty, but I know nothing 
of the difficulty. 

Q. Did you ever hear that he had some difficulty in a government 
position that he occui)ied?—A. I heard it as a general rumor or piece 
of news. I may have heard it incidentally. 

Q. Did you ever hear that he was an escaped convict from the State 
of Missouri?—A. No, sir; not Missouri. I saw in a paper this morning 
some little indication that he might have been from Ohio. 

Q. Did you never hear of it before this morning ?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What you heard was something that was contained in a govern¬ 
ment clerk’s statement here yesterday ?—A. YYs, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF GEORGE GRINDLEY. 

George Grindley, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Will you please look at this statement (handing witness a 
paper) ?—Answer. Yes, sir. (The witness examined the paper.) 

O. State what, if anything, you had to do in the matter in comparing 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG, 


873 


or j)reparino; this from the official tables?—A. I made it from the offi¬ 
cial records and compared it with that and 1 found it tallied with them. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. hat record did it compare with ?—A. It was compared by por¬ 
tions of the testimony taken by the Congressional committees. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. ^\ hat did you tabulate this from ?—A. A part of it is* right here, 
sir ; in this other table. 

Senator Cameron. He has brought the figures together simply. 

Senator Vance. Is that a table showing the figures for the whole 
State.? 

Senator Cameron. Only for a portion of the State. 

Senator Vance. Of what districts ? 

TheWiTxNESS. The 12th, 18th, and 22nd senatorial districts. 

By Senator Hill. Do you know whether the sources from which you 
made it up are correct ?—A. I have no doubt of their correctness, sir. 

^ Q. You have no doubt of it; but have you simply assumed that ?—A. 
Yes, sir ; I have assumed it. I have not been to the State registrar’s 
office to verify it. 

Q. At whose instance did you do it ?—A. I do not remember the gen¬ 
tleman’s name who handed me the paper, but I think it is Governor Kel- 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. I will ask this witness if he heard a conversation between Tony 
Clark and Tom Murray on or about the 1st or 4th of August last ?—A. 
I did, sir. 

Q. State what it was.—A. It was in effect that Murray regretted very 
much that he had ever taken part in this political matter that is now 
undergoing investigation between Kellogg and Spotford, and that he 
was willing to abandon it for the sum of 81,500, and that he desired 
again to get into some sort of standing in the Republican i)arty ; thatif 
he was paid the sum of $1,500 by the Republican party, he would leave 
the State and go to Mexico, I believe, and remain there until this case 
was over, or Senator Kellogg’s term ext)ired ; that he believed Senator 
Kellogg was fairly electe<l and had bribed no one, and he was satisfied 
of it. He said that Mr. AVatson, I think, had no right to make any af¬ 
fidavit in the case. He said that he was very intimate with Mr. Cava- 
nac. Senator Jonas, Air. King, and others, and that Air. King had told 
him a few days previous that he was anxious for him to remain with 
them, and said to him that they could not win or whip this fight unless 
he did so. He said he regretted that he had ever taken any part in it. 
He said that he frequently visited Air. Cavanac’s office ; that he sat 
there and drank and smoked with them, and he wished that Clarke 
should go down there with him and see how he was treated ; that he 
wanted to impress Clarke with the confidence the Democrats placed in 
him. He said that while he was in AA^ashington, at a hotel there, ho 
had seen some $10,000 put up there to pay by some persons in the in¬ 
terest of Spotford, and this money was in thousand bills; and that he 
had told De Lacy if he would join him in securing such testimony as 
Air. Spotford desired, they could put their hands on $5,000 of this 
money, and it was theirs. As well as my recollection serves me, that was 
all of"any consequence in that conversation. He did say that some of 
the parties in the interest of Air. Spofford had purchased a set of furni¬ 
ture for $:j05, and subsequently to their departure from AA\ashington had 


•^74 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


paid the balance of $1G5, and he desired, before leaving the country, 
to leave that furniture in the care of Mr. Clark. 

Senator Cameron. That is all. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. When did this conversation take place—A. On the 4th August. 

Q. In this city?—A. Yes, sir; at a house between Dryades and the 
other street^. 

Q. Whose house was it ?—A. I do not know, sir ; but I think it is 
where Mr. Clark lives. 

Q. Did you hear the conversation ?—A. I heard the better part of it. 

Q. Where were you ?—A. In an adjoining room to Clark and Murray. 

Q. You went there to hear it purposely ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q, You were not seen by Murray ?—A. I was, sir; but not then. 

Q. Then you were a spy on him ?—A. Ko, sir; I was not a spy on 
him. 

Q. But you were to hear it secretly ?—A. That did not necessarily 
make me a spy on him. 

Q. You went there at the suggestion of Clark to hear this conversa¬ 
tion ?—A. Who told you that, sir ? 

Q. Is not that the truth?—A. !No, sir; myself and Colonel Norton had 
a conversation about it, and he asked me, as a stenographer, to go and 
take it down. 

Q. You did so ?—A. Yes, sk. 

Q. Who was it asked you to do that ?—A. Colonel Norton. 

Q. Did Clark know you were there ?—A. No, sir ; he may have done 
so, but I do not think he did. 

Q. Who was in the room with you?—A. Colonel Norton. 

Q. Well, you and Norton went there together, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Norton told you what it was to be that you were to do ?—A. He 
asked me to go. i did not know of the nature of this interview; but he 
told me to go and I went. 

Q. And you took down what neither of them asked you to do ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You were in another room from them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And were concealed from them ?—A. I do not know as I was, sir; 
I was not particularly concealed. 

Q. You knew that you were taking down a convwsation, and that 
they knew nothing of what you were doing?—A. I do not know, sir, that 
I was conscious of doing any wrong. I was there as a reporter. 

Q. You say you did not go there at the request of .Clark ?—A. I did 
not. 

Q. Did Mr. Clark know of your presence there?—A. I do not think 
he did. 

Q. Now, answer my question. Did Mr. Clark know or not know of 
your presence in that house ?—A. How did I know. 

Q. State, then, that you did or did not know.—A. I have stated that 
I think- 

Q. It is a question of knowledge and not of thought. Did he know it?— 
A. I saw Mr. Clark after the conversation was over, and talked with him 
right in his own house. 

Q. Did Mr. Clark know that you were present in his house taking 
down that conversation ?—A. That I would not swear to. 

Q. Did he know it?—A. I am inclined to believe that he did. After 
the conversation he saw me. We passed through the house and went 
into the room, and Mrs. Clark—I suppose it was her—was there and she 
saw us. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 875 

Q. Wbat did you go for, and why did you take that conversation?— 
A. Nothiiif? that I know of. I am not certain of wbat it was for. 

Q. To wborn did you give it ?—A. Wbat is that, sir ? 

Q. You said you took it down in stenographic notes.—A. Yes, sir; I 
copied them out and gave them to Norton. 

Q. George L. Norton ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was be there all the time f —A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Were you in the habit of meeting Tony Clark at bis house?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. You are a white maji, are you not?—A. Do you think I am any¬ 
thing else? 

Q. Answer my question.—A. Yes, sir; I am a white man. 

Q. Clark is a black man, is he not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Murray is a black man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is George L. Norton?—A. He is a white man. 

Q. W^hat paper are you a correspondent of?—A. I am not a corre¬ 
spondent. 

Q. Have you ever been at any time ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you been a reporter on a paper?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are not connected with any paper, then ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I am a stenographic clerk and gen¬ 
eral expert, and make a living at anything I can make an honest liv¬ 
ing at. 

Q. How long have you been here?—A. I came here with the Federal 
Army in 18G4, and, with one or two exceptions, I have never been out 
of Louisiana. A part of the time I was at General Sheridan’s headquar¬ 
ters, part of the time I was in the custom house, and part of the time in 
business on my own account. 

Q. Are you a man of family ?—A. I married here in New Orleans. 

Q. Have you a family now ?—A. I have a wife and family. 

Q. Where do you live ?—A. I reside on Second street. 

Q. What is the number of your house ?—A. The house I live in has 
no number; if it had it would be No. 22. 


TESTIMONY OF T. G. TRACY. 

T. G. Tracy, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is your business?—Answer. I am chief clerk of the 
United States mint at present. 

Q. IIow long have you been employed at that place?—A. Since the 
10th or 11th of July, 1878. 

Q. Was Thomas Murray employed in the mint at one time?—A. He 
was, sir. 

Q. Do you know the facts in regard to his dismissal from the mint ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State them.—A. He was dismissed on the representations of the 
superintendent to me. 

Q. AVas or was not a report in his case laid before the department in 
Washington ?—A. Yes, sir; there was. 

Q. About what time was the report made ?—A. It was in January. 

Q. January, 1879?—A. Yes, sir. 



876 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How long bad Murray been employed in the mint at the time of 
bis dismissal?—A. He was appointed about the 1st of July, when Su¬ 
perintendent Halm went in, and employed continuously up to the time 
of bis dismissal by Superintendent Foote. 

Q. Did you see the report which was made by the superintendent of 
the mint?—A. I wrote it, or rather copied it. 

Q. Look at this paper [handing the witness a paper].—xl. That is my 
writing, sir. 

Q. What did you copy it from?—A. From the official letter-book. 

Q. You copied it from the official letter book in the mint?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Is that a correct copy of the report made by the superintendent to 
the department in Murray^s case ?—A. It is as correct as it could be. I 
didn’t examine to see if any words might not have been left out. It was 
in answer to a letter from the Secretary to state the reasons for his dis¬ 
missal. 

Sanator Cameron. I believe I have a paper that purports to be a cor¬ 
rect copy of the report [handing a paper to Senator Hill]. 

Senator Hill. I feel called upon, for one, to tell what I think. I 
think it ought not to go on the record here. This,is a report entered by 
Murray himself, and not a full report either. It has got extracts in it, 
and the balance of it may not be important to his vindication. There 
are places in this report where there are cross-marks or stars, indicating 
that something has been left out. The report, I suppose, is in Wash¬ 
ington on file. Besides, Murray was not asked whether the statements 
in here are true or false. If you call him, and he says that they are not 
true, you can then introduce it, I think, to contradict him. It is not 
sworn to. Or if Governor Foote will say that he read it over to Murray, 
or you will read it to him, and he will either admit it or deny it, it is all 
right. 

Senator Cameron. The facts as I understand them are these: Mur¬ 
ray was employed in the mint; he was discharged or dismissed, and his 
attention was called to it to-day; and when he was questioned about the 
matter he gave the same reasons for his discharge as when he testified 
in Washington, and the reasons which he gave as true are not the same 
as those which are found in that paper. 

Senator Hill. Let me see if the foundation for that was not laid in 
Washington. That is another matter about which he gave his reasons 
there; they were not those that are in that paper; is that what you 
say? 

Senator Cameron. Yes, sir, he did. Now, the witness on the stand 
says that he copied it from the official letter book, and that it is a fair 
copy. Now, I think the evidence given in regard to this paper is suffi¬ 
cient to entitle it to be received in any court of justice where the strict¬ 
est rules of evidence are enforced. I called for Blackstone’s affidavit 
for the purpose of showing what was done in regard to that matter. A 
witness was called, Mr. Seymour, who stated that this was not the affi¬ 
davit of Blackstone, or that it was a copy of it, but he believes it 
is about the same as to the contents. Other witnesses say that Black- 
stone’s affidavit had subscribing witnesses, and names written on them; 
there are no subscribing witnesses on this paper, and the other names 
are not in full. I objected to it, but a majority of the committee over¬ 
ruled me ; and now I say I have made a better case. Then you showed on 
that paper why this paper should be admitted. Now, if that paper 
should be introduced, why not this one ? 

Senator Hill. In the first place, the paper which you propose to in- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


877 


trodnoe shows on its face that it is siniidy an extract from a report. 
AVhat may be left out may qualify the whole. We may assume that the 
whole rei)ort would have been made, and present it here, if there was 
not a pur[)ose. in excluding it. That is a thing that does not apply to the 
l)aper about Blackstone. This one has got stars on it; it shows that it is 
a part of the body of a thing; it is partial, and no court ever did, to 
my knowledge, admit a paper of that kind ; 1 never did know of a court 
doing it. If you admit a part, you must admit the whole; that you show 
is Blackstone's affidavit, but it is a substantial one. But a greater rea¬ 
son is this : the Blackstone atfidavit was not admitted to imi)each a wit¬ 
ness; it was admitted as part of evidence of bribery, and as the admis¬ 
sion of a man who was a part of that body charged with bribery and 
corruption. Now, as tlie admission of a i)arty to a crime is not of such 
a character that you are not bound to introduce the whole, that 
is all. I have said the charge is distinctly made in the memorial that 
]\rr. Kellogg paid members of the legislature money for voting for him. 
Blackstone was a member of the legislature, and the charge is that he 
was paid, and the proof is that he was ])aid; it is an admission in part of a 
crime, or a i)art of a crime, which atfects the vulidity or invalidity of 
what is here offered. This is an effort to imi)each a witness. 

Senator Cameron. No, sir; to contradict it. 

Senator Hill. Theie are two ways. Senator, as you know, to impeach 
a witness: first, to search his real character, and, second, to contradict 
him ; and you cannot do it by any other mode unless you have first 
called his attention to it and searched him about it. Sometimes you 
would contradict a true story, and when you did it, call his attention to 
the whole of it. Now, that I think, you will admit is the case, I would 
not have admitted Blackstone’s atfidavit to impeach him ; he wasn’t 
then in the cuvse. I think if you can show me where it is necessary and 
the foundation is laid, yo'u can get the ofllcial record ami introduce this 
testimony. 

Senator Cameron. I\Iy recollection is that he said to the committee 
in Washington why he was discharged, and I do not think he said 
that it was l)ecause of the reasons stated in this paper. 

Senator Hill. You can see for yourself, Senator, that it might be a 
great injustice to ^Murray; his superior otficers may give him one 
reason to show for his discharge and report another to the department. 

Senator Cameron. If he was given one reason at one place for his 
discharge, and the report was given at another, I think it ought to go for 
what it is worth. 

Senator Hill. That makes it a contradiction between him and the 
report; it only shows that one or the other may or may not be true. 

Senator Cameron. Well, I offer it, anyhow, and let it be overruled. 

Senator Vance. 1 have not spoken yet. I do not think it is legal 
testimony, but I am willing to admit it. 

Senator Hill. Let it go in. 

The paper was introduced, and is as follows : 

Extract from an official letter from Superintendent Foote of the mint to Secretary of the 

' Treasury. 

The Mint of the United States at New Orleans, La., 

Jan nary *21, 1879. 

Sir : Having been requested by you to report upon the letter of Thomas Murray, ad¬ 
dressed by him to yourself on the‘ 9th iustaut, and transmitted under your order to 
me oil the loth instant, I have now the honor to state for your consideration the fol¬ 
lowing particulars: # „ # # 

Meanwhile, some revelations had been made to me of a very painful character, seri- 


878 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


ously involving the reputation of Murray for integrity and fair dealing, and which I 
feel bound now to mention, because, as matters now stand, it seems to me that the rein¬ 
statement asked would be both unsafe and discreditable. 

The particulars to which I refer may be briefly stated as follows : About the last of 
November, 1878, a piece of writing was handed by Thomas Murray to a Mr. William 
Swann, an individual from whom considerable quantities of ice were from time to 
time i)urchased for the use of the mint. This slip, which I herewith inclose, reads 
thus : “ $35. Make your bill according to the above amount.” At that time the proper 
amount of the bill was $25. Mr. Swann was too honest to join in the attempt to 
swindle the government, and immediately made known the discreditable device to the 
then cashier of the mint, who brought the whole affair to my knowledge. 

Before I drew up this statement I summoned Murray before me for the purpose of 
explaining flis conduct in this affair, so far as it might fc)e in his power to do so. When 
he came into my presence, he confessed in presence of Swann and several other wit¬ 
nesses that he had handed to Swann the slip in question, but denying that he wrote 
what appeared on the face of the paper, and averring that in point of fact he was not 
capable of writing at all. He refused to state who had done the writing, or to make 
any further explanation of this unhappy transaction. 

# # # jf # *■ * 

I have the honor to be, &c., 

H. S. FOOTE, 

, SilverintendenL 

A true extract. 

T. G. TRACY, 

Chief Cleric, 

Senator Hill (to tbe witness). I suppose you will admit, Mr. Tracy, 
that you are a Kepublican ?—A. O, yes ] I couldn’t help that. 

Q. How long have you been in the employment of the government ?— 
A. I was in the custom house for a month before I went to the mint. 

On motion, the committee thereupon adjourned to ten o’clock Monday, 
December 1, 1879. 


New Orleans, 

Monday^ .Decemler 1, 1879.—10 o’clock a. m. 

The committee met pursuant to its order of adjournment. 

Present: All the members ; G. L. Walker, counsel for the memorialist; 
the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford; and the sitting member. Senator 
William Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. The committee will come to order. Let us have the 
first witness. 

TESTIMONY OF OTTO M..TENNISON. 

Otto ]\[. Tenntson, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Do you live in this city in the seventh ward ?—Answer. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. How long have you lived there?—A. Since 1872. 

Q. Do you know anything of any irregularities or frauds in the elec¬ 
tion in that ward in 1872 ?^A. 1 think I do. I was United States su- 
pervisor representing the Democratic party in poll No. 8 of the seventh 
ward. 

Q. State any facts that you know to the committee.—A. The names 
of the commissioners at the poll were Jaquin Berat, the Eepublicau, 
and L. Claudel, the Democratic, and myself, as United States supervisor 
for the Democrats. 



SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


879 


By Mr. Cameron (interrupting): 

Q. Wbat paper is that tliat you have got ?—A. It is a paper made out 
at the very time. We were furnished with a printed list ot the regis¬ 
tered voters in the seventh ward. On that list there were 147 names 
erased by drawing a blue or a yellow pencil-mark through them, and 
that list was certitied to us as correct by W. J. Moore, who signed him- 
selt “assistant supervisor of registration.’^ This man Moore, at that 
time, to my certain knowledge, was not a supervisor of registration; he 
was a candidate for the legislature. The voting proceeded very quietly, 
and we had no trouble between the commissioners, but there were seven 
men offering to vote whose names were erased or could not be found on 
the list, and we advised these men to go to the assistant supervisor of 
the ward and see as to their right to vote, and to take two citizens with 
them to prove that they had a right to vote. I have the names of these 
men: John Denis, a colored man and a Republican; Thomas Ford, a 
white man and a Democrat; L. Delbosse. a white man and a Democrat;. 
James McGove, a white man and a Democrat—the^’ were all white 
men and Democrats except one—Jacob Butz, a white man and a Dem¬ 
ocrat; Henry Davis, a white man and a Democrat; and Henry Grell(^e^ 
a white man and a Democrat. This man Denis, he returned in less than 
half an hour in company with Gondoln, or whatever his name was, who 
was then assistant supervisor of registration, who certitied that this 
man was a legal voter, and he voted. Mr. Claudel, the Democratic 
commissioner, and myself, the United States supervisor, then asked 
Gondolfi if he or anybody else would be at the registrar’s office in the 
ward and examine the papers, the white men and Democrats, and cor¬ 
rect any irregularities that might exist. He answered that he would be 
all round in the ward. AVe aggregately demanded an answer from him 
as to whether he would be at his office in order to enable these Demo¬ 
crats to get their papers corrected. He answered that it was not actu¬ 
ally necessary whether he should be there or not, but he would be there 
at half-past five in the evening, and he would be all round in the ward 
during the day. None of these men succeeded in tinding Mr. Gondolfi, 
and none of them voted. 

By Senator Hill; 

Q. Was Denis a Republican ?—A. He was a Republican and a colored 
man. I believe that is about all I know of what transpired. 

Q. Do you know the character of W. J. Moore for truth and veracity I' 
—A. I have heard a great deal, and I think I am. 

Q. State whether it is good or bad ?—A. His reputation is bad. 

Q. From that reputation would you believe him on oath ?—A. From 
that rei)Utatiou I would not believe him on oath, though personally I 
know nothing against him ; but only from his reputation I would not 
believe him. 

Q. Do you know the reputation of Jeremiah Blackstone?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Is that good or bad ?—xV. That is bad. 

Q. From that knowledge would you believe him on oath in a court of 
justice?—xV. No, sir, I would not, though I do not know anything per¬ 
sonally against him, but Just know him as I do the other. 

By Mr. Cameron : 

Q. Whom have you heard speak of the reputation of Moore for truth ? 
— A. Well, sir, there are so many I could not specify any particular one. 

(>. Cannot you specify any one ?—A. No, sir, I cannot. 



880 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Whom cau you specify as having spoken against Blackstoue?— 
A. I could not specify any onej I know it was generally spoken of. 

Q. Were you personally acquainted with these six white men who 
failed to vote that day ?—A. 1 was personally acquainted with L. Del* 
bosse, who lived within a hundred yards of the polling place. He was 
a blacksmith on the Gentilly road. 

Q. Was that the only one you knew?—A. Ford lived further on, on 
the Gentilly road, and one of the others, I think, Jacob Butz, worked 
at the Jockey Club. 

Q. 1 asked you if at that time you were personally acquainted with 
these men?—A. Delbosse is the only one 1 can say I was personally 
acquainted with. 

Q. Their names, you say, were not in the registration list that you had ? 
—A. I think they were on the list, but erased in this manner that I 
have explained. 

Q. Are you certain of that ?—A. One minute j some of them were not 
in the list, and some were, and had been erased. There were eight men 
altogether, one Republican and seven Democrats. Here is my memo¬ 
randum: that there were eight citizens whose names did not appear on 
the printed list, or whose names had been erased, and who were in¬ 
structed to go to the assistant supervisor’s office. 

Q. Can you tell which of those men were on and which were not ?— 
A. I could not without the list; and that list was sealed up and put 
inside the box. 

Q. Do 3'ou know of your personal knowledge whether these seven 
white men whose names you have given were legal voters at that time ? 
—A. They presented registration papers, sir; and I have no doubt 
Delbosse was. One of the others, whose face I knew, said he worked 
at the Jockey Club, and appealed to me. I said that 1 knew him and 
had known him for a long time. 

Q. That is not the question. Did you know these men were legal 
voters?—A. I knew Delbosse was, and had been for a long time. 

Q. You were the Democratic supervisor, were you ?—A. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF CHARLES J. BOATNER. 

Charles J. Boatner, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. What is your name, sir?—Answer. Charles J. Boatner. 

Q. Where do you reside?—A. I reside at present in Ouachita Parish, 
at Monroe. 

Q. Were you in New Orleans in 1876, 1877, and 1878 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What position did you occupy in those years ?—A. I was elected 
a senator from the twentieth senatorial district at the general election 
held in November, 1876, the same time that Governor Nicholls was 
elected, and I retained that position until June or July, 1878, or prob¬ 
ably it was May or June, 1878—I forget the date of my resignation. 
I resigned at the end of the second session, but I was here two sessions. 

Q. Do you know Jeremiah Blackstone ?—A. I do not know as I do. 
I met him one time. I was introduced to a man named Jeremiah Black- 
stone. 

Q. Was he a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


881 


(}. lien tliat?—A. That was (Inrinpf the session of January 

and PVbriiary, 1878 ; 1 tliink probably tlie latter part of daniiary, 1878; 
but to the best of iny rei^olleetion it was the latter jiart of that month. 

\\ hat (lid you hear him say ? IState anythinyf that you heaid him 
say in rc'^ard to this Kello«>:g eleeJion, and what he had to do with it. 
—A. Well, sir, I met iMr. Jeremiah Blaekstoiie at the olliee of Mr. Sey¬ 
mour by ap])oiutmeiit. I was at that time a member of the caucus 
committee of tlie senate to iuvestij^mte the means used by Kello*(<^ to 
vsecure his eleetiou to the Senate. By invitation and as a member of 
that committee, t met Mr. Blackstoue at Mr. Seymour’s otU(;e at ui;zht. 
In that conversation, which was had in the t)reseMceof Siieariiif;, a man 
named J)icks, and another man, Blackstoue stated to me that he had 
been paid a certain sum of money for his vote, and he "ave me the 
names of some six to ten members of the house of representatives who 
were likewise paid, to his knowledge ; that they were paid, he stated, l>y 
Mr. Souer, and that Mr. Souer was chairman of the committee on par¬ 
ochial attairs. Tliat was the statement to me, but I did not investiuate 
it. lie also stated that he was a member of a ring in the legislature to 
control the legislature until it was paid for; that Souer was execidive 
otticer of that ring, and as such had negotiated with Kellogg tor the 
votes of the senate, and it had been paid and distributed, lie said the 
members would come iu at one door and would be paid, and were then 
showed out at another. They all were paid and required to give their 
due bills for it, so that if any trouble came up about it, it was to appear 
as a loan. 1 know Mr. Blackstoue knew me, and knew my object in 
taking this testimony. The time has been so long ago that my recollec¬ 
tion has failed upon the subject. 1 took a memorandum of his state¬ 
ment, and after 1 got through 1 think I requested Mr. Seymour to draw 
u[) an atlidavit, but whether 1 told him and he drew it up, or one was 
already drawn uj), I do not know ; but that an alliidavit was drawn up 
and read to and approved by Mr. Blackstoue, I am positive. Tliat atli¬ 
davit was left in the hands of ]Mr. Sejunour for this purpose. 1 was to 
get a letter from the attorney-geueral that Blackstoue and his fellows 
should not be prosecuted, and they were to go before a committee of the 
senate and testify; and I pledged myself as a senator that the docu¬ 
ments should not be used until that was done. jMy business is sucli 
rhat although the senate raised tlie committee and made me chairman 
to investigate this matter, I (jould not do it. lAIy services were needed 
elsewhere; and iu order not to deprive the peoiile of my district of a 
reiiresentative, my resignation became necessary. That is the state¬ 
ment 1 have to make. 

Q. Blackstoue was before this committee and stated that Mr. Dicks 
answered all the questions for him in that interview: that the commit¬ 
tee propounded the (luestions, and he, Dicks, answered them, saying ho 
knew it all better than Blackstoue.—xV. That is not true, sir. 

Q. Did Blackstoue answer for himself ?—A. Yes, sir; and I particu¬ 
larly cautioned Mr. Blackstoue and stated, “ I do not want you to mako 
any statement to me that you will not stick to before a committee of the 
Senate. 1 want the facts, and do not want any statement that you will 
go back on”: and he said he would not state what he would not stick 
to before a committee of the Senate. 

Q. Did he state what amount of money Kellogg gave him ?—A. ]\ry 
impression is, it seems to me, that he was paid twice; that is my recol¬ 
lection ; that Kellogg paid him lirst, or that he njceived the money 
through Mr. Souer. 1 have it on my mind that it was >fo0() or $.>()() that 
he received ; but he gavt* me other amounts that other parties received. 

oG S K 



882 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Tliis comiminicatioii came freely from Blaclistone’s lii)S witlioiit 
any inducement of any sort ?—A. I was examing him just as you were 
examining me. I wanted to examine him and see how much his state¬ 
ments were worth. JJicks had something to say, and Spearing had 
something to say, and tliis other man, but it was about money matters. 
And in regard to these money matters 1 will state further that I told 
Mr. Blackstone that we could not afford to, and Judge Spoff'ord could 
not afford to pay a cent for any testimony ; that I, as a representative 
of the Democrats of the senate, must give him to understand that we 
could not pay any money for witnesses ; that all we were willing to pay 
were detectives’ expenses and fees to hunt the witnesses and pay for 
the testimony. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. I will call your attention to a statement from Blackstone that he 
said he was induced to believe that he was signing a paper as a wit¬ 
ness to a claim against the government; was there any deception or 
anything from whicli he could infer anything of that sort ?—A. No, sir ; 
I do not know that that affidavit has been before the committee; I do 
not know tliat it is the same that was there that night, but I can cer¬ 
tify the paper Mr. Blackstone signed is there on the table, I believe. 
My memory is not clear whether at that time Mr. Seymour did not say 
^‘1 have the affidavit already prepared,” but heread it over to Mr. Black¬ 
stone carefully, and he conceded that it embraced all the facts neces¬ 
sary to his statement. That affidavit was there, and he heard it and 
acknowledged it to be true, and that it was his affidavit. I am confident 
and positive of that, 

Q. There was no business of a government claim nature mentioned ? 
—A. No, sir; nothing but this Kellogg-Spoffbrd case. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. lie did not say, as I understand you, a word about a claim against 
the government in your presence?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You say you resigned your seat ?—A. I resigned from the senate, 
as 1 removed from the twentieth district to the Ouachita district, and 
in consequence of that 1 thought I should resign from the senate. 

By Senator CxIMERON : 

F Q. When was that committee appointed to investigate the charges 
against Senator Kellogg, as near as you can fix the date ?—A. 1 cannot 
fix the date, but 1 think it was very late in the session. 

Q. About what time did the session adjourn ?—A. The session ad¬ 
journed about the 10th of March. I think there was an extra session that 
ran over into March. The constitutional session, 1 think, ran over, and 
an extra session was called; 1 was not there; 1 was compelled to re¬ 
turn home. 

Q. Who were the members of‘ that committee ?—A. I was the chair¬ 
man, and 1 cannot tell who the other members were; I could not tell 
you, sir. 

Q. Can you tell any of them ?—A. I have an impression that this 
Colonel Zachary was one of the committee, but 1 am not positive. A 
meeting was never called together. We never met, and my recollection 
is that it was raised very late in the session. 1 know it was several 
days that I declined the chairmanship, believing that I would have to 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


883 


Q. What meiiihers of the committee were present at the time you 
speak of ?—A. That was not a senate committee, but a caucus commit¬ 
tee, and I was the only member j)resent. 

Q. Wliat sort of a caucus committee was it ?—A. It was a committee 
raised by a caucus of Democratic members. 1 was not present when 
that committee was raised. Senator Gore, Dr. Kobbins, and myself 
were not present wlien the committee was raised. 

Q. Give the names of those who were ])resent when the committee 
was raised.— A. Mr. G. II. Spearing, Mr. J>icks, Mr. Blackstone, and 
another man I cannot remember, but who was an associate of Dicks, 
and the partner of Mr. Seymour. 

Q. You say tliere was a man named George Dicks present?—A. Well, 
sir, I could not tell you whether Ids name was George Dicks or not. 
His name was called, and I know he was a claim agent. He was a 
short, heavy-set man with a round face. 

Q. Were you ever in his office ?—A. No, sir. 

il. What is Spearing’s name ?—A. G. II., I think, are his initials. • I 
think I received several notes from him signed G. II. 

Q. What was his business at that time ?—A. I do not know only as, 
he told me. I think he was a dealer in horses. 

Q. What connection did he have with the case ?—A. Nothing at all, 
sir, that I know, except that he knew in some way of these facts, and 
brought them to me addressed as a member of the caucus committee. 

Q. What connection did Dicks have with it ?—A. 1 could only infer. 
IMy notion was taken from his a])pearance. However, my notion is 
not evidence. 

Q. Gan you state what he did in your presence?—A. He did not do 
anything excei)t to sit there and listen, and occasionally put in a talk 
and explain matters. He seemed to be interested in Blackstone, and 
seemed to be a sort of friend or representative of Blackstone on that'oc¬ 
casion, so far as I could see. 

Q. You stated, 1 think', that you informed Blackstone that you would 
not pay a cent to any nnui for his testimony, but that you were willing 
to pay detectives and otliers for procuring the testimony ?—A. The way 
that came up was this: Dicks stated that these other parties had been 
bribed. One of them, I thiidc, lived in Phupiemine, and another in 
Gaddo, and another in Point Goujee; they were scattered all around, 
and they were colored representatives and Republicans, and Dicks sai(l 
it wouhi be necessary to get their allidavits, and I said we were willing 
to pay the exi)enses of ])arties who went to get this testimony. 

Q. Who were “we”?—A. I said that I would i)ay it. 

Q. Out of your own i)ocket ?—A. No, sir. It could have been raised, 
I think, by subscription, as the Democratic State conimittee would, or 
probably .Judge Spotfoid would, be willing to [)ay the liigitimateexi)enses 
for getting u[) that testimony. 

Q. Have you been a member of the legislature since the time of your 
resignation ?—A. No, sir; I have not. 

Q. Do you know whether that committee ever made any report ?—A. 
Not to my own knowledge; I Imve never seen any it made. 

(^. You have no knowledge of such a rt‘port ! —A. Ni), sir; I have 
not. I wrote a note to the governor covering my resignation, and I also 
addressed a note to the lieutenant-governor, asking him to appoint 
some good man to carry on this matt(‘r, as it was important, and he an¬ 
swered my note stating that he had apjiointed Senator Ducnis. That 
is all 1 know of it, and I know nothing since. 



884 


SPOFFORD V8 KELLOGG. 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. What is your profession ?—A. Attorney at law. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When were you subpoenaed in this case?—A. I was subpoenaed 
Friday morning. I received it at half i)ast seven o^clock. 

Q, At your residence?—A. Yes; at Monroe. 


TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL C. HEPBUBN. 

Samuel C. Hepburn, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill: 

Question. Are you living in this city ?—Answer. I am resi ing here 
now. 

Q. How long have you resided here ?—A. Three years. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Morris Marks ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Bo you know his general character for truth ?—A. A man’s repu¬ 
tation for truth can be good- 

Q. Do you know his reputation for truth in this community ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What do you say; is it good or bad ?—^A. It is bad. 

Q. From that knowledge, would you believe him on oath in a court of 
justice ?—A. I would not. 

Senator Cameron. That is all; we have no questions to ask. 


TESTIMONY OF ISHAM NICHOLES. 

IsHAM Nicholls, colored, a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. ^ 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Nicholls ?—Answer. I reside be 
tween-and Morales street. 

Q. In this city ?—A. Yes, sir, in this city. 

Q. How long have you lived here ?—A. Since 18G5. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I am a minister. 

Q. Have you a congregation ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. A paper purporting to be a copy of an affidavit made by Jeremiah 
Blackstone, but which Blackstone denies, has been introduced in evi¬ 
dence here, in which it is stated as follows ; “ William Pitt Kellogg did 
then and there give unto deponent the sum of $1,000, which sum was tc 
be used in advancing the interests, and, if possible, to secure the elec¬ 
tion, of William Pitt Kellogg to the United States Senate. This said 
sum of money was paid with that distinct and perfect understanding, 
William Pitt Kellogg stating expressly that the money was to be used 
for the purpose of electing him to the Senate of the United States-” 
and Blackstone is made to say in this paper that he paid out the money 
to several parties, among which he paid to Isham Nicholls, a politician, 
for his influence, $100; is that true or false ?—A. I never received a 
nickel from anybody in the interest of Kellogg since I knew him. Noth¬ 
ing of that kind happened. 

Senator Hill. W e have no questions. 





SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


885 


• Bj* Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Do you know anytliing of a man named Benjamin Franklin ? Do 
you know such a man ?—A. Not in my ward. I think there is a man of 
that kind in the seventh ward. 

Q. Do you know where he is ?—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Have you seen him lately f—A. No, sir ; I have not. 

Q. Do you know him as being active about the legislature, but not as 
a member of it ?—A. I never saw him acting about there. He was 
sorter like me, like the fifth wheel on a wagon, 


TESTIMONY OF JAMES COOPEE. 

James Cooper, colored, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron; 

Question. How long have you resided in New Orleans?—Answer. 
Ever since 18GG. 

Q. What connection, if any, had you with the Packard legislature in 
1877 ?—A. I was elected assistant doorkeeper. 

Q. Of what house ?—A. Of the house of representatives. 

Q. The upper or lower ?—A. Yes, sir, up stairs. 

Q. I mean of the house or the senate?—A. Of the house, I told you, 
sir. 

Q. What were your duties as assistant doorkeeper ?—xV. To let no¬ 
body in but the members, and to attend to my duties. 

Q. It was stated by one of the witnesses, Francis Garrett, that no 
persons were admitted except the Kepublican members. State officers, 
and their Iriends. What were your orders in regard to the admission 
of persons to the hall of the house of rei)resentativ^es ?—A. I received 
instructions to let all the membeis in who were returned by the return- 
ing-board, the State officers, and visitors only when they sent their card 
in. 

Q. Where were you that day that Kellogg was elected Senator?—A. 
I think it was about half past nine that I got down. 

Q. Where were you stationed that day during the session ?—A. At 
the speaker's door. 

Q. How many doors were open that day leading from the hall?—A. 
There was one. The front door was barricaded. 

Q. Then you can state whether the members could leave the hall with¬ 
out passing the door where you were?—A. No one could pass without 
my seeing them. They had to pass my door. 

Q. State whether anj^ of the members went out of the hall during the 
balloting for Senators.—A. No, sir; no member went out at all. 1 had 
strict orders from the speaker to let no member out. 

Q. It has been stated by one of the members that Milton Jones went 
out during the balloting?—A. No, sir; ho did not. He never came to 
the door during the time. 

Q. Were you acquainted with him ?—A. Y^'es, sir. 

Q. And you state positively that he didn’t go out ?— A. Yes, sir. He 
never went out at all. No member tried to get out. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Suppose a member wanted to go to the water-closet?—A. AVell, 
sir; I didn’t let him out without a commission from the speaker. 



886 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did DO one go that day ?—A.. No, sir; no one went. 

Q. And you noted the fact that none of them went to the water- 
closet?—A. No, sir; not at that time. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. You may state whether or not the legislature took a recess after 
the election of Kellogg ?—A. I believe it took a recess for an hour in 
order to go into the election of a Senator for the short term. 

Q. State if the legislature reassembled.—A. I think it did. It took 
a recess for an hour. 

Q. State if on reassembling they balloted for Senator for the short 
term.—A. I believe they did; I think Colonel Lewis and Antoine and 
others were candidates. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. ¥/here are you employed ?—A. Nowhere. 

Q. Have you ever been in the custom-house?—A. No, sir; except 
when I might get jobs on the hour-roll. 

Q. Do you get them pretty frequently?—A. No, sir. It is just like a 
lottery getting a job that way. 


TESTIMONY OF HENRY CLAY WARMOTH. 

Henry Clay Warmoth, a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron ; 

Question. Governor, you were a member, I believe, of the house of rep¬ 
resentatives of the Packard legislature, so called, in 1877 ?—Answer. 
Yes, sir; I was a member of both legislatures. 

Q. Quite a number of witnesses have testified before this committee 
that a rumor was quite general that the members of that legislature were 
bribed to vote for Mr. Kellogg as United States Senator. It has been 
stated that you were a candidate yourself and that in the joint session 
you made a speech, stating that you had concluded to vote for Kellogg 
and advising your friends to do the same. Will you please state in re¬ 
gard to the election and the rumors?—A. There were at that time, sir, 
and very frequently in use, talks and rumors ot that kind affecting the 
election of Senator. I don’t know what they grew out of, except the 
general inclination of people to talk and criticize and And fault. 1 have 
heard a rumor that money was used. I never saw anybody who said 
they had received money or knew of anybody who hail. There was a 
bitter fight for the Seuatorship, not so much on my part, although 1 was 
spoken of, but between Kellogg and Pinch back. I was a friend of 
Pinchback and supported him, and was myself called a dark horse, 
thinking maybe neither could be elected and the honors would fall on 
me. My eyes were not altogether blind to that contingency. After 
awhile the caucus met and Kellogg had a majority. I think Pinchback 
and I had about thirty members of both houses. When the contest was 
over and we came in to the joint session, I voted for Kellogg myself in 
caucus. I wanted him elected but I wanted to be in harmony with the 
l)arty. I gave my vote and recommended so to my friends, a great 
many of wdiom didn’t desire to do it. 

Q. State if any other person was voted for in the joint session except 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 887 

Kello'r.sf.—A. I think not. I think no other name was mentioned. 
Everybody voted tor Kellogj;. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. I understood you to say, governor, that you made a speech recom¬ 
mending me?—A. Yes, sir; I spoke, sir, to this effect: That as Cover- 
nor Kellogg had received the nomination of the caucus I think it was 
due to the harmony and to tiie issue to be made in Washington in the 
contest between Packard and Kicholls, that we should unite to support 
Kellogg. 

Q. iSow, in regard to the rumors, was it or was it not generally ru- 
moreil that the Democrats were using corrupt means to induce mem¬ 
bers of the Packard legislature to go over to the Nicholls legislature ?— 
A. Yes, sir; there were such rumors. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. It has been stated that there was not a quorum of the two houses 
present at the joint convention at which Mr. Kellogg was elected Senator. 
Vriiat knowledge have you about that?—A. 1 think everybody an¬ 
swered to their names. T didn’t take any special note of the list or num¬ 
ber w hen added up ; 1 do not know whether there was a quorum. There 
w’as no question raised at the time as to w hether there w'as a (tuorum ; at 
least, I heard none raised. 

By Senator IIill: 

Q. You don’t know whether there was a quorum present?—A. Ko, 
sir; 1 do not know. I took no note of it. At one time we determined 
to defeat the election of Kellogg by revolutionary means. That was the 
])lan up to the day of the election, when finding that we could not do 
that and that there w^as a quorum, it was abandoned. 

Q. How long before the election was this caucus held ?—A. I think 
the night before. 1 was not present and could not state with any cer¬ 
tainty when it occurred. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Wasn't it in the morning?—A. Really, I don’t know; I heard of 
the action of the caucus and made up my mind what I would do. 

Q. The speech you made was in the house of representatives?—A. 
Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF C. BUDREAU. 

0. Budreau, a w itness called ou behalf of the sitting member, called 
and examined. 

By Senator Cameron? 

Question. What is your name?—Answer. C. Budreau. 

Q. Where do you reside ?—A. Corner Gasquet and Franklin streets. 

(2. In this city?—A. Yes, sir; in this city. 

Q. How long have you resided here ?—A. About a year. 

(^. Where did you reside before moving here?—A. 1 resided before 
in Jlonaldsonville and lived there since my birth. 

Q. What is your business in this city ?—A. I keep a grocery store. 

Q. Do you know George A. J. Sweazie?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,). How long have you known him ?—A. For a few yeai\s. 

Q. Do you know what his general character is?—A. I think it is 
good. 



888 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. From wliat you know of his general character, would you believe 
hi n on oath in a court of justice?—A, I would, sir. 

Senator UiLL. We have no questions to ask of this witness. 


TESTIMONY OF LOUIS MARCIL. 

Louis Marcil, a witness called for the sitting member, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. What is your name?—Answer. Louis Marcil. 

Q. Do you live in this city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided here?—A. Eight years, I think. 

Q. What is your business?—A. I keep a coffee-house at the corner of 
Canal and Basin streets. 

Q. Where did you come from when you came here?—A. From Mon¬ 
treal, Canada. 

Q. Do you know George A. J. Sweazie?—A. Yes, sir; I do. 

Q. How long have you known him, sir?—A. Some four, five, or six 
years, 1 believe. 

Q. What is his character? Do you know wliat it is sufficiently to 
say ?—A. I see him four or five years, and he come to my coffee-house 
and he is all right there. 

Q. From your knowledge of his character would you believe him 
under oath in a court of justice?—A. I believe him everything that he 
say. 

Q. If he were sworn to do so do you believe he would tell the truth ? 
—A. I think he would. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do you think if he had a political interest at stake he would tell 
the truth?—A. Well, you know sometimes when a man has got liquor 
he don’t tell the truth every time. 

Q. Suppose he was very much interested in a big pile of money and 
it all depended on his oath, what then ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Do you think he would tell the truth then ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Do you think he would go a long way to support Governor Kellogg, 
if it all depended on his oath ?—A. That is a pretty hard question for 
me to answer. I don’t know that case. 

Senator Hill. Well, you may go along back to your coftee-house. 


TESTIMONY OF J. M. TOMLINSON. 

J. M. Tomlinson, a witness called for the memorialist, recalled to the 
stand and examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Have you that list (of custom-house employes) with you, Mr. 
Tomlinson ?—Answer. Yes, sir. This is the book that contains it all from 
the fall of 1815. That (indicating the place) shows the list from the 
time collector Badger took charge, and all the changes that have been 
made. 

Q. What department does this include?—A. The collector’s office. 



SPOFFORD VS. KKLLOGG. 880 

Q. Does John M. Carville appear in this list?—x\. Ilis name should 
appear in the index there. 

Q. It is correct then. I see the name “John ]\r. Carville, fees, per 
12 mo., 83 p. d.”—what is that ?—A. That is “ per diem.” 

Q. (keading.) “Where born—Wisconsin; occupation—merchant; 
api)ointment. May 10th ; suspended, July 5th, 1870.” That entry then 
is correct?—A. Yes, sir; all but the pay ; but all those entries can be 
veritied by the pay-rolls, which you have had. 

Q. When are the entries put in that book?—xV. Every week I think 
they are posted. 

Q. Do you know whether any have been posted since you were sum¬ 
moned ?—A. Possibly the last four or five on the book there. 

Q. John Parrow ; 1 see he is apiminted here November 22d—that is 
since the meeting of this committee; and is night inspector, 82.50 per 
day; born in xVlabama, and is a laborer by occupation. Is he still 
there ?— A. Yes, sir; I presume he is. 

Q. Did you enter this name, “ John Parrow,” yourself?—xV. No, sir ; 
my assistant in the ofiice did it. 

Q. Hasn’t a copy of this roll been made out ?—xV. No, sir; that is the 
original. 

AVe had a copy made of something of che sort?—A. That was 
made out from Bloomfield’s rolls. 1 furnish him a list and the auditor 
pays from that, and it should corres()ond with this. 

Q. Is this what is called the post-roll?—xV. No, sir; that is the list 
of enn)loyes. What we call the post-roll is the roll you had before you 
from Mr. Ploomtield’s ofiice, and he told me that it has been returned 
to him. 

Q. Does this include the warehouse roll ?—xV. No, sir; that is on the 
post-roll. 

Q. Wliat other rolls have you ?—A. We have the revenue-cutter, ma¬ 
rine, hosi)ital, and custom department. 

Py Senator Cameron : 

(^. Do you know Francis Garrett ?—A. I know of him. 

Q. Was he at one time employed in the custom de[)artment ?—xV. As 
inspector; yes, sir. 

Q. I ask you if those papers came from the files of the collector’s ofiice 
(handing witness a batch of papers)?—xV. Yes, sir; they were found by 
me on the files of the special agent. 

Senator CAMERON. (To the Chairman.) These are copies, Air. Chair¬ 
man, of the charges made against Garret and the testimony to support 
them, and the report made on them by the special agent. I i)ropose to 
ofi(*r them in evidence. 

Mr. Walker (counsel for the memorialist). If that is to be done. Air. 
Chairman, I shall object, as we might go on in that way to pile this 
record mountain high. If they want to imi)each the witness in this 
way, they might bring in a long record belonging to a law case with 
voluminous records of a cliaucery suit, proving unfair dealings and 
fraud on the part of this man Garrett, and to discredit his testimony; 
that would lead to something on the other hand to explain it; it would 
take time and encumber the record. I do not think it is even compe¬ 
tent to introduce a record in a criminal i)roceeding except it be a copy 
of a combination. 

Senator Hill. This is an original record ? 

Senator (’ameron. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. Which is now oliered to go into the record of this in- 


890 


SPOFFORD ys. KELLOGa. 


vestigatioii, to show that Mr. Garrett was a])pointe(l an inspector, that 
charges were made against him and the charges investigated, and upon 
that investigation the charges were found true, and upon that lie was 
discharged. I say frankly, as I have said before, that a record is not 
admissible to impeach a witness. There are two ways in which you can 
impeach a witness: one, by attacking his general character, and an¬ 
other, by contradictory statements introduced against him. [Row, if he 
had denied that he was dismissed, then it would have been admissible 
to show that he had admitted the fact; just the other way there might 
be an unlimited amount of evidence of this kind ; but he might come in 
on the other hand and say that there was a combination against him 
and all that. Senator Cameron knows why the rule has been fixed and 
the question settled under which it becomes competent to impeach a 
witness. . To go into the specific introduction of all these things would 
make an unlimited record. I think it is legitimate for the witness to 
say that he was dismissed and under charges 5 besides, you cannot in¬ 
troduce the original record, because it cannot be taken from the cus¬ 
tom-house. But you see you can only impeach the witness by the two 
modes emphatically stated. 1 think as an affirmative proposition you 
cannot introduce.it. 

Senator Kellogg. There is an act of Congress which authorizes the 
appointment of a certain number of special agents to investigate the 
custom house, and any petty offenses are referred to them, and their 
decision is final when apjiroved by the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Mr. Walker. That information on which these charges are based 
was received from other parties, and I might have to send to Missouri, 
Kansas, or Cincinnati to get the testimony to show, that they made a 
mistake or were in error. 

Senator Cameron. I think I shall be satisfied with the ruling of the 
chairman. 

Senator Hill. Go on, then. 

Senator Cameron. (To the witness.) You stated that this mao Gar¬ 
rett was appointed an inspector, that charges w’ere prefered against him, 
and that those charges were investigated, and that he was found guilty 
on them and dismissed. 

A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Vanoe : 

Q. What year was that in ?—A. In 1872. 

At this point the committee took a recess until 1.30 p. m. 


The committee reassembled in pursuance to its order taking therecess, 
and the examination of witnesses was resumed. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD J. EWART. 

Edward J. Ewart, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. How long have you resided in New Orleans Answer. 
Twelve years, sir. 

Q. Were you here in 1878 !—A. Yes, sir. 



SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 891 

Q. i)o you know a man by tlie name of Jermiali J^laekstone ? —A. 
Yes, sir. 

Do yon know anything of Mr. lilackstone ?—A. I do, sir. 

Q- Do yon know any thing ol'his making an allidavit '! —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In relation to the election of Kellogg as Senator ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If so, i)lease state what he said on this subject.—A. I have got the 
allidavit in my possession. 

Q. The original allidavit ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q- Ket ns have it. We have been awaiting for that some time. 

The witness produced apaper which was handed to Senator Hill. (Sen¬ 
ator Hill and Senator Cameron compared the two pai)ers, the original 
with the copy delivered to the committee by W. IJ. Seymour, a former 
witness.) 

I>y Senator Hill : 

Q. Kow state what yon know about that allidavit.—A. ]\Ir. Dicks 
was my collector and Blackstone had gone frequently to Mr. Dicks’s of¬ 
fice, and 1 met ^Ir. Blackstone there nearly every day, and iMr. Dicks 
introduced him to me as Senator Blackstone. 1 met him everyday that 
1 come there. He did not introduce him any more than tlmt, ami theii 
he was come to me and talk about some allidavit, and 1 told him 1 don’t 
know anything about these alTairs, and I have nothing to do with them ^ 
and one da}' j\Ir. Dicks and i\Ir. Blackstone came up to my house and 
said for me to come and go with them, as they have some business with 
regard to an allidavit to get Kellogg out of the United States Senate, 
and 1 said that my business wouldn’t let me go, and they came after me 
three times, and 1 didn’t go. And then Mr. Dicks he got drunk with 
liquor, and he had these aftidavits of Blackstone and Milon. And Black¬ 
stone came to my house and took a converse with me about this atli- 
davit of Blackstone. One day he come down to me and said Dicks was 
intoxicated, and 1 took the allidavit from him, and I said all right, I 
have nothing to do with it; and he come three times, and he said he 
would come and give the papers at Seymour’s office. 1 thought maybe 
they would be valuable to me and I will take them. I went and 1 said 
I would meet him outside. And when I got there Mr. Blackstone was 
outside, and I went u[)to Mr. Seymour’s ollice, and he, Blackstone, wanted 
a hnndied dollars for those papers, and he wanted itfrom me; and I said 
no, I didn’t want them; that they had no value to me. And 1 started oil* 
and he said he was going up to a camp and 1 am liable to get a situation, 
and if you can let me have, or rather lend me, lifty dollars 1 can get a 
situation. And 1 said no, I wouldn’t do it. If you make my security 
then J (;an lend you something. I will; and he showed me a pai>er that 
he could get money from some church matter every month; and I said, 
if you give me something so I can get tiie money w hen 3 ’ou get the situ¬ 
ation, 1 will doit, and he said, all right. And 1 gave him this money and 
he gave me these ])apers. 

Q. Do you know' Blackstone ?—A. Yes, sir, I know' him ; he come there 
to my house, and 1 didn’t know' that he was going to Washington. 1 
didn’t know' that. He hung around my place, but I didn’t let colored 
people do it, and he called me out from 1113 ’ jilace, but I .didn't know’ ho 
was going to Washington until I read it in the paper. 

Q. 8 |)eaking of this ])aper, Blackstone, betbre this committee, used 
about this language: “That so far as I am concerned, I never saw that 
I)aper before. 1 will state the facts so far as I know’ them. 1 saw the 
paper in the hands of Mr. Ewart down town, and he asked me if 1 knew" 
it and show’ed me the signature, and I said 1 knew' the signature. Ewart 


892 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


got the paper from Dicks. Dicks got a one btiiulred and seventy dol¬ 
lars from Ewart for it. He asked me if I was a member of a ring in 
the Packard legislature.” Is that so ?—A. I deny it. 1 went and got 
the paper one day from Blackstone. He runs to me three days to get 
me to take it, and J would not. Mr. Seymour was there. Mr. Seymour 
was sitting here, and I was there, and he pulled the affidavit out of his 
pocket and gave it to me. He bothered me three days, and I didn’t 
want to have anything to do with it, and he bothered me so much I did 
go u}) there on account of Mr. Seymour. 

Q. AVhat is Jeremiah Blackstone’s character—you know the man ?— 
A. I know his character so far as I have heard it. He carries a ver^^ 
bad character. 

Q. From that character, as you know it, would you believe him on 
oath in a court of justice f—A. No, sir, 1 wouldn’t do that. 1 ain’t for¬ 
got what he done since Dicks’s disappearance. 1 lost four or tive hun¬ 
dred dollars nearly on account of him. He would be here. He acknowl¬ 
edged to me, Blackstone did, that he signed that paper. 

Q. He acknowledged this affidavit to be his?—A. Yes, sir, he gave 
it to me himself. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. How much money does Dicks owe you ?—A. He don’t owe me; he 
swindled me. 

Q. How much did he swindle you?—A. Between five and six hun¬ 
dred dollars, by collecting my money and keeping it. 

Q. AVhen did you last see Dicks ?—A. Not since he went to Wash¬ 
ington ? 

. Q. When did he go?—A. He went on the Potter committee a year 
ago last summer. 

Q. Did he go as a witness?—A. Y"es, sir; that’s what he told me. 

Q. AVhat have you done with the other afiidavit that you say Black¬ 
stone gave you ?—A. I turned it over to the committee. 

Q. Idiat was an afiidavit, too, wasn’t it ?—A. I never read it any more 
‘than I did that. 1 kept them, i)ut them away, and kept them on. 

Q. AVho did you deliver them to ?—A. To some gentleman, I think 
it was some attorney. If I ain’t mistaken, I think it was Mr. Seymour. 

Q. Did he want to get Blackstone's affidavit, too ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How did he get the other?—A. I had the two of them; and I 
gave it to them. 

Q. That was the Milon affidavit.?—A. I cannot tell you. 

Q. Fix the time as near as you can ?—A. It was two or three weeks 
ago. 

Q. Did Seymour tell you what he wanted with it ?—A. He said he 
wanted to see Milon about it. 

Q. When did you receive these affidavits?—A. It was somewheres— 
well, I could not tell you the time. 

Q. Y^ou may state about what time?—A. It was last year, or rather 
the beginning of 1879, or in 1878. I ain’t sure. I never kept no time. 

Q. It was given you before Dicks went to AVashiugton ?—A. About 
the last time he got intoxicated very bad, and that is the reason Black¬ 
stone took the papers away from him in his office. It was in June, or 
sometime before, in 1878. I ain’t sure when. 

Q. AVho was present at the time Blackstone gave you the affidavits? 
—A. Seymour. It was in his office. 

Q. Blackstone gave them to you in his, Seymour’s, office ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


893 


Q. You and Seymour and Blackstoiie were present ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,). Any one else ?—A. Not as I recollect. 

(^). Has any one ever asked you for that aflidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(>). Who was it f—A. Mr. S[)earin^. 

AVhen did Spearing ask you for it ?—A. lie asked me twice. 

(,). When ?—A. It was sometime last spring. 

Q. AVhy didn’t you give it to him ?—A. I did. 

(}. When did he return it to you ?—A. I never kept any time of it. 

i). Yes, you can tell wliat time it wasf—A. No, sir; F cannot. 

Dow long did he keep it—A. He might have kei)t it a week, or 
not so long. I have my own business to attend to. 

Who asked for it again 1 —A. Nobody. 

(,>. You have just said that another gentleman did ?—A. Mr. Spearing 
asked for it twice. 

(^. When was the last time ?—A. About a week ago. 

(}. Did he come to your place, or where if—A. No, sir ; it was in Sey¬ 
mour’s otfi(!e. 

(}. At whose request did you go there?—A. jMy own. 

(^. What for ?—A. I had some business about cotton. 

Q. Did you have any obj<^ct in going there other than that ?—A. I do 
not know ; I just went, and he came in. 

Q. Did Seymour ask for him or send out after him ?—A. I do not 
know, sir. 

Q. What did he say ? Did he ask you if you had that aflidavit yet ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Did you have it ?—A. A>s, sir. 

Q. Did you carry it along with you?—A. Yes, sir; sometimes I take 
my book out of the safe and put it in my pocket. It was full of papers, 
and I think it was among them with me that day. 

(>. Do you always carry it ?—A. No, sir; but very often I have it. 
Otherwise it would not be so dirty; if I let it lay in the sate it would be 
clean. 1 do not know about that. 

Q. AVhat is your business '! —A. I keep a bar-room, and work from 
morning until night. 

(}. How long did he keep it when he got it ?—A. Not long. 1 de¬ 
manded it back again. ' * 

Q. What did vou want it for?—A. I thought it might become valua¬ 
ble. 

How ?—A. For ])olitical affairs. 

’ i}. From whom did you exjiect to get any money from it ?—A. I ex¬ 
pected no money. 

Q. What did you expect it to be valuable for?—A. I think it will be 
valuable to me by making me friends. 

How ?—A. 1 thought that a man with it would be published and 
be advertised in the papers. 

Q. Is that what you swear now ?—A. 1 do not swear to it now. I 
think that is my present oiiinion. 

Q. That is your opinion, then ?—A. Yes, sir; T think that was the way 
I thought of it, and 1 would not give up anything iu my possession, not 
even a five cents. 

Q. But this is not a five cents ?—A. Ft was mine. 

(,). Why do you want to give this up ?—A. Because I would not give 
it up if F thought it would be of any value to me. 

(^. But you gave iq) Milon’s affidavit ?—A. AYs; it was mine ; it was 
given to me at the same time, and I would give this up, too. I de¬ 
manded the other back, and they said it had gone before the commit¬ 
tee, and 1 would have done the same with this one. 


894 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


TESTIMONY OF D. S. GOSTER. 

D. S. Goster, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. What is your occupation?—Answer. I am a detective on 
the Orescent City police force. 

Q. Do you know a colored man named A. E. Milon ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know him when you saw him ?—A. Yes, sir j I did. 

Q. Do you know Jeremiah Blackstone?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State whether you ever saw" these men at Mr. Seymour’s office, and 
whether you know them to be the men.—A. 1 never saw Mr. Milon 
there, but I saw Blackstone. 

Q. You never saw Milon there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know what Blackstone’s character is; whether good or 
bad? I speak now of his general character?—A. No; I do not know 
much about the man. I know as to his character; but I never seen him 
until about- 

Q. Do you know what his business was np at Mr. Seymour’s office?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was it?—A. It was concerning the investigation into Kel¬ 
logg’s election to the United States Senate. 

Q. Do you know" of Milon’s going there at all?—A. No, sir; I do 
not. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Milon about his affidavit 
on the subject of Kellogg’s election?—A, Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. VY^hat did he say?—A. He said to me that he had received $500 
from Louis Souer at the corner of Liberty and Canal streets to vote for 
Kellogg for United States Senator. 

Q. He told you that himself; that he was a member of the house of 
representatives. Now, when did he tell you ?—A. It is nearly two years 
ago; in January, 1878, I think. 

Q. Did you ever hear Blackstone say anything about whether he had 
received anything?—A. Yes, sir; I have. 

Q. What did he say?—A. I have heard him say something about it. 
I never heard him say how much he received ; but I paid not very much 
attention to it, because he was talking to other parties at the time, and 
I supposed they w"ould take it dow"n in wr iting. 

By Senator Cameron; 

Q. When were you employed to work up testimony in this case ?—A. 
About two years ago, or a little more. 

Q. By whom were you emploved ?—A. By Mr. Spearing. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I am a detective on the Crescent City 
police force. 

Q. What was your business two years ago, when Mr. Spearing em¬ 
ployed you ?—A. I do not believe I was a detective then. I was not in 
any business. 

Q. What business do you say you were in w"hen Spearing employed 
you ?—A. I was in no business. 

Q. How long had you been out at that time ?—A. I cannot remember ; 
but a little while. 

Q. What instructions did you get from Spearing in regard to what he 
desired you to do ?—A. I was instructed to find out what I could about 
Kellogg’s election. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 895 

( 2 . ^\ lieu dill you first speak to INIilou in regard to the matter ?—A. 
About two years ago; it is not fjuite two years ago now. 

(»>. ^Vhere did you see him ?—A. At the corner of Exchange alley 
and Saint Louis street. 

Q. flow many times did you talk to him on the subject ?—A. Several 
times. 

(^. Now, give the first conversation 3011 had with Milou and j’our- 
self.—A. I have stated it. 

Q. You may state it again, sir.—A. Milou stated that he had received 
851)0 from Louis Souer for his vote as a member of the house of repre¬ 
sentatives to vote for Kellogg for United States Senator. 

Q. Is that all ?—A. That is the substance of it. 

(c>. I want the balance of it.—A. I cannot remember all the balance 
of It. There may have been something else. 

(*). I know there may have been something, and I ask you what it is ? 
—A. I cannot tell you. 

Q. Then that is all you remember of it ?—A. That is the substance 
of what f remember of it. 

Q. That is all that you can now state ?—x\. \>s, sir. 

(^. Did 3 ’ou have another conversation with him on the subject ?—A. 
Well, sir; the last one 1 remember was last Saturday. 

Q. Yes; but 1 ask jaiu about the seiaind one?—A. I met him several 
times after that first one, and he said, ‘‘ When are you going to do that ?’’ 
1 said, “It is not time yet.'’ 

Q. What inducement did you hold out to him ?—A. I held out none 
at all. 

Q. How did he come to tell .vou about it ?—A. lie was induced to 
come and see me by Dicks. 

Q. Where to ?—A. To the corner of Exchange alle^^ and Saint Louis 
st reet. 

Q. Was Dicks jiresent all the time?—A. I think nearly all the time. 

i}. How long did the conversation last?—A. I c.aunot tell you. 

(). Give me some idea.—A. Well, sir; a little while. 

Q. About how long?—A. Not more tlian an hour. 

(}. In your ollice ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(). No more than an hour, yon say ?—A. No, sir. 

(L And you have stated all the conversation that took place at that 
time that you can now remember ?—A. The substance of them ; yes, sir. 

(L How much have you been paid for your services in the matter ?— 
A. Nothing at all. 

(^). What did Siiearing agree to pa^' you ?—A. He didn’t agree to pay 
me anything. 

(^. What was your object, then, in engaging in the business ?—A. 
The object was to imt Kellogg out of the United States Senate and to 
help do it. 

Q. How much time have you given to it ?—A. I can’t say how much 
time. 

i}. Have you been engaged in it ever since Spearing engaged you 
two years ago ?—A. No, sir. 

(^. How niuch, then ; can you estimate ?—A. I siijiiiose I should saj’ 
two or three months. I suptiose 1 can sa.v that mnc.h certainl.v. 

Q. Fix the time as near as you can.—A. 1 cannot say. I was attend¬ 
ing to other business at the same time. 

(i. Wlien did you last devote any time to it ?—A. Last Saturday. 

Q. When did yon prior to that time ?—A. Not ipiite two years ago. 

(,). Then do you mean to say that you devoteil some time to it two 


896 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


years ago and then dropped the whole thing until last Saturday ?—A. 
A^es, sir. 

Q. Didn’t you desire in the mean time to get Kellogg out ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; certainly I did, sir. 

Q. Why didn’t you devote more time to it?—A. O, well, I could 
not get him out by myself. 

Q. O, well, you and Spearing and Dicks might have done so ?—A. 
Yes, sir; we might if we had devoted the right amount of time and 
attention to it. 

Q. That is your opinion ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you first talk to Dicks about engaging in this detective 
business ?—A. About two years ago. 

.jf Q. Did you call on him or he on you ?—A. I called on him. 

Q. At whose request did you call on him ?—A. I cannot say that it 
was at anybody’s request. I think I called on him at my own request. 

Q. How did you know that Dicks had anything to do with it?—A. 
Well, I had been in his office before and I knew he was acquainted with 
Milon. 

Q. Is that the reason you went to call on him ?—A. That was the rea¬ 
son. 1 knew he was in the habit of doing business with such men. 

Q. How much did Dicks agree to pay you ?—A. Dicks didn’t agree to 
pay me anything. 

Q. Has any person agreed to pay you anything for your services?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. A^ou do not expect to get anything for it?—A. Yo, sir; I do not. 

Q. Did you at any time?—A. If I followed up the case, I expected to 
be paid for my services as a detective. 

Q. Did you ever talk to Judge Spofford about it?—A. Ko, sir; I never 
did. 

Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Walker?—A. About what? 

Q. About getting up this testimony.—A. No, sir; but he talked to me 
about my testimony. 

Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Cavauac?—A. I do not know whether I 
have or not. 

Q. Don’t you know whether, as a matter of fact, you have talked to 
him or not?—A. Yes, sir. Mr. Oavanac spoke to me one time about 
something about Milon. It was not very long, however; but it is a mo¬ 
mentary conversation. 

Q. When did Gavanac talk to you—some time this year ?—A. ])uring 
last summer. 

Q. What did he say ?—A. He said something about Milon and his affi¬ 
davit; it was in a street car, and w^e didn’t talk long about it. 

Q. Did you see Milon sign the affidavit?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You said, I believe, Mr. Witness, that you are now emploj’ed as a 
detective?—A. Yes, sir; I am. I am what is termed an aid to the chief, 
but just as a detective. 

Q. What salary do you get?—A. SlOO per month. 

Q. How long have you occupied that position ?—A. The position is aid 
to the chief of police, pretty nearly a year. 

Q. How long have you been employed on the police?—A. Two years. 
I will complete the last twelve months this month. 

Q. What position did you occupy before you got this place which you 
now have ?—A. As patrolman, detailed as special officer and detective. 


SPOPFORD VS. KELLOGG 897 

TESTIMONY OF J. B. WANDS. 

J. B. Wands, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, sworn 
and examined. i 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Look at that paper and state if you ever saw that paper 
before.—Answer. Yes, sir; I hav<^ seen that paper. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What did you say your name was?—A. J. B. Wands. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Did you see McGloire sign that paper?—A. Yes, sir; I seen him 
sign it. 

Q. Where ?—A. In the office of the clerk of the United States district 
court. 

Q. Did you read it to him?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Before he signed it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it sworn to by him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Before whom ?—A. Mr. Wooltley, clerk of the United States circuit 
court. 

Q. Did he understand the contents?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Walker. 1 object, Mr. Chairman, to the affidavit going in evi¬ 
dence whicli the witness is testifying about. 

Senator Kellogg stated how the affidavit came to be made. 

Senator Hill. That may be true, but it is not evidence in this case. 

Senator Cameron. We have some here in thecase already made under 
the same circumstances, one by Franklin, who is not a member of the 
legislature, and one by Kelley, not a member of the legislature, intro¬ 
duced by Mr. Seymour, I think, and Mr. Seymour testified that these 
men made affidavits before him, or some party authorized to receive 
affidavits, and they were admitted in evidence. 

Senator Dill. 1 can only think that they were admitted to contradict 
Blackstone. 

Senator Cameron. He was not in the case then, was he? 

Senator Hill. 1 said I would admit the affidavits of parties who were 
parties to corruption, and those affidavits only are admissible. 

Senator Cameron. I move, then, to rule them out. 

Senator Hill. I think they ought to be if they are outside parties 
and were at the time. 

Senator Cameron. I move, then, to strike them from the records, the 
affidavits of Kelley and Franklin. 

Senator Hill. Strike them out, Mr. Stenographer, all the affidavits, 
those of Benjamin Franklin and James Kelley. 

The objection to the affidavit of Pierre McGloire was thereupon sus¬ 
tained. 


TESTIMONY QF JOHN GARRICK. 

John Car rick, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Question. Where do you live?—Answer. 1 live on Mandeville street, 
No. 30. 

Q. In this city?—A. Yes, sir. 

57 s K 



sds 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How lou^? have 3 011 lived there!—A. I am living there thirty years, 
since I came to this country. I arrived here in 1849—I think it was 
March, 1849. . 

Q. Do you know William J. Moor^^ !—A. Yes, sir j I got acquainted 
with him," but 1 did not keep it in niy memory, as to the year when I 
got acquainted with him. 

Q. Do you know his general character as a man!—A. I know nothing 
of the man except as I do of any good citizen of mine. 1 only respected 
him as an honest man. From my knowledge of him, I believe in my¬ 
self, he is an honest man. 

Q. From his character, would you believe him on oath in a court of 
Justice !—A. Y( S, sir. 

Q. To which political party do you belong!—A. To which political 
jparty do I belong ! 1 voted sometimes for Republicans and sometimes 

Yor Democrats. The best of my opinion is, the Republican party is the 
better for my laboring class of people. 


TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS GARRETT. 

Francis Garrett, a witness called for the memorialist, recalled to 
the stand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. I understand, Mr. Garrett, that you were dismissed from 
the custom house. You are at libertyito make any statement that you 
see proper about that.—A. In 1872, 1 was tlien an officer at the quar- 
-antine station. At that station there was a wharf. It being a quar¬ 
antine station, I understood from the authorities at the custom house 
that it had been condemned lor twelve or thirteen years. Dr. Baldwin, 
who was the quarantine officer there, came often to my wharf and ridi¬ 
culed me for having a wharf that a man could not get out of a boat 
on without endangering his life. I concluded that it ought to be torn 
down, and I tirst came to the custom-house to make application to the 
deputy collector, Chamblin, who stated that 1 could go and destroy the 
wharf, provided I did not incur any expense on account of the govern- 
Tnent. I did not think that was sufficient, and I went to the office of 
the superintendent of the warehouse, thinking it might come under his 
department. Mr. Joseph Herwigg was that officer, and 1 asked his 
permission. He said that, so far as he was concerned, he had no objec¬ 
tion, but he thought Mr. Ghamblin’s order was sufficient. I went back 
to the station and examined the wharf, and found it rotten, and planks 
sticking up, and drift-wood piled up against it, and that it was really 
dangerous for a man to land there from a boat in the night, and go 
across the levee. I did not care about taking the money trom my own 
pocket to pay for the destruction of the wharf, so I hired a man to chop 
it up, and take the worthless stuff ani], debris, and pile it up, and burn 
it; and the good plank were put up to^make a walk to the station for 
me to use ; and the bad wood I would sell to some steamer, and use the 
money I got to pay them for their work. This was done, and a while 
after it was completed 1 got notice of y-harges against me of destroying 
the property of the government and another charge of misappropriating 
some bonds and sixty-five dollars in money for me to purchase a boat 
with. I made answer to the department that I had endeavored to buy 
a boat as instructed, but I failed to find one that I thought was credit- 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


899 


able to the j^overmneiit, for sixty-fiv'e dollars. And 1 purchased what 
was called a “ Whitehall” boat, used by pilots to board vessels going 
out to sea. I thought that was sufficient, but I heard from some friends 
that there was a job being i)ut u>p on me in the custom-house, and I 
went to the surveyor’s office to find out about it. I learned that it was 
the case, and from who, and about what it originated. It seems there 
was a man in the office named Curry, with Mr. Boothby, who was a sur¬ 
veyor, and there was a large forgt'i’y case in Mississippi, of a half a mil¬ 
lion of bonds, wherein this man tigured conspicuously. There was a 
man sent to the quarantine station bearing a note to me stating that 
“This man desires to board some vessel from New York. You will 
please give him all the accommodation you can.” I said to the gentle¬ 
man, “ Who are you ? There is no name in this note.” And he gave 
me some name, I don’t remember now' what. 1 asked him what he 
w'anted to board the vessel for, and he said, to see some friends. I asked 
him if he w’as a gov’ernment officer, and he said he w'as ; and he shouted 
me that he had transportation from this place—from the surveyor’s 
office—to the station and back ; and, as it looked suspicious, I said to 
him that he could not board the vessel, or any other of my boats, unless 
I was satisfied that he was an officer. A vessel passed up, and there 
w^as a party in it with the bonds from New' York and ]\Ii.«sissippi, forged 
bonds; and it got into the hands of the police here, and this party w'ho 
came to the station with the balance of them w'ere arrested. It seems 
Mr. Currie was one of the iirominent figures in it and the (piestion hung 
fire, and a man named Captain Hull, then acting as special otiicer under 
the governor of ^lississippi, had Currie taken to Mississippi, and 
Currie by giving away the whole case as it stood wars allow'cd to go 
free. I ascertained tliis fact from ^Ir. Hull himself, wdio wais after¬ 
wards engaged in the secret service of the government. That is what 
I learned was the reason of my being in bad standing in the surveyor’s 
office, and Currie had a good deal'of pow er there. James Ingraham was 
surveyor and he was an enemy of mine, and there w^ere charges against 
him here in the city while he was a school director—that he used improper 
means to have teachers apiiointed ; and the information came princi¬ 
pally from me. I w as questioned by ^Ir. Ingraham about it and I stated, 
when I was questioned, and told w'hat I knew about it as to his having 
teachers appointed by bribery and other things. When these charges 
were brought against me I said that I tore up the wdiarf, as it had been 
condemned by the government, and the other charges w’ere not true. 
They sent a special agent dowui there by the name of Davies, an old gen¬ 
tleman. He come and told what his business was and I gave him my 
desk and told him I w’ould afford him all the facilities in my iiow’er to 
investigate the charges. He went to w’ork and what he done I have 
not the slightest knowledge. I concerned myself not much then about 
them up to the time he had concluded his investigation. He then came 
to me and took me to one side and said I haveconcluded niy investigation. 
“Do you know^ what the pow’er of a special is?” I said, “ I suppose he 
has power to make an investigatipn.” He said, “ Yes, sir. Mr. Garrett 
I suppose you are a man of meilns, and you are drawing money from 
your i)lace in Mississippi. I desire to go home when I put in this 
report. I desire to go home to Indiana, and if you w’ill lend me 8250 
I will shape my report so that aiothing more will be said about it, but 
if I make a report damaging to you, you w'ill be dismissed the service 
and never get back again.” I asked Daviesifthis is not, “between 3 ’ouand 
me, a trick to catch me in some w ay.” He said no, not so far as ho w'as con¬ 
cerned, and I said, “ No, I cannot give you 8250, because I am afraid you 



900 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


will return to the city and say that I have atten)pted to bribe you.” He 
returned to the city, and I said no more about it and heard no more 
about it until two weeks afterwards when I came to the city to draw my 
two months’ pay, and Mr. Herwig galled me into his office and said, 
“There is a report made here very damaging to you, and if I were you 
I would resign,” and I said, “ It that is so and these men are determined 
to put me out they can do it,” and J. said tlien “Under your advice I 
will write my resignation,” and I did it and I went to my post of duty, 
and when I returned to the city to show you how they treated me they 
kept part of my pay, and kept the boat and made me refund the money, 
and all I got out of the two mouths’ pay was 60 or 70 dollars, and I was 
drawing $120 per mouth. Mr. Kinsella the special Treasury agent was 
all the time an enemy of mine, and I tried to get him to give me a full and 
fair investigation and hearing which he refused. Mr. Kinsella refused 
all the time to let me have it, and 1 wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury 
on two occasions and asked and challenged a full and fair investigation 
before any officers. Treasury agents, or others who might be appointed 
to make it, and said that I would prove that it was a thorough-bred job 
put up on me and that I had committed no crime unless it was the 
crime of destroying the old wharf that was of no good and tumbled 
down with rotten and drift wood. There is a gentleman in this room 
who was in the quarantine station at the time, that is Dr. White, who 
can testify that it is true, and I even now challenge an investigation of 
the facts. Let them take au^* man they please to investigate that matter. 

Senator Hill. That will do, Mr. Garrett, there is no use getting ex¬ 
cited over it. 

The Witness. I would like to state, if the committee will allow me, 
that I read in the day before yesterday’s newspaper—I have read the 
names of parties attempting to impeach my testimony, and upon that I 
would like to have some explanation. 

Senator Cameron. Is that admissible 1 

Senator Hill. I do not know what the witness wants to state, unless 
it is to deny some fact that they stated. Mr. Garrett, it is not compe¬ 
tent for you to make any explanation on the subject of impeachment, 
for that is the opinion of the witnesses. Unless the witness has stated 
some matter of fact which is either not true, or has sworn falsely, it is 
not necessary for you to make any explanation of it. 

The Witness. I don’t know of any facts, but I suppose a man has a 
right to swear to any opinion he pleases. I am satisfied with that. I 
must say that I am scarcely acquainted with Mr. Fitzpatrick, and have 
had no dealings with him in any shape or form. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. How many charges were preferred against you ?—A. In this case, 
Senator ? 

Q. Yes, sir; in that case at the quarantine station.—A. As well as 
I can recollect there was one for destroying the wharf, one for making 
use improperly, if I understood the cl^arges, of the amount of $65 to go 
for the purchase of a boat, and one foi* selling or misusing the paints of 
which I was in charge. There may have been others, but I do not re¬ 
member. 

Q. Were there not eight in all!—Av, If there were. Senator, I do not 
remember them. If they were called to my mind, I might; but I say I 
know nothing about them, except the letter which was sent to me. Ko 
charges were read to me, and the first I knew of them was when Mr. 
Kinsella read them to me. Mr. Davies never read any charges to me. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 901 

and simply stated that lie bad come there to examine into that case and 
1 said nothing more to him until they were filed. 

(^. How long have you been known as Francis Garrett?—A. About 
20 years, sir ; in this town. * 

Q. Did you ever call yourself Joseph Garrett?—A. Xo, sirj not that 
I know of. 

Q. Have you ever been called Jo|eph Garrett ?—A. I have been called 
that by parties. 

Q. hen ?—A. Only a short time ago I saw my name in the news¬ 
paper as James Garrett. 

Q. Is your name Joseph Garrett ?—A. No, sir; it is not. 

Q. When did you leave Saint Louis ?—A In 1855 or 1856, 1 think. 

Q. Did you live in Perry County, Missouri ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever live anywhere in Missouri, except in the city of Saint 
Louis?—A. Yes, sir; I have resided in Saint Genevieve County. 

Q. Were you ever accused of larceny while living in Saint Louis?— 
A. In Saint Louis ? No, sir. 

Q. AVere you ever accused of horse stealiirg?—A. In Saint Louis ? 

Q. In any part of Missouri.—A. I was, sir. 

Q. AVhere at?—A. In the county that I can’t remembur the name of 
in Illinois, but not in Missouri. 

Q. Were you arrested there for alleged horse stealing?—A. I were. Sir. 

Q. AVhere?—A. In Perry County, I think it is now, sir. 

Q. AVere you arrested thne for alleged horse stealing ?—A. Yes, sir; 
for alleged horse stealing. 

Q. AAJiere were you taken to from Perry County ?—A. I was there, sir. 

Q. AAYre you imprisoned ?—A. I was, sir. 

Q. Were you tried ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Had you a preliminary examination?—A. No, sir; I had not. 

Q. How were you released?—A. I will tell the Senator, for his sat¬ 
isfaction, and 1 think when I get through you will be satisfied that I did 
not come here to testify any untruth. This thing is stated here in the 
committee room and outside, and I take ])leasure in clearing it up. I had 
an uncle who resided in that county wliom 1 had gone to see on sev¬ 
eral occasions, and s))ecially when he wrote for me. When I was get¬ 
ting ready to leave him on one occasion when I stopi)ed one week with 
him, and when I said I was ready togohesaid to me, “AA^henever you are 
ready'go, and take that horse that belongs to me and ride him to town”— 
it was twelve or fifteen miles to town—“and if you can take a certain horse 
you can go and see your aunt on it.” I was a young fellow at the time 
and he said to me, “That is the horse I promised to you when you were 
up here before, and 1 want you to have him.” I remained over Sun¬ 
day, and I think I took my friends, a couple of cousins, and I went to 
take the horse. I took it away with me and kept it. I received a letter 
in Saint Louis, stating that 1 had taken another man’s horse and that 1 had 
better return it, and I wrote back to my uncle and told him it would 
cost me something, and that I did not want to jiay out that ex¬ 
pense. I staid there several days, and a young man came up to me 
one day and said that 1 must gb back to Illinois with him, and I went 
back with him. There was a German man laboring with my uncle, and 
he preferred a charge against me of stealing his horse, as it was the 
very identical horse that he had bought from my uncle. Aly uncle stated 
the*matter to him, but he would not let me go without giving him the 
money he was out going to Saint Louis for the horse, and so I was put in 
jail for it. I lived there pretty well, as I was there in town with my 
people, and there was a lawyer there in town named Harris who stated 


902 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


to me: “We don’t want to prosecute you and press this matter,” and he 
said. “We want to let you out and let you go away.” I sent for one of my 
uncles and he came and paid this mpn the money, which was the ex¬ 
penses to Saint Louis. He came and j[)aid it and I was released from jail 
and went away. The authorities were not consulted, but I have been 
back there many times and nobody has ever bothered me in any man¬ 
ner whatever. 1 take great pleasure,n>s it is a serious matter, in having 
it cleared up. 

Q. It has been stated that you broke jail and escaped in that way?-— 
A. No, sir; I did not break jail on that occasion. I did break jail in 
Shreveport. 1 was in jail in Shreveport because I was a Union man, and 
it like to have cost me my life, but by the heli) of the sheriff I did break 
jail and escape there. It cost me $2,000 in gold to do it. I was also in 
jail in Jackson, Miss., sent there by Major Strong, adjutant-gen¬ 
eral of this department, which cost me $4,000 again, and all of it for 
trying to help the government. I have never been in jail. Senator, for 
anything that I am ashamed of. I have never committed any crime, 
and before this committee I come to deny all these charges, and state 
most positively that I did not do any of it. 

Q. What were you imprisoned for in Shreveport?—A. Tlie time I 
was imprisoned in Shreveport was about the most exciting time that 
we had in Louisiana on the breaking out of the rebellion. A man dared 
not say that they were for the Union. I had a contract to bring some 
wood from there for the gas-house. I rode into town in a buggy, and 
stopped at the hotel to see a friend. When I got there they told me 
“ There is a warrant out for you, and I said,” “ For me ?” and they said, 
“Yes.” And I said, “ What for?” and they said, “You are accused of 
being an abolitionist.” And they said, “If* they arrest you on it, or 
you do not get out of this town, they wili hang you, sure.” I said, “I 
am not an abolitionist, and this is not my fight.” And just about that 
time six men came up and rushed me off* to the mayor’s office; and one 
of the men said that he saw me talking to a nigger in the market-house, 
and trying to get him to run off. I had been in the market house talk¬ 
ing to a nigger to get him to work for me, and he was showing me his 
pass to allow him to work, and they said I was the very man and proved 
it on me ; and I said to them “ I am not that sort of a man ; I am from 
New Orleans, and I can call Mr. Slawson of the street-car company, 
for whom I worked, to prove it.” They had hung a man that very day, 
and I was feeling pretty peculiar; and I said to the sheriff when they 
put me in jail that this was a very serious matter, and that I wanted to 
get from there. He said to me, “ You see this is a hard ifface, and you 
see how they treat you fellows, and if you do not get away they will 
hang you, certain.” He said to me, “ I am the sheriff or the deputy 
sheriff”—I forget which he was—and he said, “you had better break 
jail, or you will hang.” I said to him, “ How much will it cost?” and he 
said, “How much have you got?” I said, I had a few dollars. He 
said, “They have got your trunk and i)apers up there at the hotel, and 
they are going through them.” I sauf^ “I will give you an order on 
New Orleans.” He said, “ That will not do.” I said to him, “ There is 
a man with some money here of mine, and I have some lumber here.” 
He said to me, “ Give me a bill of sal^ to the lumber and antedate it, 
and I will see about getting you out.” I did so; and I took a crowbar 
that he gave me, broke down the jail door, and myself and two or three 
others, Union men who were in there, came out. I got away from there 
to Alexandria to the hotel, and lay there very sick; I like to have lost 
my life there. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


9oa 

Q. Did yon have any difficulty in Alexandria?—A. Xo, sir; only the 
hotel burned down on me and like to have burned me u[). I walked 
out of the hotel, though, and saved my life, and took a boat and came to 
to this city. ‘ 

Q. What was that trouble that you had in Jackson when you got in 
jail ?—A. 1 was arrested there. I went there on business for the gov¬ 
ernment, and I was arrested at Gamp Gregg, and I am pleased to say 
that my security was the present chief of police of this city, Mr. Boy 
Ian. I was arrested as a spy, but I was offered by General Gregg any 
place I wanted if I would go with the Confederates. I talked to him as 
though I would do it, and got the general on my side, and he gave me 
a parole; but pretty soon General Gregg got killed, and a sort of an 
old drunkard named Buggies was placed in charge. He sent for m& 
and put me under bonds to ai)pear three times a day as being an officer 
under Ben Butler and a spy inside the ranks. I consulted my bonds¬ 
men, however, and told them I was in a bad condition an<l liable to be 
roughly dealt with. I consulted them as to the best way to break my 
bond and get away from there. I wrote for $250 to do it with, and the 
plan was to purchase a bond for as little as I could from the clerk of 
Colonel Floyd, who had it in charge. AVe purchased it and destroyed 
the office to conceal it. There was a block of buildings there, and the 
office was in one of these^^buildings, and so as to destroy all evidences of 
it and save him we burnt the whole block. 

Q. You say you burnt ihe office where your bond was ?—A. Yes, w^e 
did, and I got away from there, and I took a conductor on the Jackson 
road and got him to bring me as far as the Confederate lines, and after 
that I ran past the lines to Camp Moore where the last of the pickets 
of the Confederates were. The engineer was bought to allow himself to 
be shoved off the locomotive, and when that was done 1 had one locomo¬ 
tive and tender, and I put on steam to the amount of one hundred and 
twenty pounds and ran though the soldiers, and I ran it as far as a 
little station called Chewaw. I got off there, reversed the lever, and 
backed the locomotive toward Jackson, and I took to the woods tow^ards 
Clinton on foot. I made my way through the woods and arrived at 
Clinton, and a man named George Robbins took a horse and carried mo 
through the swamps to Bayou Barbara, and when I got there a mau 
named AVilder, who is the postmaster at Amite, took me across the 
river, and I came from there to this city. 

Q. It has been said that you were tried for some offense before Judge 
Bell in this city, during the military occupatioti of the city, and that 
you were convicted and imprisoned on that conviction ?—A. That is 
false, sir. 

Q. It has been stated that you w ere arrested and tried in this city, at 
some time during the occupation of the military, for the larceny of some 
goods that belonged to the government ?—A. Is that the same case of 
which you have spoken ? 

Q. I do not know’; I assume that it is.—A. You have asked if I w'as 
tried before Judge Bell for larcehy ; 1 say, empliatically, it is false. 

Q. Then I will ask on if you were arrested for larceny during the 
occui)ation of the city by the*military ?—A. I can answau' you that, for 
I was appointed as tlie keeper of smdi goods as would fall into the 
hands of the FederaN, l)eing captured from parties attempting to run 
the lines. There w’as a man, a special officer working under me, named 
Jarvis, who arrested a Jew and brought him to my house, my ware¬ 
house, and I lejmrted the facts to Colonel iStaffbrd, my cliief officer, 


904 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


and lie ca!i:e to m 3 ' house, ami I showed him the goods, and the officer 
made a report. 

Q. State what it was for that you were arrested.—A. The goods 
were there, and the 3 ' were released Jew, and in consideration of 

that he said to me, “ Here are the goods”; and he said, “Take what you 
want.” There was a school-teacher there, and I gave her and a lady 
some of the things. A few days aftef* I heard that there were charges 
that 1 had appropriated government property, but that was not so. 
Those things were not government property; they never were the 
goods of the government, but the 3 ' were things that the Jew gave me. 
I had a letter from Colonel Stafford and General Sherman that 1 was 
badly treated in that affair, and shortly after that 1 was appointed in 
the abandoned lands department, and i held the appointment under the 
government until 1867. 

Q. Were you arrested in 1868 bv John Girard; and, if so, what for 1 
—A. in 18687 

Q. Well, at any time?—A. No, sir; I have never been arrested since 
the last time that I told of. 

Q. Did you at any time sell any goods to Mr. Dillou and Mrs Dillon; 
goods as your propert 3 ^ that afterwards turned out not to be 3 'ours 7 — 
A. When was that, sir? 

Q. There is no allegation as to time.—A. That is a matter that, I 
take it, you asked me about a while ago. That was that Jew question. 
The job was i)ut up on me 1 ) 3 ' Rule Long, who is now deail, one of the 
meanest and biggest thieves in this town. He was a man who was the 
biggest thief that ever walked in tlqs town. He was raised in the 
parish prison and work-house. 

Q. Have 3 'ou ever been arrested in Texas ?—xV. Never except once. I 
went over there as special officer to arrest a man named Hill for rob¬ 
bing the mails, and I only staid there about fifteen minutes. 

Q. Didn’t you find it a pleasant })lace to stay ?—A. 1 accomplished 
my business and returned. When I said only once, I did not mean that 
I had ever been arrested in Texas, but that 1 had been there oiice. 

Q. What trouble did you ever have iu regard to State warrunts, grow¬ 
ing out of Auditor VVickliffe’s defalcation ?—A. I don’t know as I had 
an 3 ' difficulty there. 1 was ordered as an officer to take forcible posses¬ 
sion of the office by Governor Warmoth. I took charge of it, and put 
Wickliffe out. He was a defaulter to the tune of S6,(H)0. 1 was offered 

$ 20,000 to surrender the office, and Governor Warmoth took the war¬ 
rants away and put them in Pike, Lapeyre & Co.’s bank. I have never 
seen them since. Mr. Wickliffe stated tliat there were some greenbacks in 
there, and thought that I had taken them, but there had been two of 
the boys in there before 1 went in. Wickliffe had me arrested, and I 
was honorably acquitted 1 ) 3 ' the court. The two fellows who got in there 
and got the money, I suppose, left. One of them went to Texas and set 
uj) in business, and the other one took a woman and ran awa 3 '. The 3 ' 
got about, $14,000. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You have always been active here in politics, haven’t you ?—A. 1 
think I have been a little too active for 1113 ^ own reputation. 

By Senator Cameron: * 

Q. I will ask you if you were ever convicted in this city before a ])ro- 
vost court ?—x\. Senator, I answerd you that question once. I told you 
I had never been tried before Judge Bell, and I told you about those 
goods, and that upon those goods they sent me to prison. That was 


SPOFFORD V8. KELLOOG. 


905 


ilone by eliul^e Atoclui, and I was released froiii prison when tliey found 
that I was and they were wrong. Then tliey released me and 

paid me my back pay, which I can show you. 

Q; Were you tried for the alleged larceny ?—A. You can call it try- 
ing il you pleas<*. I was called up before Judge Atocha, and this thief 
Long said, “ Did you give any of these goods away ?” and I said. “ Yes, 
sir; I gave it on the permission of the Jew,” and he said, “ Well, the 
case is not settled yet, and I will send you down.” And I was sent 
down to the parish prison. That was the kind of trials we had here 
duiing the provost times. The matter was investigated by a committee 
appointed by Governor Shepley, and I was fully exonerated, and 1 got 
a letter from General Sherman to that effect, which is on tile in the cus¬ 
tom house. Governor Kellogg indorsed me very highly for police com¬ 
missioner when he was first elected as United States Senator. 

Q. Did you get the office ?—A. 1 did not, sir; but what he did do 
was this. He indorsed me, and then come round there to the board 
and took it back! 

l>y Governor Kellogg : 

Q. Did you hold any office under me during my entire administra¬ 
tion as governor ?—A. No, sir; I did not; but I will tell you what I 
did do. You told the ])olice board to put me on pay without any work 
to do, and I did go on and draw the pay, and did no work for it. 

The examination of witness was here suspended, and the committee 
adjourned until 10 o’clock Tuesday, December 2, 1879. 


New Orleans, Tuefiday^ December 2, 1879—10 a. m. 

The committee met i)nrsuant to its order of adjournment. 

Present all the members; also C. L. Walker, counsel for the memorial¬ 
ist, Henry M. Spofford, and the sitting member, Senator William Pitt 
Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. The committee will please come to order. Now, gen¬ 
tlemen, let us work rapidly. Who is the first witness this morning? 

Senator Kellogg. I would like to call Mr. Joseph H. Perkins. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH H. PERKINS. 

Joseph H. Perkins, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. I reside at the corner of 
Custom-house and Yellerie stri'ets. 

Q. In New Orleans?—A. Ws, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided in this city ?—A. Ten years and a lit¬ 
tle over. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. 1 keep a private boarding-house. 

Q. Are you accpiainted with George A. J. Sweazie ?—A. I became 
ac(iuainted with George in West Feliciajia Parish in 1870. 

Q« Do you know his character ?—A. Yes, sir; it is good. 

Q. From his general character would you believe him under oath?— 
A. Yes, sir; there are few men that I would not. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Wasn’t Sweazie considered in West Feliciana Parish as a very 


905 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


bad man ?—A. That was after I lived there. Everything was getting 
along nicely between the whites and blacks when I was there. 

Q. Wasn’t he charged with the murder of Mr. Winter?—A. That was 
after I left there, and I know nothing about it. 


TESTIMONY OF MILTON JONES. 

Milton Jones (colored), a witnevss called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you live ?—Answer. In the parish of Point 
Coupee. 

Q. How long have you lived there ?—A. Thirteen years. 

Q. What is your business?—A. 1 am a planter, gentlemen. 

Q. Were you a member of the house of representatives of the Packard 
legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A man named Francis Garrett has testified as a witness before 
this committee, and I now desire to call your attention to his testimony 
so far as it relates to you. He says that he knows you, and his testi¬ 
mony is substantially this: That he saw Governor Kellogg and you in 
the speaker’s room of the house on the day that Governor Kellogg was 
elected Senator, and during the calling of the roll; that you were leav¬ 
ing the hall, and that you were angry at Governor Kellogg; and he 
suggested to you that you should see Kellogg, and you said they were 
trying to play you as a corn-field negro, and he saw you speaking to Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg in the speaker’s room, and he accused you afterwards, in 
a friendly way, of having received mouey, and you acknowledged it, 
but that you would not say how much ; and he said that after you came 
to Washington that you said you had quit politics and stopped swear¬ 
ing; that you said the witnesses were paid, but that you would not say 
how much. Now, 1 ask you whether or not you were in the hall of the 
house of representatives on the day Governor Kellogg was elected Sen¬ 
ator ?—A. Yes, sir. I was not in the speaker’s room. 

Q. Were you in the hall of the house when he was elected Senator?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you leave the room at all until after Governor Kellogg w^as 
elected Senator?—A. No, sir; I did not. I came in and said to the 
governor that we were in caucus in the morning, and we had united on 
what we all would do. We had agreed to vote for Kellogg. Jim Lewis 
was my next choice for the short term, and we were working for him for 
the next ballot, and I could not have got ouf if I had wanted to. I do not 
know this man Garrett no how. 1 never knew him until I got intro 
duced to him by Judge Spofford upon Carondelet street last year, 

Q. W^ere you in the speaker’s room at all during the election of Sen¬ 
ator?—A. No, sir ; I were not. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Governor Kellogg there ?—A. 
No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Did you receive any money or other valuable thing in considera¬ 
tion of your vote, or in consideration of anything that you did to secure 
his election ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg, or any of his friends, promise to give yon 
any money or other valuable thing in consideration of your vote or jmur 
influence in securing his election ?—A. No, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KFLLOGG. 


1)07 


Q. l)i»l you so state or admit to Mr. Garrett that you liad been paid 
any money or anything else in consideration ot your vote for Mr. 
Kellogg f—A. No, sir; 1 do not know Mr. Garrett. Tlie first I knew of 
him 1 met liim on Carondelet street. 

Q. Mr. E. L. Weber has testified here and stated that yon admitted to 
him that yon received 8500.—A. Yon mean Wel)er who was senator ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Why, I would not believe that man under oath. Tliat 
man never did tell the truth. I never told him any such thing. 

Q. I ask if yon said that to him ?—A. No, sir, I never did ; he ought 
not to go around here and say such things about me. No, sir, I never 
did tell him any such thing. 

Q. Have yon had anything to do in the matter of making a statement 
or affidavit in regard to having received money in consideration of your 
vote for Kellogg '? YY)u can begin at the beginning and tell the facts.— 
A. I made a statement to Mr. Cavanac through Mr. Ward. Ward was 
talking to me and Judge Phillips, and they came to me and Ward said 
yon had better go n|), and they said they had got a false affidavit against 
yon in Point Coupee and said yon will make something. I said 1 could 
not make a statement, whatever I got. I could not make that for any¬ 
thing, but I see that I made some kind of a statement, but that was a 
statement made under fear. I never swore to it. There was a man nj) 
there who wanted me to swear to it, but I did not swear to it. I told 
him I did not know’ anything about it; 1 do not know whether the jus 
tice of the peace did or not, and I refused to swear to it. 

Q. Who is Ward?—A. Pie is a man wdio has been very active work¬ 
ing for the Democrats for several years, and w as formerly a member of 
the house, and a Kepublican, and I said that I was (ifraid to go home, 
and I thought maybe him, being very i)oi)ular w ith the Democrats, may¬ 
be as they w ere making some threats, if I would make the statement 
they w’ould not hurt me. 

Q. When did Ward first attempt to speak to you about it ?—A. I 
think in iMay or April last year. 

Q. AVas he the first one to speak to you about it?—A. Yes, sir; he was 
the first. He came to me to get the affidavit, and Mr. Cavanac stated 
they w’ere going to put out Governor Kellogg anyhow, and he simply 
wanted me to make a statement to Judge Spofford, a statement that 
would satisfy that he could get the witnesses, and he w’as going to bo 
collector here, and I could be janitor there at the custom house, and 
made me a good many })romises that he has gone back on, and he said 
I could withdraw this paper w henever I w’anted. I tried to do it, but he 
would not give it back to me. 

Q. Y"ou went to Washington, did you not ? Did yon go in the inter¬ 
est of Kellogg or Spofford ?—A. YY‘S, sir; Air. Spoff'ord. 

Q. Were you gone as a witness ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Cavanac about it?—A. 
Y"es, sir. He said for us tostand by Tom AIurray,and asked me. how^ I 
was getting on. 1 said not very well in means, and he said that Spotford 
has got a salary that is very good, and he would divide it among the 
boys. Then he pulled out $10, gave it to me, and I took it because I 
needed it. 1 asked him about the committee, and said 1 didn’t want to 
go before the committee because he was to give me the paper and he 
didn’t doit. 1 asked him to give it to me aiid he refused to give it to 
me. 1 did make the statement, gentlemen, but I made it under fear. 

Q. Have you had any conversation yourself w ith Mr. Sj)ofi'ord in per¬ 
son?—A. A'es, sir. Mr. Garrett took me over to Judge 8i)offord’s last 
year and I said 1 didn’t w ant to have any words w ith him on the matter, 


908 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


and if 1 was subpoenaed to Washington I would tell the truth. Mr. 
Garrett left word for me to go with him, and met me on the corner of 
Oarondelet and Gravier streets. I met him there on very important 
business, and I went and waited there and he took me up in the office of 
Judge Spofford and we talked. Judge Spoftbrd treated me very gentle¬ 
manly, and he said, ‘'Very well, Mr. Jones, I would not talk to you if 
you do not want to talk about the matter.” And I said if I was called 
to Washington I would tell the truth. That is the first I knew of Spof¬ 
ford and Garrett, and that man Garrett came and forced himself on me. 

Q. Have you had any conversation with Senator Weber in regard to 
this Spofford-Kellogg case at all!—A. Iso, sir. 

Q. He stated in his testimony that he talked to you after yonr return 
from Washington; you admitted to him that all the witnesses were 
paid.— A. I have not seen him, sir, since I returned from Washington. 
I went to work at the Southwest Pass as a boatman, until the other day 
I went home to see about my family and business. I was down at the 
Gulf all the time. 

Q, Did you talk to him in Washington ?—A. I never saw him in 
Washington ; I never saw him there at all. 

Q. Did you admit to him at any tfine that you had been paid any 
money in consideration of your vote for Kellogg!—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Did you know Mr. Early, of West Feliciana, or did you know him 
in his lifetime!—A. Yes, sir; 1 was well acquainted with him, sir. 

Q. Was he a member of the Packard legislature in 1877, while you 
were!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is Mr. Early living or dead !—A. He is dead now, sir. 

Q. What was his financial condition at the time he was in the legisla¬ 
ture in 1877; was he a man of any means!—A. He made a very fine 
crop at the time, and I think he had eighteen or twenty bales of cotton, 
and Julius Freydime was his merchant, and he came down with three or 
four hundred dollars. I borrowed some of it from him. 

Q. How much cotton do you say he made!—A. Eighteen or twenty 
bales, sir. 

Q. Well, Weber stated that he loaned you $10 ! —A. Who ; Early? 

Q. Ko, Weber; he stated that he himself loaned you $10.—A. No, 
sir; he never loaned me any money in his life. 

Senator Hill. I will say to you in the beginning of this investigation, 
that you area little excitable. Isay to you now to keep calm and an¬ 
swer the questions properly, and we will have no trouble. Write your 
name on a piece of paper. (The witness attempted to write his name 
upon a piece of paper, but, after several efforts, abandoned it.) 

Senator Hill. Can’t you finish it! 

The Witness. No, sir; I am bothered. I can’t write my name now. 
I am no scholar, and the way my head is, I can read and write only very 
scant. I don’t profess to be any scholar. 

Q. When did you come here to the city this time!—A. Yesterday. 

Q. Where were you last night!—A. At home. 

Q. In this city !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where else !—A. Where else ! 

Q. Yes; where else were you beside home!—A. I was with George 
Sweazie several times. I was with him I know. 

Q. What did George have to say to you !—A. He asked me how his 
family was. I just came from where his wife was. I came from up 
there. 

Q Did he ask you anything about this case!—A. Yes, sir; a very 
little. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


909 


^ (^. Pell some ot the people that you saw.—A. I saw Tom Murray, 
George Sweazie, and a g^ood many persons I knew, white and black. 

(}. Did you talk with George out there? |Indicating the rotunda of 
the hotel.]—A. With others. 

Q. Did you talk with Governor Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. What about ?—A. I had a talk with liim because 1 had seen he 
bad me before this committee. I wanted to know what for and if it 
was anything in particular. 

Q. Did he tell you what he wanted you to testify ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you what the others said about you ?—A. 1 siuv that 
in the pai»ers, ui) the river. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg say anything to you about it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you at his room?—A. I was liere at his room. 

Q. Were you u[KStairs at his room ?—A. I was not there while he was 
there. 

Q. Ilow long were you up there ?—A. Fifteen or twenty minutes. 

Q. Who else were there at the time ?—A. George 8weazie, 1 believe. 

Q. AVho else ?—A. Judge Dumont was there too, I believe. 

Q. Wlio else ?—A. I don’t remember any one else that I can recall. 

Q. Is Dumont a (mlored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,). Then you ami Governor Kellogg and Sweazie were in Kellogg’s 
room last night?—A. No, sir; Governor Kellogg was not there. He 
was not in the room while I was there. 

Q. lint you were in Kellogg’s r’ooin ?—A. I was in Mr. Clark’s room, 
I believe. 

Q. Was Mr. Clark in there ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Well, you didn’t mention him.—A. Yes, sir; it was his room in 
general. I saw several others there. 

Q. Was Governor Kellogg in there ?—A. He passed thr’ough, in this 
room, and called somebody in there where he was. 

Q. What were you and Dumont talking about ?—A. ^le and Dumont 
were talking about the Washington trip. We were not talking about 
this committee. 

Q. Y^ou were talking about nothing, exceirt that you were making 
a social visit ?—A. No, sir; 1 was walking around and called there. 

(^. Have you had arry conversation with these gentlemen about this 
case ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What time did you reach the city ?—A. I think it was tvvelve 
o’clock. The boat was late when it got in. 

Q. AViiat boat?—A. 1 came in on the Lee. 

Q. Who appointed rind has been keeping you up there?—A. 1 am 
not airpointed up there. I stay down at the wharf. 

Q. P'rom what iroint, or Pointe Coutree, did you come from ?—A. I left 
three miles above Waterloo. 

Q. On the river?—A. Y^es, sir; right on the river. 

Q. How long have been up there ?—A. A week or ten days. 

Q. That is not your home, is it?—A. Yes, sir; it was until £ had to 
run away. 

Q. And that is your home?—A. Yes, sir; that is my home. 

Q. 1 thought you spoke of stopi)ing at home here.—A. Yes, sir; for 
two years past, I lived up there; but since that time I have been here 
and that is my home. 

Q. Who went for you up there?—A. Sergeant Hussie, I think, came 
after me to subpcena me to appear before the committee. 

Q. Are you in the custom-house service?—A. Y'^es, sir; I am a boat- 


910 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


man at Southwest Pass, and the boat sunk and I got a very bad cold 
and leave of absence. 

Q. How long have you been in that place ?—A. I have been working 
two years, off and on. 

Q. Were you in that place on the fourth of April, 1879 ?—A. I can¬ 
not tell, sir. 

Q. Were you there on the fourth of April, or anywhere near that 
day'?—A. I cannot tell you, exactly. 

Q. Were you in the custom bouse when you went to Washington — 
A. No, sir ; I think I bad been out three or four weeks. 

Q. How long after you got back that you got work there ?—A. Three 
or four weeks after I got back. 

Q. Who went on the train with you to Washington, in June, when 
you went on as a witness?—A. Do you mean from Louisiana ? 

Q. Yes, from New Orleans here.—A. Well, sir, I counted fifty or 
sixty on the train. 

Q. I mean what witnesses?—A. There was myself, J. J. Johnson, 
John De Lacy, Mr. Cavanac, Tom Murray, and several others. 

Q. Who else were along with the witnesses of your friends ?—A. Ool. 
Jim Lewis. 

Q. Did you and Jim talk together on the train ?—A. Yes, sir; I always 
talked with him. We were good old friends. 

Q. Did you and him talk about what you were coming here for ?—A. 
We might. We are good friends. 

Q. Did he tell you what he wanted you to do ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you to stand by the party?—A. No, sir; he knew that 
I knew perfectly well what to do without asking him. 

Q. Did he tell you about your affidavit?—A. No, sir; I did not say 
anything to them about it. 

Q. Did any of the witnesses talk to you about the affidavit?—A. 
Yes, sir; I heard them say something of it. I saw how they were all 
fixed up. 

Q. Did any of them talk to Jim Lewis about it?—A. No, sir; not 
particularly. I heard them talking to him about going to Washington 
in the case of Judge Spofford and Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. You say they did not talk to him particularly. What do you 
mean by that ?—A, Not particularly about what was to be done. I 
suppose every man knew what he was going to do. I knew what I was 
going to do, and I asked nobody else. 

Q. Now% Milton Jones, look at that affidavit (handing the witness his 
alleged affidavit).—A. I know it very well. 

Q. Is that your signature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You made it?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. W^as this paper read over to you before you signed it ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Not at all ?—A. No, sir; there were two or three persons swore 
on that affidavit—Judge Phillips and Judge Spofford. 

Q. Judge Spofford, you say?—A. Not you, judge, but Mr. McGloin. 
They were working on it, and I signed it. 

Q. Who were there at the time ?—A. Ward and Phillips. 

Q. Who else ?—A. Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Who else?—A. A man that they called a justice of the peace. I 
suppose that is who it was that I saw there. 

Q. Did you tell the justice of the peace that you understood it?—A. 
No, sir. He asked me to swear, and 1 refused to swear to it. 

Q. You did not swear to it?—No, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


911 


Want busineas did you have for a justice of the peace then ?—A. 

I don’t know ; they brought him in there themselves, but I refused to 
swear to it. 

Q. And you say positively and unconditionally that you did not swear 
to it ?—A. I did not. I don’t know what the others say about it, but I 
say 1 did not. 

Q. I did not ask you that. Did you refuse to swear to it ?—A. I did, 
sir. 

Q. And you said that you signed it from fear?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. Fear of what ?—A. Well, sir, then 1 was the treasurer of the school 
board, and I had settled with the school board, but Ward came to me 
and said they were fixing up an affidavit on me to get up a job on me 
and take me up the country, and let the bulldozers take me out. 

Q. Were you afraid they were going to put up some job on you that 
was not true ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say that you put your signature here through fear ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. How do you make it from fear, when you did not swear to it ?—A. 
Because 1 was to be allowed to withdraw it. 

Q. As you were fixing it up to get in the good graces of the Demo¬ 
crats and get into their protection, why did you not swear to it, too ?— 
A. Because I would not swear to that. I would not swear to those 
things. I would tell them, but I would not swear to them. I fear God 
too much to do that. 

Q. You were willing to make an affidavit or statement that was not 
true ?—A. That is the statement I made. 

Q. Yes, 1 know it is ; but is it true?—A. Ward and Phillips has got 
as much in there as anybody else; they have got as much in there as 
mine. 

Q. Was the statement true or false ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Why, then, did you object a while ago to its being true !—-A. Be¬ 
cause I don’t know whether it is true or not. 

Q. But yon say you refused to swear to it because it was not true?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you do not know whether it was true or,not ?—A. Yes, sir; 
I do. 

Q. Then, if 1 understand you, you signed the statement from fear, iu 
order to protect yourself, but refused to swear to it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They wanted yon to swear to it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And brought a justice of the peace in, and you refused?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you tell the justice of the i)eace that you would not swear to 
it because it was not true ?—A. The justice of th(i peace did not have 
much to say. He was a Frenchman, and I did not know much to say 
to him. 

Q. Did you tell Mr. Cavauac that those things were not true ?—A. I 
told Mr. Oavanac I could not swear to it; that I had never received a 
dollar. 

Q. And yet you say you signed this affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You signed it knowing it was true or false, did you not ?—A. I 
signed it, but Ward and Phillips and the others fixed it up, auvl it was 
not to be shown either. 

Q. Did you sign this statement knowing it to be true or false ?—A. I 
say some things iu there are true, and some are not. 

Q. You signed it, then, knowing some \vere true and some were not?— 
A. Yes, sir. 



912 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Then souae of them are true and some are not true ?—A. Yes, sir. 
I do not know what Ward and Phillips put in there. 

Q. Now, I will read it to you (reading from the affidavit): “State of 
Louisiana, parish of Orleans. Milton Jones doth declare and say, I re¬ 
side in the city of New Orleans.’’—A. Yes, sir; I have been here two 
years. 

Q. (Continuing the reading.) “During and previous to 18761 resided 
in the pai ish of Poiute Coupee. I represented that parish in the Kellogg 
legislature for that year. On one occasion the Eepublican caucus, of 
which 1 was a member, had under discussion the question of electing a 
United States Senator. I rose and addressed the caucus in favor of Col¬ 
onel Casey, brother-iu law of President Grant, stating that General 
Grant had been the friend of the colored maji and of the party, and that 
the least we could do was to send his brother-in law to the Senate.” 
Now, how about that?—A. On one occasion I did get up to make some 
remarks in the caucus, but the caucus voted it down. 

Q. (Still reading.) “Some one suggested to send for Governor Kel¬ 
logg and hear his views.”—A. That is true. 

Q. (Still reading.) “Governor Kellogg came, and remarked that he 
had worked and suffered for the party.”—A. Yes, sir; when sent for, 
Governor Kellogg came, and 1 left the room, and I do not know what he 
said ; and that is just what I did do. 

Q. (Reading.) “And lemarked that he had worked and sufifiwed for 
the i)arty, and that if they went back on him then, he would let the 
whole matter go to the hell—to the Democrats.”—A. That, 1 think, was 
what J. J. Johnson said. He was there at the time. 

Q. Did you hear that he made the statement?—A. Yes, sir; I Ijeard 
it outside that he had made such a speech. 

Q. You heard it outside?—A. Yes, sir; I heard it, but do not know 
whether he did or not. 

Q. You go on here in the affidavit and say that “ he would let the 
whole matter go to hell—to the Democrats.” I think you left the cau¬ 
cus angry ?—A. Yes, sir; 1 did: I went out; I was disgusted with the 
fellows who wanted Pinchback, and I wanted Jim Lewis. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ Governor Kellogg sent for me to come and talk 
to him.”—A. That was three or four days before the caucus. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ Governor Kellogg sent for me to come and talk 
to him. I went to the governor, but not until the next day.”—A. Just 
read the whole of that. 

Q. I want to know if that is true or false?—A. I went to him the next 
day. 

Q. You went to him ?—A. I did. 

Q. (Still reading.) “He then told me he wanted to go to the United 
States Senate, and that I must stand by him.”—A. That is correct. Of 
course he sent for me, fori was the leading man of the caucus. 

Q. He said he wanted to go to the Senate, and you to stand by him ? 
—A. Of course he said it, just like you say to the people in Georgia. 

Q. (Still reading.) “He said if 1 did this, Mr. Souer would take care 
of me.”—A. That 1 don’t know nothing about; that was put in there. 

Q. Did he tell you any such thing?—A. No, sir. 

Q. (Still reading.) “1 told him then all right; that I would give up 
the tight, and go the way of the majority.”—A. Yes, sir; I said that the 
way the majority went I proposed to go the same. 

Q. (Still reading.) “The next morning Louis Souer called me out of 
the caucus and said, ‘ Jones, you can make yourself easy about this 


SPOFFOKU VS. KELLOGG; 913'- 

thins. You can make 8250 out of this thins.’”—Y. O, that is copied 
out ot‘ Jolinsou’s. 

Is it true or not, “ Tlie next morning Louis Soiier called me out of 
the caucus”?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He said, “Jones, you can make $250.”—A. That is false. 

Did Souer tell you to stand by Kellogg?—A. Yes, sir. He was 
the leading man in the caucus. Not only him, but tifty others. 

Q. You admit that Souer said that “ He told me to stand by Kel¬ 
logg” ?—A. Of course ; half a dozen told me that. 

Q. “And I would be all right, or words to that eftect.” Did he tell 
you that ?—A. No, sir. He never said nothing about being all right. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ I told him I wanted the money then ; that 1 was 
in debt, and needed it. He said, ‘ Jones, you are foolish ; just stand by 
me and the governor, and it will be all right.’ ”—A. No ; nothing of the 
sort. I never said that. 

Q. Then he just told you that you were foolish ?—A. I do not re¬ 
member. 

Q. And he told you to stand by him ?—A. No, sir. I do not remem¬ 
ber that. 

Q. Well, “Souer said he had no money then.”—A. No, sir. He told 
me nothing of that. 

Q. “ But to go to the governor, and he might give me some. I went 
to Governor Kellogg and asked him for $50, and he told me he could not 
give me $50, but he gave me an order on Auditor Johnson for $20." 
How about that ? That order could bo found, you know.—A. I told you 
how that was. 1 wanted to send some money home and some corn to 
my family, and I borrowed the money on warrants by the inlluenee of 
the governor, ft was the time I was out of money. 

Q. (Still reading.) “On presenting the order 1 received a check for 
$20. iMy impression is the check was on the Bank of America ; but I 
do not now exactly remember.”—A. 1 do not know now how that was. 

I know I paid it. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ I voted for Kellogg, and he was elected. Four 
or live days there was a general pay oft*.”—A. That was the general ru¬ 
mor out there, rinchback put it out, and ! heard it. I put it in there 
as a rumor, and I do not propose to deny it. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ ^fr. Souer was in his room in the State-house. 
There was a crowd of the members outside, and they were all called in 
one by one.” Did you see them go in one by one ?—A. No, sir; I did 
not. 

Q. You saw them come out?—A. YYs, sir. I saw many of them come 
out. 1 saw them come out many days. 

Q. 13id you see many of them with money in their hands ? Now, you 
say in the aflidavit, “ I saw them.come out, many of them with money 
in their hands.”—A. Mr. Souer was- 

(}. But, I say, is this correct? Did you see them come out with 
money in their hands?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Mr. Souer was what?—A. Mr. Souer was chairman, and the boys 
would borrow mone^’ on their time, and I being a. colored member, I 
used to work and get a little money out of them, and of course counted 
their money in that way just as stated in the aflidavit. I knew they 
borrowed money, and they borrowed it sometimes with my iufluence. 

Q. Did they get any money ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You saw them come out, and you counted it for some of them just 
as you stated in the aflidavit?—A. No, sir. 1 counted it down in the 
bar-room. 

58 S K 





*914 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. They said they borrowed it, did they?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From Mr. Souer ?—I suppose so, sir. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ They would not let me go in j but he came down 
afterwards, and brought me downstairs.” Did he do that ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ He said I had too much mouth.” That is a little 
natural, Milton. How about that?—A. He might and he might not 
have said that. I do not know. 

Q, (Still reading.) ‘‘He said 1 had too much mouth, and advised the 
others not to have anything to do with me. He then, when we were down¬ 
stairs, gave me $150.'”—A. Give it to me ! No, sir. I borrowed it from 
him; and if it is put in there any other way, it is wrong. 

Q. You borrowed it from him ?—A. Yes, sir ; long before the election 
of Kellogg—a long time before ; and I borrowed money there from some 
of them that very night. I always borrowed money until I got my 
111 one}'. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ He then, when we were downstairs, gave me 
$150. He said this was a loan, and 1 told him that this was not the 
understanding; that I was to get $250 for standing by Kellogg, and I 
had done it.”—A. No, sir; I never said that. 

Q. Did you say that and tell them to put it in that affidavit?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Did you authorize them to put it in there ?—A. No, sir; they put 
it in there themselves. I did not make small of myself that way. 

Q. (Still reading.) “ He said I might have done better if it had not 
been for my big mouth; that he had given me money from time to time, 
and I could take that or nothing. I had to take it. Souer has never 
asked a return of that money from me since then.”—A. I have paid 
the money I borrowed from him long ago. 

Q. This signature is evidently in your handwriting?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And was signed by you on the 4th of April, 1879, before T. J. 
Boissou, second justice of the peace. Is his seal attached ?—A. There 
was no seal to it. 

Q. The justice of the peace says that you swore to it?—A. I do not 
know whether it was a justice of the peace or not. 

Q. But you said that you did not swear to it ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Then if the justice of the peace says you did, and he so certified, 
he has told a falsehood ?—A. 1 do not say that, but he was sitting there 
with his back to me and never looked in my face once. 

Q. Did you hold u]) your hand ?—A. No, sir; I refused to do so. I 
signed it under fear, I tell you. I tell you, there is no joking about it, 
I signed it from fear. I wmuld not have had my name mixed up in the 
afiair if it had not been for that. 

Q. You always paid your debts promptly, did you ?—A. When I have 
money I do it; yes, sir. 

Q. And you paid him out of your money at once when you got it?— 
A. Yes, when I got my mileage and per diem I paid him. I borrowed 
the money to buy a mule; I wanted money to start my place, and I got 
it and paid it back. 

Q. That is when you got your pay ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you pay your board bill, too?—A. I might have done so. 

.Q. And your bills about town, too ?—A I might have owed a little 
when the Packard legislature fell, and we all got the goose. 

Q. Did you pay your board bill in cash ?—A. Yes, sir ; I think I did. 
I might have owed some little on it. I got the money from my per 
diem. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


915 


Q. You paid it from your per diem ?—A. Yes, sirj 1 paid it as far as 
it ffoes. 

Q. I ask you the fact, Milton, because I do not know what it is. You 
say you paid your board out of your pay and you paid Souer the money 
that he loaned you. What else did you pay ?—A. I never kept a ineru- 
oradum. 

Q. You paid some other things, didn’t you !—A. Of course. 

Q. How much did it' amount to ?—A. 8672, I believe. 

Q. Now you say you are well acquainted with Souer?—A. Yes, sir; 
he lived in my district, in an adjoining parish. 

Q. Was he a member of the legislature?—A. Yes, sir; from Avoyelles. 

Q. He was a candidate for speaker, I think in 1873, some time ?—A. 
He w'as, but not since the State-house has been in the Saint Louis Hotel. 

Q. He wasn’t a candidate in 1876 ?—A. He might have been, but it 
never reached my ears. 

Q. Did you ever write a letter to Souer about the speakership, about 
his being a candidate for the speaker?—A. In 1876 ? 

Q. Well, any time.—A. I do not know. I might have wanted to 
bring him out as speaker. He is a man as I know, and I liked him 
very well, and he was always a sort of cashier for the members since we 
had the legislature up here on Dryades street. 

Q. Jones, I will ask you if you ever wrote such a letter as this: 


L. J. Souer, Esq.: 

My Dear Friend : I am well aware of the fact that you are an aspirant for the 
speakership of the house, and unless you come to the scratch with me you will lose 
something by it. So i)ay up like a man and all will be right. 

Your friend, 

MILTON JONES. 


Q. When was that written ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Did you ever write such a letter ?—A. I cannot write such a letter 
as that. 

Q. Did you ever sign such a letter?—A. I do not know ; let me see 
it; I want to know something of it. 

Q. Well, look at it then. (Handing the letter to the witness.)— 
A. There is no date about it. 

Q. Is that your signature ?—A. Yes, sir ; I know that is my signa¬ 
ture. 

Q. Did you know what it was when you signed it?—A. I want to 
know when it was. 

Q. Did you sign it knowing what it was?—A. If I signed it I must 
have known what it was. I never sign anything unless 1 know what 
it is. 

Q. Well, you said just awhile ago that you didn’t know what that 
affidavit was.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, here is the P. S. : 

p. S.—It is impossible for me to come down now. Will be down in ab:)ut a month, 
when I will call and see you. 

M. JONES. 

The first signature is evidently yours, but the other, the postscript, 
was not signed by you.—A. 1 do not propose to- 

Q. Do you think that postscript was signed by you ?—A. 1 do not 
know notliing about that. 

Q. Do you know who wrote that letter for you ?—A. No, sir; I do not 
know nothing about it. 

Q. Were you a member of the legislature before 1876 ?--A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When ?—A. From 1872-’3 up to 1877. 



916 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Can you read that letter for me ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Can you read writing?—A. A little bit, by spelling it to myself. 

Q. 1 would like to have you try and read it.—A. I have got enough 
of it. Louis Souer was a good friend of mine. I know that. 

Q. If you have any explanation as to your motive for writing that 
letter, you have a right to give it. We want no advantage of you and 
would not deprive you of any right.—A. I have had a pretty rough 
road to travel over for a while, and I would like to have it as easy as 
possible now. 

Q. Whom did you pay that $20 back to f—A. What $20 ? 

Q. You said a while ago you got $20 on Governor Kellogg’s order.— 
A. I never got a dollar from him. I got it through the iuliaeiice of the 
governor. 

Q. Whom did you pay it back to ?—A. I paid it to Johnson, out of my 
pay. I come to the governor to get a few dollars, and always returned 
it again before he was Senator. I never got a dollar from him in my 
life that I didn’t pay. 

Q. You always got it through his influence ?—A. Yes, sir; he was 
the governor of Louisiana, and I went to him as a leading man of my 
parish. 

Q. Now, you said you went to Washington last summer as one of the 
witnesses in this case, as a witness for Spofford ?—A. I said so. 

Q. Y^ou said they didn’t put you on the stand, i^ow, didn’t you 
ask Mr. Cavanac to put you on the stand f—A. No, sir. I said, “ Don’t 
put me on the stand. If you do I will surely call my affidavit as you 
call, and I call it a statement.” I went to him and said the understand¬ 
ing was that I were to withdraw it if I wanted to, and I went to him to 
get it, but when I saw the way the people were going on up there I got 
disgusted. I like to see something done decently, and after I heard the 
dead brought up there, and all those things I knew that were not pos- 
. sible—they were lying on the dead, and I did not want nothing to do 
with that crowd, sir. 

Q. What witness were you disgusted with ?—A. Tom Murray, in par¬ 
ticular. 

Q. Wbat disgusted you with him ?—A. Well, I was disgusted Avith 
the whole crowd, all of them. 

Q. AVhy did they disgust you?—A. Because I knew they were going 
into details of matters that I knew were not facts. 

Q. And you were disgusted ?—A. I was, sir. 

Q. And in consequence of that disgust you went and asked Mr. Cav¬ 
anac not to put you on the stand ?—A. I did not. I asked him for this 
piece of paper; I wanted it. 

Q. Didn’t you tell him not to put you on the stand?—A. I told him I 
didn’t want to go on the stand ; that I didn’t care to do so. 

Q. And that if you went on the stand you would be forced to ?—A. 
No, sir. I said if Judge Merrick called me I would go on as the balance 
of the witnesses did. I was there every day at the committee room. 

Q. Now, Jones, did you not go to Mr. Cavanac in Washington, when 
that big disgust was on you- ’ 

The Witness. Tom Murray came for me. 

Q. Wait. Didn’t you go to Mr. Cavanac and tell him you didn’t want 
to go on the stand; and tell him if you went on the stand that you 
would have to swear a lie; that there was big money, Mr. Cavanac; 
and all that ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Y'ou never said so?—A. No, sir. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 917 

Q. You never said an^^thing to him about big money ?—A. Xo, sir; 
not to Mr. Cavan ac. 

Q. Nor about being compelled to swear a lie?—A. No, sir. I t^llyou 
how it was ; Tom Murray and I boarded at the same house, and we come 
out in the morning and they s^id that Mr. Cavanac wanted to see me in 
the morning; but I said 1 did not want anything to do with this com¬ 
mittee ; and he said, “ You go and see Mr. Cavanac”—that is what Tom 
Murray said—and it will be all right.” I said, “ I want nothing but 
this piece of paper that 1 gave them in New Orleans.” Tom took me 
over there and I saw him, and he said what he was going to do with 
them—that he was going to prosecute them ; and I said to him, “ I don’t 
want to go on the stand.” 1 said, “ If I go on the stand, I will make a 
contract between you and me”; for between him and myself and Ward 
and Phillips there was a great disadvantage taken of me. I do not like 
to say that men will do that, but they did. lie said to me to stand to 
Tom Murray and it woultl be all right, and asked me how I was off for 
means, and give me ten dollars, which he had a perfect right to do. 

Q. Did you get any more from him ?—A. I might have got two bits 
or a little more. 

Q. Now, you saw those other witnesses examined ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were up there in the committee room '?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You saw how they went back on their affidavits?—xV. Yes, sir; I 
saw everything. 

Q. Was not that the scene that put the disgust on you ; and did 3 ^ofi 
not say that as you had given the affidavit in the matter, that if you got 
on the stand for Kellogg you would go back on the affidavit?—A. No, 
sir; as 1 say—this atli lavit—Ward ami Phillips has got as much in it 
as me. 

Q. 1 am on that subject now ; answer my question. You won’t stop. 
You keej) right on on something I did not ask you about. Thatstate- 
luent ot Souer’s looks mighty natural to me. You gave this affidavit 
with Che understanding that 3 'ou could withdraw it?—-xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your idea was that it was not wrong to give an affidavit that you 
could withdraw ?—A. Yes, sir ; when it was to protect myself. 

(J. What did they want with the affidavit if not to use it ?—A. Mr. 
Cavanac said that iie wanted the affidavit, and did not intend to use it ; 
that he wanted to show it to Judge Spoff'ord in Washington so he could 
open the case; that he u’'anted to open the case, and he wanted the 
affidavit to do it with. 

Q. Well, the case stands, then, that the affidavit was not intended to 
be used, but he wauted it to open the case with ?—A. He said it did not 
make any difference whether it was a lie or the truth; to hx up some¬ 
thing so that he could show it to Judge Spofford. ^ 

Q. Did Mr. Cavanac tell you that it made no difference whether it 
was a lie or the truth ?—xV. No, sir; that is my own judgment about it. 

Q. Did he tell you that he wanted the truth ?—A. No, sir ; he never 
told me anything of the kind. He said he was going to luit out Kellogg 

anyhow. , , , xi • 

Q. Did he tell you that he wanted an untruth ?—xV. No, sir; nothing 
of the kind, lie said he wante^l these things to open the case, and he 
kept AVard after me eight or ten days. 

Q. AVhen you left here to go to Washington did you not understand 
that you were to go there to testify to some tacts that were in the affi- 
davit ?—A. The part I put there I testified to. 

Q. You say that you went in behalf of Judge Spofford. Did you not 
understand that they expected you to testify to the same facts as were in 



918 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


your affidavit ?—A. My feelings when I left here to come to Washington 
was that I am going to answer intelligently. When I went there this 
piece of paper was not to come up before me and nothing was to stare 
me in the face, and Mr. Oavanac drew it on me, and that was all. 

Q. That was my opinion of it, that when you gave the affidavit it was 
not to be brought up before you in Washington ; but this piece of paper 
was not a legal affidavit. That was the reason they expected you, and 
you testified to the same facts. Of course, the affidavit would not be 
admitted j but if you testified to the same facts, then it would not be 
necessary to introduce the affidavit or say anything about it.—A. But 
there is nothing in that affidavit that is the truth ; it is all a humbug. 

Q. You are very excitable, Milton. You said a while ago, when I 
read it over to you, you said then that more than half of it was true *?— 
A. I said there was something in there true. There are some words in 
there that are true. 

Q. I told you and warned you about it at the time, and now you say 
that some of it is untrue and all humbug, and all that. I think you are 
wrong when you think you are deceived by these parties when they told 
you that the affidavit would not be brought up against you. You say 
these gentlemen asked you for an untruth. If this affidavit was evidence, 
they did not need to go on the stand, and if you go on the stand and 
testify to the some facts, then it would not be necessary to bring up the 
affidavit. Now, did they not expect you to testify to the same that you 
stated in that affidavit?—A. Well, if they did I did not. 

Q. But they did ?—A. I do not know what they expected. 

Q. You did not see them produce any affidavit on a witness until the 
witness denied the statement in the affidavit.. If he stated the same 
thing to the committee as was in the affidavit, it would be unnecessary, 
would it not; but when he made a different statement, then it was that the 
affidavit was brought up to show that they deceived these gentlemen 
when they gave the affi<lavit. So, you see, you get excited unnecessarily. 
Now, you say that you did not allude, in any conversation with Mr. Gava* 
nac in Washington, to any big money?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor to any money from the other side ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not tell Cavanac that you were disgusted with the way 
these negroes were going back on their affidavits?—A. No, sir; I just 
said to him I did not want to come before the committee. 

Q. Did you not tell me that?—A. I said that I was disgusted with the 
way that they w'ere swearing, and that I did not want to go before the 
committee. 

Q. Why were you so anxious to get your affidavit back iu Wash¬ 
ington ?—A. I was not particular about it. 

Q. But you have stated here that you made several efforts to get it. 
—A. Well, it was never but a mere statement anyhow, and I was not 
very anxious about it. 

Q. When this affidavit was made, which you admit you signed and 
which you say was sworn to, they did not give you any money for it, 
did they?—A. For making this affidavit that Mr. Cavanac holds? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. No, sir, nothing ; but they promised to take care of 
me. 

Q. Who did ?—A. Mr. Cavanac said that I would be looked after. 

Q. Protected, do you mean ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But he did not promise you any money ?—A. No, sir; he said 
nothing about money. 

Q. Did not Mr. Oavanac say that he was not paying money for affi¬ 
davits ?—A. No, sir; I heard nothing of the kind. 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


919 


Q. Well, yon never got any for this?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never expected any ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And all you made it for was protection ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Uow much money did you i)ay the school board in your parish ?— 
A. 1 never paid them anything. I turned over the books, all ot them, 
to them, and took a clear receipt. 

Q. When was that?—A. In 1877. 

Q. About what month ?—A. I have got the receipt in my trunk; I 
could not tell exactly the day. I have got a clear receipt, and Mr. 
Rusher can tell you so. He has my returns, and can tell you all about 
it. 

Q. You were treasurer of the school board ?—A. Yes, sir. 

1^. Well, you paid some money to them after the Nicholls legislature, 
did you not ?—A. Yes, sir; I was treasurer until I turned over the books 
and give them what money I had. 

Q. You got the money from the Nicholls legislature as well as from 
the Packard legislature, did you not ?—A. Yes, sir ; I got pay from the 
Nicholls as well as the other. N 

Q. Well, the money you got from the Nicholls legislature you paid to 
the school board, did you say?—A. I discounted the warrants and paid 
out this money, eleven hundred and odd dollars, and I paid the teachers 
here in town, and after that they came to me and compelled me to pay 
the whole of it. I was obliged to, for they compelled me to do it. 

Q. And you used the money you got from the Nicholls legislature 
to do it with ?—A. Yes, sir ; part of it. 

Q. How many dollars ?—A. Three hundred and odd dollars. 

Q. How much money did you get from it altogether?—A. Eleven 
hundred dollars, I believe. 

Q. Good money ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who did you vote for in the election of Judge Spofford, when he 
was elected ; who did you vote for ?—A. I believe I cast my vote for 
Judge Spofford; I believe I cast my vote for him. 

Q. I simply asked you for whom you voted ?—A. Well, sir, I voted 
for Judge Spofford. 

By Mr. Spofford : 

Q. You stated that you never had but one personal interview with 
me; that was where?—A. The time Mr. Garrett took me up in the 
room. Y^ou didn’t know me, and Mr. Garrett taken me up, and when 
you found out who it was you said you never wanted to speak to me. 
You didn’t know me, and I was tellipg it simply to say how I knew Mr. 
Garrett. 

Q. That was No. 5 Carondelet street, wasn’t it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The office of Judge Campbell and myself, where there were several 
rooms ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was a very short conversation ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Before 1 weut'to Washington and filed my petition, wasn’t it ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There was a short conversation, and you remember it. You stated 
to me something to this effect: that you went out ot the ballot the 
house of representatives to answer a call of nature, when there was a 
great pressure to keep a quorum of the legislature ?—A O, there was 
nothing of that kind. 

Q. Answer my question. What was it you told me as to answering 
a call of nature, and Governor Kellogg giving you something? That 
was Mr. Garrett talked to you. Mr. Garrett stated that it was a wash- 


920 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


baud basin that you used, and you corrected Mr. Garrett and told me it 
was a spittoon. Didn’t you say so when Mr. Garrett said it was a wash- 
band basin ?—A. No, sir; I never said any sucb thing. 

Q. You never said anything of the sort to me ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor about using a spittoon ?—A. No, sir; Mr. Garrett said it. I 
said nothing of the sort. I never heard of such a thing. 

Q. Didn’t you say that to me in my office ?—A. No, sir ; that was the 
first of it to me—the first of my hearing sucb a thing as that. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Go on and tell the talk that you bad with Mr. Garrett and Judge 
Spotford. Tell the whole of the talk.—A. When Mr. Garrett took me 
ux) I didn’t know Judge Spofford, except as I saw him passing. Mr. 
Garrett told Judge Spofford that Mr. Kellogg held a spittoon for me— 
it is so disgraceful, gentlemen, that I don’t like to tell it—that he held 
a sinttoon for me to make water in. I said, “ Where did you get that 
from?” and he said, “I was told so;’’and said, “ Was it true?” and I said, 
“No, I never heard of it before;” and he said to me, “Was it a wash- 
hand basin or a sxnttoon I” and that was the first time I heard of it; 
that’s the first I knew. It is a disgrace, and I don’t know how a man 
could make up such statements to tell on a man. 

Q. Do you remember when you sent that letter shown you by Senator 
Hill?—A. I don’t know it is my signature. 

Q. Don’t you remember anything about the fact?—A. No, sir; I 
don’t remember it; I don’t remember it in any way; I don’t hardly 
know what it means. 

Q. When were you first elected to the legislature ?—A. In 1872. 

Q. And were you in that legislature up to 1876 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you six years in the house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember whether or not Souer was a candidate for 
speaker Avheu the legislature met in Mechanics’ lustitute ?—A. He was 
over there. 

Q. Do you remember what year that was ?—A. I think it was 1873. 

Q. And do you know of his being a candidate for speaker at any 
other time?—A. No, sir; in 1873 he was a candidate once. 

Q. You have spoken of borrowing money at several times, sometimes 
through the aid of Governor Kellogg, and you thought you never bor¬ 
rowed any from him. I ask you if any of these transactions had any¬ 
thing to do with the election of United States Senator in 1877 ?—A. 
Nothing whatever. 

Q. Were they all private matters?—A. Yes, sir; only I never got a 
dollar for voting for a man in my life. 

Q. You said something in regard to a caucus of the Republican mem¬ 
bers of the Packard legislature. You stated that you took it through, 
and stated you got angry about something and left"?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was Governor Kellogg in the caucus at all any time while you 
were there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see him come in at all ?—A. No, sir; when a committee 
was appointed to wait on him, I went out. 1 was mad about Jim Lewis 
and Pinchback. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. When you speak of a squabble between Jim Lewis and Pinchback, 
wasn’t that for the short term ?—A. Yes, sir; yours was nowheres. 

Q. Did you ever know me to go to a caucus? Did I ever ai)proach 
you at any time on the subject of your vote or my election?—A. No, 
sir; you never did. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 921 

(i. \oa spoke of a tweiity-dollar transaction T—A. 1 don’t remember 

it. 

Q. What was that ?—A. I went to you, and you said you didn’t have 
it, but probably 1 could get it from some other person, and I went to 
•Johnson and told him I had been to the governor, and he said to come 
to^you. 

By Senator Hill : 

YoiFsay that Souer loaned you money ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You knew he was a friend of Kellogg’s ?—A. Yes, sir; of course 
Ihe was. 

Q. Didn’t you know he was lending it to aid Kellogg’s election?—A. 
I don’t know whether it was in aid of the election or not. 

Q. You know Souer was loaning the members money?—A. I don’t 
Jviiow whetlier it was him or not; 1 knew Mr. Geddiug did. 

Q. Didn’t Mr. Souer lend the money ?—A. I heard he did. 

(^. He loaned you what you got ?—A. He loaned me the 81J0, as t 
.said, but that was long before hearing of any vote for Senator. 

Q. You said a while ago that it was a week before ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long’was it before the election for Senator ?—A. It was a week 
before the election. 

Q. Did it have any connection whatever with the Senatorship ? When 
<tlid you say that you first knew Mr. Garrett ?—A. The first 1 ever knew 
of his name—I seen him often for years before, but 1 never knew his 
name until last year. 

Q. You never knew his name until last year ?—xV. No, sir. 

(J. Didn’t you him during the sitting of the Packard legislature? 
—A. I have seen him often for years, but had no immediate acquaint¬ 
ance with him. He is a long, stiff legged fellow, with a sort of a brogue ; 
any man would know him that ever saw him. 

Q. What time last year, did you know him?—A. 1 think in ]\Iay or 
A])ril. 

Senator Cameron. He means JSTf). 

By Senator Hill : 

<}. Do you mean this year?— A. Yes, sir; I mean this year. 

Q. You never knew him until 1879 ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never spoke to him until then?—A. No, sir. 

You never had any conversation with him ?—xV. No, sir; 1 knew 
liim well, but he was a perfect stranger to me. 

Q. You mean you knew him by sight?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you speak to him first?—x\. He'came to me right here 
iu the hotel, wlien the committee of Congress was here, the Stengerconi- 
anittee, 1 think, and he came to me and asked me about it. 

Q. There was a committee here at the time?—A. Yes, sir; the Sten- 
g'er committee, a branch of the Potter committee, 1 think. That was all 
■ 1 ever knew about him. He took me up about one and asked me a ques- 
.tion about the case. 

Q. Why didn’t you conm in here with the other witnesses Saturday 
^evening?—A. I came here and waited. 

Q. Now, tell the truth; didn’t they take you all last night and inake 
Tou or persuade you to give this testimony ?—A. No, sir; 1 lay in my 
bed and slept. I was up in the electioii.in the county, and I went to bed 
and went to sleej). 

(^. And nobody had to persuade you to give this testimony ?—A. No, 
;sir; nobody at all. 

Q. When did you leave the city ?—xV. To go up home? 



922 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Yes, sir.—A. I left on the 15tli day of November. 

Q. Aud that was the Saturday before this committee met?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. What did you go away for?—A. I was sick, aud I had property 
up there, and I went to see what I could do with it, and I was taking 
an active i)art in the election of Judge Yoist. 

Q. How long were you taking an active part in the election ?—A. I 
got home on Saturday, and started out on Monday to work, and the 
people came to see me from all parts of the parish j I have been an old 
leader up there. 

Q. When you made this affidavit which you talk about, and which 
you say you never swore to and which you made, didn’t they give you 
a copy of it?—A. Of course, I got a copy of something just like it; 
Judge Thompson wrote it out aud brought it to me. 

Q. What did you do with that copy ?—A. I don’t know what became 
of it; 1 paid no attention to it. 

Q. What did you want with a copy ; you asked for it?—A. Johnson 
was the man who asked for a copy, and he made out a copy of it and 
sent it to us. 

Q. Was Johnson there at the same time you were?—A. Yes, sir; 
Johnson and Mr. Oavanac and Ward and myself were there at the 
same time. 

Q. Did you see Johnson sign his affidavit ?—A. I wasn’t in the room 
then. 

♦ Q. He made one, didn’t he ?—A. He was dictating an affidavit; I don’t 
know who was writing it; whether Mr. McGloin or not. 

Q. Who wrote this one?—A. I think I dictated it to Mr. McGloin, 
and Judge Phillips, too, I think, did something of it; he may have 
been making a copy, but I think he was doing something about. 

Q. Where did you go that night that you got to Washington ?—A. I 
went to a hotel—the Philadelphia House. 

Q. Did you leave the hotel that night after you got there?—A. Yes, 
sir, aud I think I did; I walked around on the street, as I was never 
there before. 

Q. Who was with you ?—A. There were six or seven of us—John¬ 
son and De Lacy and several others. 

Q. Who went with you ?—A. These parties all went, aud we went 
out several times before 12 o’clock. 

Q. You went out several times ?—A. Yes, sir; we went out and staid. 
I got some clothing, as I was tired and dusty. 

Q. You staid out, off and on, then, until 12 o’clock ?—A. It might not 
have been particularly 12 o’clock; it was 11, or more or less. 

Q. Who did you stay with ?—A. Me aud Blackstone staid together. 

Q. Did you see Barney Williams there?—A. Who; the man wffio 
kept the house ? 

Q. No, sir; Barney Williams, a short, thick-set man, a Jew man ?—A. 
He boarded in the house? 

Q. No; he took breakfast with you one day, I believe.—A. I don’t 
remember him. 

Q. Did you see a man there named Davis ?—A. What sort of man ; 
a short, thick-set man ? 

Q. Yes, sir; a Jew named Davis?—A. No, sir; I don’t remember 
any Davis that 1 know of; if you bring the man to me I might remem¬ 
ber him, but 1 don’t know him. 

Q. This was a white man ?—A. There was no white man that boarded 
in the house with us. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


923 


Q. lie boarded, I think, at the American House, and took breakfast, 
I think, with yon.—A. If he did, it was not with me. 

Q. As I understand you, you say you did not go to Air. Cavanac, in 
AA ashington, and ask him not to put you on the stand as you were 
disgusted with the way the witnesses were lying, and that you would 
be compelled to lie, too, and that big money was oft'ered I—A. I never 
had big money named in my life in anything I said to him. 

Senator Hill. O, well, you can go along. 


TESTIAIONY OF CHAKLES CAA'ANAC. 

Charles Cavaxac, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Have you examined this affidavit of Alillon Jones?—Answer, 
I have just examined it. 

Q. State whether this man, Alilton Jones, was qualified and sworn to 
that affidavit.—A. Yes, sir. Mr. AIcGloin wrote the affidavit, and he 
dictated it, and Air. AIcGloin wrote it out at his dictation. There were 
present myself, AV^ard, and Phillips. After it was written. Air. AIcGloin 
read it to him; and I said, “Take it and read it, and see if it is correct 
and he said, “It is all right.” He said, “AVill you give me a copy of 
it? ” and I said, “Yes, certainly;” and I sent for a justice of the peace, 
and he came and read it to him, and he swore to it in my presence. 

Q. Did he give the affidavit voluntarily?—A. Y^es, sir; he came to 
my house several times, and I said to him I did not want anything un¬ 
less it was true, as I stated in AA^ashington. It is the habit of these 
people to want money; and I stated that I would not pay anything, 
and that I did not want Judge Spotford to occupy a seat in the United 
States Senate unless it was right and it was his. The first time he came 
I did not take his affidavit, and I told him to consider of it. The next 
time he came I sent for Air. AIcGloin to come and take it. 

Q. And he wrote it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Jones dictated it ?—A. Yes, sir; he was anxious to make it. 
He said he was tired of Kellogg, and branded him as a damned rascal, 
and wanted to make the affidavit. 

Q. He was out of the custom-house at that time, was he not?—A. I 
do not know, sir. 

Q. It was in consequence of that affidavit that he was subpoenaed to 
go to AA^ashington ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you expect him to testify the same thing in AYashington ?— 
A. Yes, sir, most certainly. 

Q. State what he said to you in AYashington.—A. He came to me in 
AYashington, on Pennsylvania avenue, and said to me, “ Air. Cavauac, 
I am disgusted at the way those witnesses swear; the pressure is too 
great, and the money too big.” And he said, “ 1 cannot, if I am put on 
the stand, tell the truth ; I will have to swear the same way.” I asked 
him then if the affidavit was true, and he said it was. Those words 
were used right then and there, and that is the reason I did not put him 
on the stand. I said to De Lacy, if there was anything not true in the 
affidavit that I would not put him on the stand, and he said It was true, 
and went on the stand. In a few minutes afterwards he denied his sig¬ 
nature. 


924 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Joues said you spoke to him and said to him to stand up for Spof- 
ford and Murray, and it would be all right to him.—A. That is all false. 
I never did any such thing. 

Q. Did you ever tell him to stand up to Murray ?—A. That is all false, 
sir. I always told those witnesses that I did not desire anything ex¬ 
cept the truth from them, and no inducement was offered to them. 

Q. Do you know this man Williams '?—A. I saw him in Washington 
City. I saw him going up in Willard’s Hotel. I saw him going towards 
(xovernor Kellogg’s room; it was not far from mine. I saw him there, 
and saw him with the witnesses. 

Q. You did not know his business there?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. You did not know he was watching you ?— A. I noticed it, but I 
did not take any pains to ask who he was. 

Q. And now you say he is the same man ?—4. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Walker. Thereareone or two other affidavits relating tothiscase, 
and while I know it would not be competent to introduce the affidavits 
of third parties, not members of the legislature, still, as we are charging 
a conspiracy and the commission of a crime, I shall insist that all ex- 
parte statements or writings going to show the truth of the matters 
charged.in the ])etition would be competent evidence. The committee 
has been admitting such statements as to the complicity in that corrup¬ 
tion, and there are one or two other affidavits regarding which I desire 
to call the attention of the witness. 

Senator Hill. Are they affidavits of members of the legislature ? 

Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. All right, then ; that is competent. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Mr. Cavanac, do you know a party by the name of William C. 
Geary?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Look at that affidavit (handing a paper to the witness). Here is 
another (handing the witness a second paper).—A. This last I do not 
know anything about. This one (the first) was made in my office, writ¬ 
ten by'a clerk of mine, and dictated by Geary voluntarily. He came to 
my ofi&ce and made it and swore to it. 

Q. Before what officer ?—A. Before the assistant secretary of state. 

Q. Oscar Arroyo ?—A. Yes, sir. The affidavit was made and read to 
him, and he was very anxious to go to W^ashingtou to testify. I tele¬ 
graphed to him, and had him telegraphed to come to W^ashington, and 
he arrived in the city here after I left. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Let me put in a question right here. W^as anything said to Milton 
Jones to the effect that he could withdraw his affidavit at any time ?— 
A. No, sir; not a word. 

Mr. Walker. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have an affidavit here of a gen¬ 
tleman named Joseph B. Watson, and while he was not a member of 
the legislature at the time, yet he was a party who participated in that 
transaction, and I think I will make an exception to the rule I stated 
yesterday. It is the witness’s affidavit. 

The Witness. This affidavit I never saw. 

Senator Hill. Third parties are witnesses and supposed to be disin¬ 
terested, and can testify themselves, but 1 do not think it is competent 
to introduce the affidavits of third parties who took interest in Kellogg’s 
election unless you can show he was a party to the conspiracy. Unless 
you can show, for instance, that Kellogg gave money to a man as an agent 
you cannot bring in the statement of that party, but you must establish 


• SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 925 

his agency, and that he got the money. You must show the independent 
fact of conspiracy, and that he was a partner in it. 

Mr. Walker. The object of the affidavit is for the purpose of contra¬ 
dicting statements of the witness himself. 

Senator Hill. We will admit it on the ground that you can admit 
affidavits and ex parte statements of third parties, but on the score of 
impeachment alone. 

Senator Cameron. I think it cannot be admitted, because his atten¬ 
tion was called to the material allegations contained in it, and he ad¬ 
mitted that he made it. 

Senator Vance. If that paper had been in Washington when the wit¬ 
ness testified, it would have been admissible. 

Senator Cameron. If so, it is now. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Ho you know Joseph J. Watson '! —A. Yes, sir; but this is not the 
affidavit that was made in my office. It was another aflidavit. He made 
two; one was introduced in Washington, and that was the one you read 
over. It was simply repeating that he had represented Thomas. 

Senator Hill. On reflection, I will state to you, ]\Ir. Walker, that I 
think the onlj^ way to make it admissible is to prove the execution of it. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Are you acquainted with one It. J. Brooks, a member of the Pack¬ 
ard legislature i —A. I know Brooks. 

Q. Have you Mr. Brooks’s affidavit here?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Here it is (handing the witness a paper). Do you recognize that 
paper ?—A. I do not know anything about this aflidavit. I simply know 
that I examined his vouchers as a member df the legislature, now in the 
auditor’s office, and, comparing the signatures, they are the same. The 
aflidavit I do not know anything about. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. Has the aflidavit got a witness to it?—A. Yes, sir; he swore to it 
before Laresche. 

Q. Is Laresche living?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Walker. I offer the affidavit, and also this note accom])anying 
it to prove the signature. (To the witness.) I will ask you if that sig¬ 
nature corresponds with the signature in the auditors oflice on his- 
vouchers?—A. Yes, it does; and I also compared the signature of this 
affidavit with his receipt for mileage and per diem in Washington. This 
aflidavit got there a day too late, and the signature to his receipt and 
this one were written by the same hand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I will ask you some questions on this subject: Did you meet on 
the train Jim Lewis, a witness, going from here to Washington, in June ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State what occurred on the train. State what you said to him 
and the other peoi)le who were talking to the witness, and why.—A. I 
saw him fre(iuently taking the witnesses one by one into the smoking 
department of the sleeping-car, and I said he ought not to tamper with 
Governor Kellogg that way. He said he was doing what he thought 
it was his duty to do, and that he was going on to Washington to help 
Governor Kellogg, as he was the only representative of the party in the 
national Congress from this State, and that he thought that it was a 
national question and that he had a right to do so. 



926 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. He did not deny that he was talking to them —A. No, sir. 

Q. He said he thought it was a national question ?—A. Yes, sir. 5 
he said he thought it was a national question. I will state that in 
reading the testimony of Dickerson, of Saint James, the other day, stat¬ 
ing that he had never said that he had received any money from Gover¬ 
nor Kellogg while be was a member of the legislature, I will state that 
while he was a member of the late convention he came to see me two 
or three times at my office in the State-house, and in several interviews 
I had with him he told me precisely that thing. I wanted him to go to 
Washington. He told me that it was true that he had received the 
money; but he didn’t feel like going and testifying to it, and that he 
would consider it a while and let me know; and some days after he came 
to see me and said he wanted to go to Washington. Also, Charles F. 
Brown, who testified in Washington, he came to my office twice, and 
he acknowledged that he received money for his vote. He said the 
only trouble was that he didn’t want to give away the parties who paid 
the money; that he was a Eepublican and they might give him away 
in his i)arish. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Who was that?—A. Charles F. Brown, of the parish of Jefferson. 
I said I didn’t want any testimony that was not true, and none that 
would hurt him. He returned again, and I heard in the mean time that 
he was in the custom-house, and he said he had made up his mind not 
to testify. He testified in Washington that he never made any such 
statement, but I say it now to set myself right. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did you ever hold out any inducement to any of these witnesses 
that they would be paid by Judge Spolford? or that they would be 
taken care of?—A. No,' sir; I saw they were anxious to make affidavits, 
and I was anxious to assure them on the threshold of the matter that 
there was not a cent to come to them out of it. If they wanted to build 
up with the people of the State by telling the truth about this matter 
they could do it, but I was never authorized to offer a cent to one of 
them, and never authorized anybody else to do it. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Who were present while Jones’s affidavit was made?—A. Frank 
McGloin, Ward, Phillips, Jones, and myself. 

Q. What is Phillips’s name?—A. W. B. Phillips, I think. 

Q. The man you refer to is Judge Phillips.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What had Ward and Phillips to do with the matter ?—A. I think 
they brought Jones in there. 

Q. Do you know whether they were assisting in getting affidavits and 
evidence in the case ?—A. Y'es, sir ; they were. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with them regarding the evi¬ 
dence ?—A. Very often, sir. 

Q. When did you first have conversations with them, as near as you 
can fix the time?—A. I think it was early, say March, or April—AnriL 
I think—of 1879. ^ ’ 

Q. Did you continue to have private conversations with them up to 
the time the witnesses came to Washington ?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. Did you understand that they were authorized to find evidence in 
the case ?—A. I asked them myself if they could find any evidence that 
was true 1 would like to have it. 


SFOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 927 

Q. Do you know whether they were employed—I don’t mean hired— 
to get lip the atlidavits before you were ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Before you asked them did they appear to have been engaged in 
the case ?—A. They did not. 

Q. Who were present when Mr. Geary made his affidavit ?—A. Mr. 
Baubeaux, luy clerk, Mr. Arroyo, and, i think, a man by the name of 
isewman, a clerk to the court of the parish of St. Mary’s; I think he 
was present. 

Q. Was he a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir ; he was a colored man. 

Q. Who brought Geary to your office?—A. The first time he came 
there I think it was with Newman. I am not certain but that Murray 
brought him the first time. I think Murray and Newman came to¬ 
gether. 

Q. Who was present when Brooks as you claim, made his affidavit ?— 
A. 1 do not know anything about it. 

By Senator Kellogg, (handing the affidavit of Geary to the wit¬ 
ness.) 

Q. Whose handwriting is that?—A. This is the affidavit that was 
written. I was mistaken ; it was written by Judge Phillips. 

Q. Who wrote this one? (handing Jones’s affidavit)—A. Frank Me- 
Gloin. 

Q. Was either copy made of this ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who made the copy ?—A. Mr. Baubeaux, my clerk. 

Q. Did not Phillips write a portion of it ?—A. I am not certain 
■whether he did or not, The copy was made I know, and I gave it to 
him myselr. It may have been a portion of it was copied by both of 
them. Mr. Baubeaux was very busy, and may have been called away 
and Phillips finished it. 

Q. This one? (handing Brooks's affidavit.)—A. I do not know any¬ 
thing about that. I stated that the affidavit of Geary was written by 
my clerk, but I see it is by Phillips. 1 have seen Geary since 1 returned 
from Washington. 

Q. What did he say ?—A. He called on me and was very much dis¬ 
gusted with those witnesses, and he said 1 made an affidavit that 1 raised 
money and it is true. If I am put on the stand I am going to say so. 
I saw him twice. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did he say it both times?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is he?—A. He is from the parish of Saint Mary. The affi¬ 
davit of the witness was presented before the committee in Washington, 
the original was made before me. 

The affidavits of Geary and Jones were admitted in evidence as 
exhibits. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Can you identify the signature and substance of that affidavit to 
be the same as the other ? 

(Objected to and not answered.) 


TESTIMONY OF L. B. CAIN. 

L. B. Cain, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

<Juestion. Where do you reside, Mr. Cain ?—Answer. In New Orleans. 




928 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How long have you resided in the, city of New Orleans?— 
About thirty odd years. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. Importer. I have been an importer 
of foreign goods. 

Q. You are a merchant, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Morris Marks?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you known ?—A. Several years. 

Q. Do you know what his general character is?—A. Yes, sir; it is a 
good character so far as I know. I never heard anything bad about 
him. I knew him well. 

Q. From what you know of his general character would you believe 
him on oath in a court of justice?—A. Yes, sir; I would. 

Q. Are you connected with the Germania Bank ? what position do you 
hold there ?—A. I am president. 

Q. How long have you occupied that position ?—^A. Mr. Schneider 
was there previous to me, and he died I believe; I have been there 4 or 5 
years. 

Senator Hill. AYe have no questions for the witness. 


TESTIMONY OF OHAKLES CAYANAC. 

Charles Cavanac, a witness called for the memorialist, was recalled 
to the stand by the chairman. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. I forgot to ask if you heard J. J. Johnson’s testimony in 
Washington?—Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. He made an affidavit the same time that Jones did ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
at the same time. Mr. McGloin made it out at the same time. Johnson 
testified that he did not make it. He testified that he went in there 
and found an affidavit on the desk and signed it; that we never read it 
over to him. Now, the truth is that the affidavit was dictated by John¬ 
son himself, every word of it. It was read to him and handed to him 
to read, and he said it was all right. He signed it in my presence, and 
he testified in AYashington that it was never read to him and that he 
went in there and found it in my office on a table, and he signed it. 
Mr. McGloin was not in the office at the time, and the object of his tes¬ 
timony was to prove that he found it on the table and signed it without 
reading it. 

Q. 1 believe you testified about De Lacy’s affidavit and Seveigne’s ?—; 
A. Yes, sir. I have testified about De Lacy’s but not Seveigue’s. 

Q. Seveigne is the man who admitted that he made the affidavit for 
the purpose of deceiving and going back on it ?—A. Yes sir. 


TESTIMONY OF THOMAS H. KYAN. | 

Thomas H. Byan, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member^ \ 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In the seventh ward. ' ‘ 
Q. Are you acquainted with W. J. Moore ?—A. Yes, sir. ■ 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 929 

(}. How loii^ have you been accjuainted witli him ?—A. 1 have known 
inin since 18G(), and personally since 1873. 

Q. Do you know what his general character is A. I believe that 
he bears a good reputation personally ; I know that he has a good rep¬ 
utation. 

Q. From what you know of his gem*ral character, would you believe 
him on oath in a court of justice ?—A. Most certainly. 

Q. With which political party do you affiliate, Mr. liyaii A. I am 
a Democrat. 


TFSTIMONV OF A. H. LFOXAUI). 

A. H. Leonard, a witness (allied on behail the sitting member, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

(Question. Were you a member of the Packard legislature so called? 
—Answer. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Of which house were you a member t —A. Of the lower house. 

, Q. It has been stated before the committee by various witnesses that 
there was a iiolitical rumor that members of the legislature had been 
bribed by the payment of money to them and in various wa^s to vote 
for Kellogg, as United States Senator. Now, stixUt what you know, if 
anything, in reference to that rumor and to the fact.—xY. 1 have heard 
the rumor and seen the statements jiublished in tin* newspapers, but I 
knew nothing of any such rumor at the time. 

Q. Do you know as a fact that any member did receive moiu'y in con¬ 
sideration of his vote ?— A. I never heard anytliing of it; never heard 
any member did, and nevt*r knew of such charges. 

Q. \\ ere you present on the day of the election of Mr. Kellogg as 
United States Senator?—A. \"es, sir. 

Q. It has been stated by some of the witnesses that there was not a 
(piorum present at that time. What information have you on that sub¬ 
ject ?—xY. I believe there was a (piorum present. It was so understood 
at the lime and it was a point of some conseciuence. I understood that 
there was a (piorum, and I believe there was. 

Y'ou may state whether or not the llepublicans had agreed to sup¬ 
port Mr. Kellogg, and by that centered on before the election ! —xY. Y"ou 
mean by the caiuuis action ? 

Q. Yes, sir; or otherwise?—A. Ido not know anything about the 
caucus action. I never was in one of them, but 1 understood that from 
the members; tiiat they had agreed to vote for him. There was con¬ 
siderable 0[>iK)sition to him at one time, but the day before the election 
it became known that he would suc(;eed, and all o[)i>()siti()n ceased, and 
it became known that he would be elected. 

Q, Do you know that (lovernor Packard and the other leading Re- 
luiblicans outside favored the election ?—xY. I know that they did. 

P>y Senator IliLL: 

(^. What otli(!e do you hold ?—A. District attorm^y of the United 
States for this district. 

Q. Since when have you held it ?—xY. Since June last, I think. 

(^. Last June, you say ?—xY. No, sir; it was not last June; it was 
June, 1878. 

Was there a (piorum there on the day of the election ?—-A. Well, 

50 S K 



930 


SPOFFORl) VS. KELLOGG 


my recollection is that there was, but I cannot say positively that there 
was. 

Q. Yon made oo effort to ascertain there was a (jnoriifn present, but 
yon just assumed it ?—A. No, sir; I did not assume it. I was there 
and tin' roll was (ialled and all the members were there. I am pretty 
certain that tln*y were there. A good many of thetn 1 knew and a good 
many of them I did not kiiow ; 1 cannot say positively about the day 
before or the day succeeding, as nothing called my attention specially 
to it. 


TESTIMONY OF W. B. PHILLIPS. 

W. B. Phillips, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

(^Hiestiou. What is your tirst name ?—Answer. \V. B. 

(,). Where do you reside, Mr. Phillips ?—A. 1 have a residence 124 
Libei ty street. 

(}. In this city ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have yon resided in this city ?—A. Since 1872 consecio 
tively. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Judge Spoffbrd ?—A. Yes, sii*. 

Q How long have yon been ac(inainted with him?—xV. Two years; 
ever since the campaign of 187(>. 

Q. Are you acquainted with .Jim Ward ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. xVre yon accptainted with Mr. AVm. Cavanac?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been acapiainted with him ?—xV. Four years; 
possibly longer. 

Q. it was stated by Mr. Cavanac that you were engaged in ascertain- 
iug whether evidence could be procured favorable to Mr. S[)offbrd in 
this Ivellogg-Spoffbrd case; is that so?—A. That is so, sir. 

Q. Now, you may state—and go fiom the beginning and state what 
your connection was with it, and give the whole of it. 

Ml. SpofpoRD. Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to know what it is ex¬ 
pected to prove by this witness. 

Senator Kellogg. I apprehend that the committee will jiermit the 
witness to be examined until something that is not legitimate shall be 
spoken of. 1 apprehend that it will be time enough for the contestant 
to know what we expect to prove b^" this witness when we shall have 
proved it. 

Senator Hill. 1 think, Judge Spoffbrd, we will proceed with the ex¬ 
amination of the witness. 

Senator Cameron. You may continue, Mr. Phillips, and state how 
you got into the case and what you have done in it. 

The Witness. I will state to the committee that my introrluction 
into this case was after the adjournment or about the time of the legis¬ 
lature after they had gone to the Saint Louis hotel. My attention wais 
called to it by a young man by the name of Johnson. 1 do not even 
know his given name, but I know him by sight; he came to me and 
presented some checks that were signed. 

Q. That is, they were signed checks?—A. Yes, sir; he came to me 
and told me that he was authorized to procure the testimony of some 
member of the legisl.itnie who voted for Kellogg for Senator and re¬ 
ceived nnmey for it, and told me if my servi(;es in the matter were avail¬ 
able he would like to have them, and that if I would secure one or two 


I 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


931 


members he would give me one hundred dollars; and I said I would see 
about it. He asked me where this man Ward was. I told him he would 
find him at his place of business on Custoin House street. This check 
that he showed me was for 8100 ; he had other checks in his possession 
at the time. I asked him who authorized him to carry on such negotia¬ 
tions, and he told me he was authorized to do it; that was the answer 
that lie made. I said no more at that time, except that when I met 
Judge Spotford I would ask him if he authorized Mr. Johnson to make 
such negotiations. I disremember now the exact answer that he made 
to me, but 1 didn’t see this man rlohnson again for month or mouth and 
a half, ])robably two months; then ?Jr. Siiofford asked me if I knew 
anything about it, and told me he wanted to engage some Republican 
or some man familiar with this matter and secure his testimony. I 
asked him what he proposed to do, and he told me that he believed 
himself elected Senator, and that he had sutlicient votes to seat him, 
and he only sought the place, believing he was elected and for the honor 
of it; this conversation occurred at his house on Saint Charles street, 
corner of Saint Charles and Julia. He stated that he would draw his 
baek salary, which would amount to a considererable sum of money ; 
that if he could secure the testimony positively that Mr. Kelloirg paid 
this money to any member of the house or senate, that he could atiord 
to give 8^JH)b encli to those who got it for him ; and that he would give 
me that amount if he succeeded in getting the position. One thousand 
was to be paid afterwards. He promised me for my services—and Ward 
was present at this interview—that he would havecontrol of the custom¬ 
house, and that 1 should have a iilace and a iiosition under him in that 
building. 

Hy Senator Cameron : 

I will interrupt you right there. If you have ever received any tele¬ 
grams or letters from Judge Spotford relating to this matter please 
state if.—A. 1 have. 

Q. Have you them in your possession ?—A. I have. 

Q. Where was Spofford when he telegraphed you ?—A. The first tele- 
.gram I received from Judge Spotford he was in the city. 

Q. Will you please produce those telegrams ? 

(The witness pinduced a batch of papers ; and, taking one in his hand, 
said : There is the one I received first. It is a city telegram.) 


New Oui.eans, March 2, 1879. 

Jndge Piiir.Lirs: 

Mv Dear Sir: If convenient, ])le;ise call at iny house for a few minutes between 10 
A: 11 o’clock a. m. to-morrow (Sunday). I have to go to-morrow evening. 

V„„r., respectfully, M. SPOFFOliD. 


(). Let’s see the next. 

(The witness handed over several of the telegrams, in their order, to 
Senator Cameron ) 1 will get to these directl,\. (In ^Ii. Spotloid.) 

Judge Spotford, I sui)pose, adtnits these telegrams to be his ? 
m7’. Spofford. They were all sent by me. 

Senator Cameron. This lirst telegram is dated March 2‘J, 1879: 

New Orleans, 227, 1879. 

.Indge ScoFEORD : 

Mv Dear Sir: Nineteen members who voted tor K. have been put to work in the 
poHsible tell me when snbpcenas will issue. Great dissatisiaction exists at 
liie delay, as some of them are here and do not know whether to go home or not. An¬ 
swer at once. 

Judge Si’()FFORi) : 


W. B. PHILLIPS, 

94 Gasquet St, 



932 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


A. I sent that telegram. 

Q. Did you know at the time that tlie^^ would go back on that atii- 
davit“?—A. I did. 

Q. And yet you wanted Judge Spofford to send subptjenas for them f — 
A. Yes, sir; 1 did. 

The second is as follows: 

[Washington, D. C., 1871). Rec’d at 10.45 a. m., April Pi.] 

To W. B. ITiillips, 

94 Gasquet St., X. 0.: 

Will surely summon them. Takes time. Temptation resisted proves them truth¬ 
ful. All right here. 

(98.) H. M. SPOFFORD. 

The third is April 1C, and is as follows: 

[Washington, U. C., 1879. Received at 9.10 p. m., Apr. IG.] 

To W. B. Phillips, 94 Gasquet St. : 

Bully. Wait for the wagon. All goes well this end. 

(570.) H. M. SPOFFORD. 

The fourth is May 18, and is as follows: 

[Washington, D. C., 1879. Received at N. O. 7.45 p. m.. May 18.] 

To Wm. B. Phillips : 

Patience. We shall know soou. All working well. 

(53.) H. M. SPOFFORD. 

The fifth is dated May 19, and is as follows: 

[Washington, D. C., 1879. Received at 8 p. m.. May 19.] 

To Mr. Phillips, 94 Gasquet St.,N. K.: 

Committee about to act. Patience and sweet-oil work wonders. 

(562.) H. M. SPOFFORD. 


By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Now, you can go on with your statement.—A. This was the con¬ 
versation when 1 responded to the city telegram. Ward was present 
when 1 responded to this telegram. 

Q. That is, the city telegram?—A. Y"es, sir, the city telegram; and 
the statement I have made was made in the presence of Ward. He 
said that when he got to Washington he would name his friends in the 
city of New Orleans through whom he would communicate with us. 

Q. That is, you and Ward ?—A. Yes, sir, Ward and I; when the first 
notice we had of his leaving was Mr. Cavauac’s coming to the house 
and showing us a telegram from jMr. S[)olford. 

Q. Coming to your house ?—A. Yes, sir, 91 Gasquet street, and show¬ 
ing a telegram from Mr. Spotford directing him to come to see us, to 
get the information he wanted. That was the 3d of xViuil. On the Itli 
of April, and that was Friday, we carried Mr. Jones and J. J. Johnson 
down to his office in the State-house and there made the affidavits. 
Half of one of those affidavits is in iVIajor McGloin’s handwriting and 
the balance in mine, and the entire portion of one is in mine. Now, as 
to J. J. Johnson’s, 1 think a. part of it is in his handwriting. Ward and 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


933 


iiiyselt had represented to these men as we had felt authorized to do, 
and as both were refugees from liome, Johnson from De Soto and Jones 
from Point Conpee, that they should have portion back home and pay. 
That was stipulated, what amount they should receive. 

Q. What was the ])ay ?—A. One tiiousand dollars before testifying 
here and a thousand dollars were testified in Washington. Now, I 
don’t know that Mr. Cavanac promised them anything. I never heard 
him. Ward and I had promised them money, feeling authorized to do 
so from the statement of Mr. Spofford liiinself. There were six or seven 
affidavits made after that time. Those were the first atfi lavits I know 
of having been sent to Washington at all. They were the first ones 
that were sent. Mr. Cavanac told me he sent these by express. 

In your negotiations with Johnson and Jones, what was said 
about the truth of those facts set out there in those affidavits?—A. 
They rej^resented to us that they were untrue and false, that they were 
doing it b)r i)rotecdon ; tliev representeil that they had received no 
money at all for voting for Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Nor from Kellogg nor his friends?—A. No, sir; and we advised 
them to make the atfidavits. 

Q. Well, go on.—A. Then there was nothing further except the tak¬ 
ing of the affidavits and the representing to these men of the whole ar¬ 
rangement and agreement. We met and a conference was held at my 
house on Gasqnette street. 

Q. What other affidavits were you instiumental in getting; you and 
Ward?—A. Now, those names I do not know; that I cannot remember. 
I think 1 have a memorandum of tliem here, however. On April 5 I 
furnished copies of those affidavits to the men. I also read De Lacy’s 
affidavit at the time, l)ut it was not in my handwriting. De Lacy’s affi¬ 
davit, I think, was written by Fitzpatrick, who was a clerk; but I read 
it at the time, and I am certain it was not in my handwriting. 

Q. Whose handwriting is tliat ? (Handing witness a ])aper.)—A. 
That is mine. 

Q. Whose affidavit is that ?—A. Geary’s. 

Q. Mr. Cavanac has testified that those are in your handwriting.—A. 
Every word except some private marks are in another handwriting, and 
I don’t know anything about it. 

Q. State what representations you made to secure the affidavits ?—A. 
The same as I mad«‘ to Jones and the others. 

Q. Did Geary admit to you that the statements therein contained 
were untrue ?—A. Yes, sir; none of them admitted to getting a cent. 
The whole statement was made up in my house, 1() Gasqnette street. 
They e.ancii.seil there every day. 

(}. Did none of them admit to receiving a cent ?—A. No, sir, not a 
cent. That is all in regard to the taking of those affidavits and all in 
regard to affidavits. There are some four other affidavits besides those. 
I can’t think of the names just now. I thought I had a memorandum- 
list of them, but I find I have not; I had it somewhere. I think on 
IMonday, the second day of June, those men left for Washington, and on 
that day Mr. Spofford gave quite a quantity of money to Mr. Cavanac 
in front of the 8 t. Louis Hotel. 1 think it was the 2d of June. 

Q. Did he give it to him in your ])resence ?—A. Yes, sir, in my pres¬ 
ence and in the presence of others. How much was in the package I do 
not know. 

Q. Did you receive any of it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How mucli ?—A. At that time I received $50. 

Q. From liiin ?—A. From Judge Spofford. 


934 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Was Ward present at the time ?—A. Ward was present, and Ward 
received $50. 

Q. From Judge Spofford also ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. For what reason was that money paid to you ?—A. For securing 
those affidavits. 

Q. What, if anything, was said to you or Ward in your presence by 
Mr. Spofford or Mr. Oavanac in reference to you and Ward going to 
Washington?—A. It was understood that Ward and myself were to ac¬ 
company the witnesses to Washington, but afterwards the programme 
was changed. Mr. Spofford said he would pay the amount of the per 
diem, the mileage, and a bonus to us; and said the reason he did not 
want us to go with those first witnesses was that he wanted us to go to 
Madison Parish and get two men there, Washington and Tolliver. 

Q. What occurred in connection with this matter while the witnesses 
and Mr. Spofford were in VA^ashington ?—A. I wasn^t in Washington 
and could not tell you. 

Q. What communication did you receive from him while he was there? 
—A. I received a letter; I leceived two letters, in fact, from him. 

Q. When did you receive the first letter?—A. 1 received the first let¬ 
ter just prior to the sending off of the affidavits of Johnson and Milton 
Jones. 

Q. Have you got that letter ?—A. 1 have not. 

Q. What has become ot it?—A. 1 cannot tell you. I missed several 
letters; I had missed a paper belonging to another party that was in my 
possession. 

Q. Have you made search for it?—A. I have. 

Q. How diligent?—A. 1 suspected another party of having it and I 
went and asked him if he had got it; I remembered showing it to him. 

Q. AVho was that party ?—A. A friend of mine. 

Q. What was his name?—A. Koss. 

Q. What Ross?—A. 0. H. Ross. I thought he had it for the pur¬ 
pose of teasing me, but he denied getting it. 

Q. What sea rch have you made in your house for it?—A. I searched 
every paper in my house. This is the envelope belonging to it [hand- 
in<g his interrogator an envelope]. 

Q AVas the letter which you have spoken of contained in this en¬ 
velope ?—A. It was. 

Q. You have not been able to find that letter ?—A. I have not. 

Q. You made diligent search for it ?—A. Yes, sir. 1 showed the letter 
to different parties. 

Senator Cameron to the Chairman. I propose to ask the witness to 
goon and state what the contents of that letter were. 

The Chairman. Go on, and let us see what he said. 

The AAAtness. Well, the entire contents I cannot tell you. He went 
on to speak of his case and to say his counsel was in ^ew York attend¬ 
ing the trial of Stanly and somebody, or somebody of that name, and 
he remarked in the letter that he had confidence in the Senate, and the 
only thing necessary for him to do was to furnish the necessary evidence 
to reopen the case, and that all matters were res adjiidicata^ except that 
of bribery, and it he could show any testimony going to prove that 
bribery was used he would be satisfied. 

Q. What, it anything, did he state in that letter, or in conversation 
with you to this effect, that he desired evidence to show Senators pri¬ 
vately, in order that they might be infiuenced. 

Senator Hill. AA^ait a moment. I think it is proper to let him state 


SrOFFORD VS. KKLLOGG. 1335 

tlie contents of tlie letter. Y'on are proving tlie contents ol a lost 
(locninent yon should reinetnher. 

Senator Camercn. I will be governed by the suggestion of the Chair¬ 
man. 1 think it is a correct one. 

The Witness. The substance of the letter was this, that it was neces¬ 
sary for me to show a question of bribery; that it was necessary for me 
to make some showing of that sort before they would o[)en the case. 
That was stated to me both verbally and was the phraseology of the 
letter. To show what he meant by that- 

What else did he say on that subject ?—A. He said that he would 
be seated ; that all that was necessary was to reo[)en the case before 
Congress; that there was a Democratic majority, and that would seat 
him any how, but it was necessary for him to get a case before the Sen¬ 
ate before they would reopen it. 

Have you had any interviews with Mr. S[)jtford since his return 
from Washington '! —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you have the first one, and what occurred at.it ! —A, 
You mean this last time ? 

Q. I mean since his return from Washington in June ?—A. I had a 
conversation with him in the front of the Boston Club room. That con¬ 
versation was a very short ore. I sim|)ly asked him for an adjustment 
of accounts, and the payment ot what was due to me, and he said he 
would send me word through Ylr. (Javanac on the following Monday. I 
did not see him then, and he made an appointment at Mr. Walker’s 
office. . 

Q. What was the object of that proi)Osed meeting?—A. It was my 
request that he might make a settlement of what he promised for se¬ 
curing those affidavits. He did not tell me to meet him at Mr. Walker’s 
office, but Ward brought me word that he said to come there, and we 
went there together. 

(,). What occurred in Mr. Walker’s office?—A. I stated to Mr. Walker 
that we were to meet Mr. lSi)otfoul tliere. He said he was acting for 
all his business, and all negotiations must pass through him, and so 
far as the payment of money was concerned he was instructed to pay 
nothing, and then Mr. Walker said he had i)aid ns sufficiently. 

Q. Who said that ?—A. Mr. Walker. 

(»). What amount had he paid Ward ?—A. I do not know as to Ward. 

(^. What sum did you get ?—A. I got $(m. I got at tlie tState- 
house, $10 at his house, and $r> again at his house on the corner of Julia 
street. 

Q. Have you had any other interviews with Mr. Spolford in regard to 
this matter ?—A. None since that time. I believe, however, one time he 
did refer the matter to Mr. Walker. I am not sure of that. 

Did you hold some ollicial position in the legislature in bSTi ?—A. 
Yes, sir; I was assistant enrolling clerk. 

(}. In which legislature?—A. The Odd-Fellows’ Hall legislature. 

Q. Was that the Nicholls legislature ?—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. With what political party did you afiiliate in the campaign of ISTfi ? 
—A. With the Democratic party. 

(,). You canvassed the State for the Democrats ?—A. A portion of it; 
yes, sir. 

(}. With which political party did William \\ ard affiliate that year '» 
—A. The Democratic party. 

(^. State whether he also canvassed a portion of the State for the 
Democratic ticket.—A. He did; we met Judge Spotford and his party. 



936 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


Senator Hill: 

Q. Did Judge Spotford at any time promise to pay you money to get 
up evidence that was not true?—A. I don’t know that be used that lan¬ 
guage or the word falsehood.” But he said it was necessary for him 
to have testimony of some kind from a man who was a member of the 
legislature that he had received money. 

Q. That was necessary in order to oust Kellogg and get the proof 
that a number of members of the legislature were paid money for their 
votes, but did he tell you to get proof that was not true?—A. He did 
not use that language. 

Q. He didn’t say that he wanted nothing but the clear truth, and that 
you admitted to him in a letter?—A. He authorized me to pay this 
money. 

Q. Well, now wait; we will come to that after a wdiile. Did he tell 
you to get untruthful testimony?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not work for nothing, did you?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Men when they do honest work expect to be paid for their serv- 
ices?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did jmu tell Judge Spoftbrd that you were going to do any dishon¬ 
est work?—A. No, sir; I did not; I wouldn’t have told him that. 

Q. Did you ever tell him at any time that you had done any dishon¬ 
est work for him?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then there was no understanding between you and Judge Spofford 
either by his words or otherwise that he was to pay you that money or 
anybody else money for dishonest work ?—A. No, sir; except this, that 
he was to i)ay so much for procuring these affidavits. 

Q. Certainly.—A. Y^es; and he authorized the statement then that 
these men would be protected in going home and that he would take 
care of them in the custom house. 

Q. Did he state to you that he would give anything, any money, pro¬ 
tection, or custom-house employment, for dishonest work ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he ever tell you so ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you tell him that you were doing dishonest work ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You may have intended to do dishonest work, but did you tell 
Judge Spofford so?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. And Judge Spofford never asked you to do any dishonest work, 
and never promised to pay you for it, and you never told him you were 
doing it?—A. No, sir; the word dishonesty was never used. 

Q. Well, false testimony ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Or untrue testimony ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What did he.say of the election of Kellogg by bribery?—A. He 
said he knew it was true ; that he felt morally certain of it, and wanted 
somebody to testify to it. He stated that he believed that Kellogg had 
got his place by bribery and corruption, and he wanted that fact dis¬ 
covered. Ido not know that he used the word “ fact” at all. It was 
bribery. 

Q. iSow, 1 want to be specific, Mr. Witness, upon this the point. I 
understood you to say that this affidavit of Gary’s is in your handwrit¬ 
ing ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I want to be certain about it ?—A. Yes, sir : it is. 

Q. You wrote it out ?—A. Yes, sir; that is my handwriting. 

Q. And Gary dictated it?—A. No, sir; I did the most of the dicta¬ 
tion myself. 

(^. Did Gary tell you when he made this affidavit that it was untrue? 
—A. This caucusing was made at my house, and it was understood that 
they were going there into that business to make the money. 


SPOFFOKl) V8. KELLOGG. 


937 


Q‘ you know from Gary or otherwise when you were drawing 
this atti'lavit that it was true or false?—A. I do not know what Gary 
knew. He was a member of the legislature. 

Q. Did^ Gary tell you at the time that it was untrue ?—A. I do not 
know. That was the understanding. 

Q. What was your understanding of it?—A. That he was going to 
make the affidavit to get that money ; to get what monev he could out 
of it. 

Q. Was your understanding that it was false ?—A. That was the un¬ 
derstanding. 

Q. And J say you drew this affidavit knowing it was false, or under¬ 
standing from Gary that it was false ?—A. It is in my handwriting, sir. 

Q. And you knew when you wrote it that it was false?—A. I cannot 
tell \ou that it is false. 

Q. Did you understand from Gary that it was false ?—A. It was the 
general understanding. 

Q. But I say did you understand it to be false?—A. I did. 

Q. I understand you that you state to this committee that you drew 
this affidavit at the time knowing ir to be false ?—A. I say it was the 
general understanding. 

Q. 1 ask you what you understood?—A. I can state specifically and 
positively tliat Gary got it and said it was false. 

Q. Answer iny question. I do not want to put you in the custody of 
the sergeant at-arms. 1 understand you to say now, and assume to this 
committee under oath, that at the time you drew up this affidavit you 
understood that you were drawing a falsehood f—A. sir; I did not 
state that. I said 1 could not say positively what he got. He was there 
in the crowd, and 1 tell \ou they were making them as they generally 
undeistood them. 

Q. State as you understood it.—A. 1 understood that he was making 
it for money. 

Q. And falsel.N ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you wrote it with that understanding?—A. Yes, sir; but I 
did not swear him to it. 

Q. Did you carry him to where he could swear to it ?—A. I did not 
swear him. 

Q. lie did swear to it, though ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, you say that Milton Jones, and Johnson, of De Soto, made 
affidavits, and that they made the ones that have been produced here?— 
A. I have seen them here since I have been in this room. 

Q. Were you ])resent when these affidavits were made?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You knew how they were made?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear them read from?—A. Yes, sir; a part of them. 

Q. The one of Milton Jones was read over to him ?—A. I cannot say 
so now. 

Q. A^ou knew that he was making it?—A. I knew it, because it was 
in my handwriting. 

Q. Did you know these statements were untrue ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you believe they were true?—A. I did not. 

Q. And you went there to Cavanac’s office with him to swear him 
to it?— A. I did not do that. 

Q. You believed it was untrue?—A. I did. 

Q. You were then ])rocuring false affidavits?—A. No, sir; I did not 
say that. 

Q. A"ou were procuring affidavits that you believed to be false ?—A. 
I do not know it, sir, but that is my belief. 


938 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. That is what I want to get at.—A. Well, sir, I believe now they 
were false, and I believe now that they stated so to me. 

Q. They stated afterwards that they were false !—A. No, sir; not 
that they were false. I stated that it was generally understood they 
were making these affidavits for the puri)ose of getting money. 

Q. 1 tell you not to tell me what was the general understanding. I 
want to know what you understood was understood—what was under¬ 
stood between you and the witnesses?—A. I was not a fiiember of the 
caucus or of tlie legislature, and I do not know whether these men 
were paid or not. 

Q. Did these men tell you that these statements were true or un¬ 
true ?—A. I cannot say that one of them told me so, but I understood it, 
and that they were making them for money. 

Q. And without regard for the truth ?—A. They did not tell me so» 
I thought so. 

Q. They did not tell you so ?—A. No, sir. 

Then, they told they were tried ?—A. No, sir; I told them they 
could get protection back home, and be taken care of and make some 
money. 

Q. Was that your purpose co offer them any inducement to make 
false affidavit? You have come here and sworn to it, and I asked you 
if it was your purpose to get affidavits, for money, that were false ?— 

I advised them to make them ; that is, to malie them a clean breast of 
it. I advised them to make them for their own proteetion. 

Q. You advised them to do it?— A. Yes, sir; but that is not any 
false affidavit, but I advised them to come and make an affidavit. 

Q. Did you not have a purpose in getting these affidavits that were 
false?—A. 1 don’t understand you. 

Q. Was it your purpose to procure those things—those affidavits that 
you knew were false?—A. I was not a member of the legislature. 

Q. I ask you again, was it your i)urpose, was it your intention, to 
get from those witnesses affidavits that were false?—A. I believed that 
they weie false. 

Q. And that was your purpose?—A. Yes, sir; and they were to get 
protection to go home. 

Q. You say they were to get protection ?—A. Yes, sir.^ 

Q. And money too?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVhat for; to make false affidavits?—xV. Yes, sir; that is the 
case. 

Q. Dow many affidavits did you procure ?—A. 1 think seven—six or 
seven, sir. 1 don’t mean to say that 1 procured the whole of them ; but 
some of them are in my hand-writing. 

Q. AYell, Mr. Phillips, you stated in your direct examination, and 
understood that everything you say is put down, and that if you con¬ 
tradicted yourself twenty times, every contradiction is put down, and 
will ai)pear, and I don’t want to deceive you. If you deceive the nig¬ 
gers, 1 don’t want to deceive you. Now, Mr. Phillips, did Judge Spof- 
ford apj)roach you on this subject, or did you first ap[)roach him?—A. I 
first told you that I first approached him. I asked him if he had au¬ 
thorized this man Johnson to represent him and make this bargain. 

Q. Who is this man Johnson ?—A. He is a man here. 

Q. Give his name.—A. That is what we call him. 

Q. You say, after this interview, you yourself approached Judge 
Spoffbrd ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the State-house ?—A. Yes. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG ^0^ 

Q. Personally or by letter ?—A. Personall^Mlrst, and tlion I ad^iressed 
him several letters. 

(}. Now, Ml. Philli])s, I want to give you a chance to explain a poiiit, 
if you can. He said to you that he wanted a llepuhlican who could tind 
out this testimony?—A. Yes, sir; a man who knew them. 

Q. Who knew these darkeys ?—A. I don’t think he used the word 
“ darkeys.” 

Q. Well, “nigger” then ?—A. lie didn’t use the words “ lvei)ublicau 
members of the legislature.” 

Q. He said that he believed he had been elected ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. lie said he wanted somebody who could find out whether they had 
been bribed f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He wanted a lvei)ublican ?—A. Yes, sir; that is, a man who knew 
the Republicans. 

I want to know if this is your letter (reading as follows): 

New Oulkans, La., March 11, ls7i). 

To Hon. II. M. Si'Oi’i'uHO: 

Deak Sih: If it will be of any advantage to you to prove that Kellogg procured bis 
election by the use of money, we are prepared to state to you that if you will sub[)cena 
five witnesses from this place that you can show positively and conclusively that he 
did pay (in some instances in ])er8on), and settled with some members. Caiitain Ward, an 
x-member of the' house of representatives, and myself, with three members of the 
legislature, can establish what we here state. This proposition is prompted by no hope 
of gain, but is purely voluntary upon our jiart. 

You can verify the truth of our statements, and should you have any doubt of our 
ability to do as above stated, we would suggest that you telegraph to Major Rurke or 
some friend here, who can call upon us and we can furnish them the proof of it, and he 
can qualify each of the live members before a notary public here before leaving for 
Washington. 

Hoping we can be of service to you, we subscribe ourselves your friends and obedient 
servants, 

WILLIAM WARD, 

98 Gasqnet IStrect. 

A. B. PHILLIPS, 

94 (Jasquct Street. 


Now, here is another letter, reading as follows: 


[Confidential.] 

New Ohleans, La., March ‘JT, ls79. 

To Judge H. M. Spoekoiid: 

Deak Sik : On yesterday I chanced to meet Stewart, of Tensas, on Canal street. He 
entered into (juite a lengthy conversation on the ill-treatment he had received at the 
hands of the Republican leadens, and referred to your contest against Kellogg. Hut I 
drew the inference from all ho said that a moneyed infinence would eontnd his evidence, 
so he is not the kind of witness you desire. 

Should you think it necessary to have more witnesses in addition to those whose 
names I gave you, you can safely subpama P. Dickinson, of Saint James Parish. 1 hope 
you will be able to make an issue that will be tried during the extra session, knowing 
that it will culminate in your success. 

The Kansas fever seems likely to become an epidemic among the colored people of 
this State, and t-hould the case go over until next December the witnesses might not 
be .so easily found, for.I would be glad to know of the possibility of the matter coming 
up this 8e.ssion as soon as possible. 

Your friend, Arc., 

W. H. PHILLIPS, 

94 Gasqnet Street. 

P. S. Since writing the above, Stewart met me on the street and told me he wanted 
to see me again. 

P. 


Is that your letter ?—A. That is my letter; yes, sir. 


940 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Hill : 

Q. You were honestly giving Spofford information in writing these 
letters. You Avanted him to believ^eyou, didn^t you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ISTow, here is a letter from you dated April 9, 1879, reading as fol¬ 
lows : 


Neav Orleans, La., April 9, 1879. 


To Judge H. M. Spofford : 

Dear Sir: Delays are dangerous. 

Kennedy (colored), sent here by K. to stitfan the backbone of those who voted for 
him for United States Senator, is active and busy hunting up every member unpro¬ 
vided for. 

I understood, and have been told by two of our witnesses (names 1 furnished you), 
that he has made propositions to them offering a consideration, &c. K. is a sharp and 
astute politician, and has all his emissaries about the C. H. at work. 

Kennedy, it seems plain, comes prepared to help the hoys financially. 

The witnesses I named to you are all right yet, but they all are impecunious, and I 
do not like to see them here subject to this temptation. 

I have broken the ice by getting the affidavits of Johnson and Jones, forwarded to 
you by Mr. Cavanac, and wonld have sent thefive bun they were not in the city. I hear 
from them, they are true. 

Blackstone, the circuit-rider, has returned to the city. I learn that they are mak¬ 
ing an assessment in the C. H. employees to help defray K.’s expenses in the contest. 

I cannot too urgently impress upon you the importance of taking your witnesses 
away from here at once. 

They naturally are of a suspicious nature, and they continually suggest to me that 
the affidavits will be used, &c., and that they will not be by you subpoenaed. I, of 
course, explain to them better, and really have no fear of them doing other than telling 
the plain truth, which is all you require. 

Please let me hear from you immediately^ ou receipt of this by telegram. 

Your obedient servant. 


W. B. PHILLIPS, 

94 Gasquet Street. 


Q. “K.,” that is for Kellogg, isn’t it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. “C. H.” meant custom-house, didn’t it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was Kennedy ?—A. He is a man here in town. 

Q. What Kennedy is it?—A. A colored man tliat I referred to. 

Q. The witnesses all wanted to be subpoenaed, did they ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. You see the answer by telegram there. They wafited to go to 
Washington ?—A. Yes, sir, of course. 

Q. And that is your letter, is it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

At this point the committee took a recess for half an hour. 


W. B. Phillips’s (a witness called on behalf of the sitting member) 
examination resumed. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Mr. Phillips, 1 understood you to say that this man John¬ 
son you spoke of was a young man ?—Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say he is here in New Orleans?—A. Yes, sir. I could not 
say whether he is here now or not, but he resided here, up town. 

Q. How long did he reside here?—A. 1 cannot say. I met him in 
the Saint Louis Hotel. I met him two or three weeks ago again. 

Q. I want you to make this specific in order to know who it is, for we 
do not believe that there is any such man, and you should produce him 
for your own vindication if he is here.—A. I can ; if you give me a ser¬ 
geant, or make me a sergeant-at-arms, I can produce him. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


941 


SeDator Cameron. I do not intend to find fault witiranytliinj; unnec¬ 
essarily, but 1 do not think it just and fair to say to a witness in that 
manner that you <lo not believe what he says ? 

Senator Hill, l just make the remark to let him know that we do 
not believe what he said about that, and 1 think it is fair to the witness 
to do it.. 

Senator Cameron. 1 never heard a judge say to a witness that he did 
not believe what he was testifying. 

Senator Hill. I, in good faith, Mr. Witness, notify you that, so far as 
our information goes, your man Johnson is a myth, and if you can t)ro- 
duce him, that will establish your propositions. 

The Witness. If I show there is any such man in New Orleans you 
will believe it, even if 1 do not produce him ? 

Senator Hill. I have given you notice now. and you must produce 
him yourself. What sort of a man was Johnson ? 

The Witness. Now, as to the general character of the man, I know 
nothing about him. 

By Senator Hill: 

(^. Was he a black man or a white man ?—A. A white man. 

Q. What was the color of his hair ?—A. As long as I have known 
him, he has worked and atliliated with the Democratic party. 

Q. Yes; but that is not the color of his hair.—A. What is the color 
of his hair ? It is the color of mine. 

Q. What is the color of his eyes ?—A. 1 do not know, sir; I cannot 
tell you that. 

Q. Has he any whiskers?—xV. He has a moustache; 1 do not think 
he has any chin whiskeis. fiudge Si)oft'oid knows him. 

(^. Will you produce him ? 1 do not say you cannot produce a John¬ 

son. There are a hundred in New Orleans. Have you given the names 
of the persons whose attidavits you juocured ?—A. No, sir; I have given 
the first two that 1 took. 

Q. How many did you get in all ?—A. Six or seven. 

Q. Give the names of all you procured t —A. 1 cannot give them now. 
There were Johnson, of De Soto, and Milton Jones; they were the first 
two. I got them on the tourth day of April. 

Q. Milton Jones, you say ?—xV. Yes, sir; and Johnson. 

Q. And Gary ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Watson ?—A. I think that Watson is one ; I am not sure ; I 
can’t say. 

Q. Did you get Brooks’s ?—A. I cannot tell, unless I saw' the hand¬ 
writing of the allidavit. 

Q. Did .\ou get De Lacy’s?—A. No, sir; 1 do not think that 1 wrote 
De Lacy’s. He was with us at the audiences that were held at my 
house, but 1 did not write it for him. 

Q. l)id you get Seveigue’s ?—A. I do not think i (lid. 1 don’t believe 
it was in my handwriting either. 

(,). Did you get Blackstone ?— xV. That was an allidavit you have jiro- 
duced soine time, and 1 do not know anything about that. 

Q. Then there are a number ot these aftidavits that were gotten that 
you do not know anything about ?—xV. 1 do not know’, sir; they have 
got a hundred. 1 am only speaking of what 1 know about. 

Q. Milton Jones and you were present when he made it ?—A. Ves, 
sir. 

Q. Were }ou iiresent when he sw'ore to it ?-^xV. No, sir; Ido not 
think I was. 


I 

'A 



<)42 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG, 


Q. Do you know that he did swear to it ?—A. Jones told me so when 

e eame back. 

Q. He told you that he had sworn to it?—A. Yes, sir; he told me 
that he had. 

Q. He has been here and testified, and has said that he did not swear 
to it !—A. That was the understandiug^, that he was to swear to it, and 
he told me afterwards that he had sworn to it, and I furnished him a 
eo[)y of it the following morning. 

Q. Did you put anything in that pai)er that they told you not to !—A. 
That 1 (ian’t say positively. 

Q. Did they know what was in the affidavits!—A. Yes, sir; and the 
matter was discussed in the house before tliey went down there. John¬ 
son was workiiig at his business, and I went for him, and the matter 
was discussed then and next day before he went down. 

Q. Now, I do not want to mislea<l you or eutraf) you, but I understood 
you to sa 3 " in your direct examination that yon told Johnson and Jones 
they were to get a thousand dollars wiien the-affidavits were made !—A. 
No, sir ; if you understood me in that way yon are mistaken. I said 
they were to get a thousand dollars before swearing in WashingtoTi. 
And the affidavits were what they were to swear to. 

Q. They were to go there and swear to what was in the affidavit!— 
A. A^es, sir. 

Q. And get a thousand dollars!—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many of them did you tell that!—A. I told the whole num¬ 
ber of them, Blackstone, Jones, Johnson, and several others. 

Q. Did they all swear that they were neither promised any money 
nor expected ai»y for making the affidavit!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Jones swore here this morning.—A. His memory or mine must 
be very short. 

Q. Did he say he vras not promised a letter of protection back home, 
and the question was oii!—A. N >; he said he expected i)rotection from 
a false job on h im, and that somebody told him that they were getting 
up a job on him. 

Q. AVere you the man who told him that!—xV. I don’t know but that 
in a general way I advised him that it was best to make the affidavit. 

Q. You advised him that somebody was going to get up a job ou him! 
— A. 1 don’t know that I did. He was in some considerable trouble up 
there in his parish. 

Q. He said he made the affidavit to get protection from that, and dis¬ 
tinctly stated that no money was promised him, not a dollar, and he 
expected none from anybody!—A. Then, either his memory or mine is 
at fault. 

Q. A^ou expected when those witnesses left all of them would go to 
Washington and testify to what they had sworn !—A. I did not. 

Q. What did you expect; that they would go back on them !—A. They 
done just as I thought they would do. 

Q. What made you think so; what was your reason!—A. I con¬ 
sidered the question nationally in its issues, and I knew it was an effort 
to get control of the United States Senate, and in what I did I may 
have been acting a little traitorously and bad in the matter, but 1 did 
so to sto]) that. 

Q. A^ou expected them to go to Washington and swear different from 
what they swore in the affidavits !—A. Yes, sir; because, as I told you, 
the matter was all composed at my house. 

Q. Didn’t you express astonishment when you heard they had gone 
back on those affidavits!—A. Yes, sir; of course I did. 


SPOFFOHI) VS. KELLOGG. 943 

Q. Yet you have Just said that you knew or expected tliey would do 
it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Then you were not astonished?—A. No, sir; I was just talking 

then. 

• Q. YY)u were lying, you mean f—A. No, sir ; I was telling an untruth, 
hut not lying. 

Q. Tnen you belong to that e.reed of Loni.siana moralists who think 
it is not wrong to tell an untruth ?—A. Well, sir, there are a great 
many things tliat are not honest in Louisiana politics. 

Q. You say rluit you expected them to go back on these atlidavits? 
—A. 1 knew they were going back on them. 

Q. You knew it?—A. Well. 1 was satisfied of it. 

(^. Did you tell either Spotford or Walker that they were going back 
on them ?—A. No, sir; I did not write it either. 

Q. Did you tell Mr. Walker that if you had gone to Washington they 
would have stood up to thein ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Would they ?—A. No, sir; they would have done the same thing. 

Q. Were you telling an tmtruth then f—A. Y^es, sir; 1 was there then 
to get a settlement for serviim I had perfoi tned. 

(}. You wanted pay for the services you had not performtHl ?—A. No, 
sir; that was the natural way ot talking at that time. 

Q. Didn’t Walker fell you he did not believ(‘ you?—A. No, sir; 1 
recollee-t the remark pretty well, but it was not that remark. 

Q. Did you send this telegram to Judge, Spoflord : 

Nkw Orleans, Majf Ik, ISTU. Receivc<l at S.ll p. ni. 

H. M. SroKFORi), Nati„ Hotel, I). C. : 

Nineteen nieinliers who voted for K. have tieen put to work in the C. II. If })OH.sil)le 
tell nie when snhpo'na.s will issue. Great tlissatisfaction exists at the delay, as some 
of them are here ami do not know whether to go home or not. Answer at once. 

W. Ik IMIILLIPS, 

1)4 Gafqnci >Street. 

53, collect A rate. II. Dr. 

Q. Then yon wanted Judge Spolford to send subptenas for witnesses 
who would go back on him ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Y''ou were working for Kellogg then ?—A. Y^es, sir—no, 1 wanted 
to hel]t the National Republican party, as I understand it. 

Q. 1 thought you said you were a Democrat, a while ago ?—A. No, 
sir; I said when I canvassed the State for the Democrats I received 
the right to canvass for the National Republican party. 1 never was a 
Dernociat, but 1 work for them. 

Q. AVell. you were representing to Judge Spoftbrd that he should 
send subpoenas to witnes.ses to testify in his behalf, and, at the .same 
time, were you working for Kellogg'?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And after deceiving Spolford in this way, and working for Kel¬ 
logg and the National Republican party, you went and asked Sjiofford 
to pay you for it ?—A. 1 did. 

Q. You said, a little while ago, that you always work for pay. How 
much did Kellogg pay you ?—A. I never received a cent from him, and 
he is in debt to me now. 

Q. Flow much does he owe you ?—A. I don’t consider that I am work¬ 
ing for anything in this tight but for the success of the Republican 
party in 1S80. 

Q." How much did Kellogg promise you ?—A. Not a cent. 

Q. How do you expect to be paid for it ?—A. I don’t expect to get any 
pay uidess this committee i)ay me for my attendance. 

Q. Is that all that you expect ?—A. That’s all. 


it 



944 


SPOFFORD VP. KELLOGG. 


Q, Was that what you were working all tliis way, back and forth, in 
May and June, for f—A. 1 didn’t know this committee was coming down. 

Q. Yon expected pay, yon say ?—A. Yes, sir; from Spoftbrd. 

Q. For your treachery to him?—A. No, sir; at the time he refused 
to pay me he didn’t know tl at it was for treachery. I thought he was 
acting in bad faith to me as mncli I was with him. 

Q. Why did yon think so ?—A. Because he pledged himself to pay 
this and didn’t do it. 

Q. Didn’t Mr. Walker tell yon why ?—A. O, that was another time. 
Mr. Walker didn’t know at the time but what I was doing the work for 
Spoftbrd. I said I considered that yon acted very courteously, because 
yon didn't know anything about it [addressing Mr. Walker]. 

Q. Here is a telegram : 


Illalf’-rate message.] 

New Oiujeans, June 9, 1871)—2.45 a. in. 

H. M. Spoffoiu), National Hotel, /)^., D. C. ; 

Wood walked to State-house to-dajL We are astonished at the perjury coininitted 
by witnesses. Should you need us to prove that they did dictate and voluntarily make 
the affidavits, let us know through Clem Walker, attorney. 

W. B. PHILLIPS, 

1)0 Gasqiiet Street. 

40, coll. 4 rate. 

A. That is my telegram, but it is not true. 

Q. That it is just a naked lie, then ?—A. AVell, sir, it was a political 
tight, I thought. 

Q. Should you need me to [irove that they did dictate and volun¬ 
tarily make the affidavits, let us know through Clem Walker, attorney.” 
—A. Yes; I sent that. 

Q. This refers to you and Ward, don’t it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who were astonished—that is, you and Ward were astonished—at 
the peijury committed by the witnessses. “ If you want us to prove 
that they did dictate and voluntardy make the affidavits, let us know.” 
That is, you and Ward were willing to go to Washington and swear that 
they did make such affidavits. Now, listen; this is dated here and sent 
to Spofford at Washington: Wood walked to State house to day. We 
are astonished at the perjury committed by witnesses. Should you need 
us to prove that they did dictate and voluntarily make the affidavits, let 
us know through Clem Walker, attorney.” Did you mean to offer that 
you and Ward would go to Washington, api)ear before the committee, 
and testify that these negroes did dictate and voluntarily make the 
affidavits ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What did you mean ?—A. I meant the same as I did in those two 
letters ; it was our purpose to mislead him in the matter, and to find out 
exactly what he was doing. 

Q. Then you sent it ?—A. 1 di<l it deliberately to know what he was 
doing. 

Q. At whose instance did you do it ?—A. It was the parties who were 
there at the house. They were in Washington at the time. 

Q. I say at whose instance did you go into this matter originally ?— 
A. I went into it in the interest of the Kejuiblican party. 

(J. Was no one to pay you anything for it ?—A. No one. 

Q. Was no one to pay you any money ?—A. No, sir; Nobody except 
Judge Spofford. 

Q. Did Kellogg know what you were doing ?—A. lie did. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOOa. 945 

Q. Did lie know that you were deceiving Spofiord ?—A. Yes, sir; 
hilt he was not to pay me anytliing. 

He knew you were playing traitor to Spofford ?—A. He knew that 
1 was working in the interest of the Republican party. He knew that 
through parties connected with the custom-house. 

Q. Were you and Ward and Blackstone and Jones, and all these wit¬ 
nesses, acting lor the Keiiublican party at that time?—A. They were, 
except that they had a twofold interest in the matter. They wanted to 
get back money. 

Q. Well did Kellogg know that the negroes were working for the same 
juirpose, too ?—A. I do not know that. 

Q. How often did you communicate with Governor Kellogg about 
this matter ?—A. I could not tell you exactly. 

Did you keep up the communication with him ?—A. Xot con¬ 
stantly. 

(^. You did keep uj) communication with him, however ?—A. I tele¬ 
graphed him and wrote him once or twice what was going on. 

Q. Did he engage you to go on ?—A. No, sir. 

(^. Did he discourage you ?—A. He did not encourage or discourage 
me. 

Q. Were yon not anxious to go to Washington and testify ?—A. I 
was no witness in the case at all. 

Q. You wanted to be a witness ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Y^ou were anxious to control the other w itnesses ?—A. The uiuler- 
standing was that I was to go with them. 

i). And you intended when you got there to encourage them to go 
back on their attidavits ?—A. I w'as working for the Republican iiarty, 
sir. 

(^). Was anybody associated with you in this w^ork besides the wit¬ 
nesses and Ward ? Did Jim Lewis have anything to do with it ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Did Sweazie?—A. 1 met Sweazie several times at the house. 

(N Did he know what was going on ?—A. He did. 

(j). You said you had correspondence with several ixarties wiio were 
there ?—A. There were several parties wiio wu’ote letters at my instance. 
1 do not know^ whether I am at liberty to mention their names. 

Q* D, yes, you are. We have no secrets in law, you know.—A. 
Well, sir, there was Ross—Cyrus 11. Ross, and J. R. G. Pitkin is the 
other. 

Q. Is he the former United States commissioner ?—A. [ believe he 
was into it too. 

Q. Was General Badger into it too ?—A. No, sir. 

Were those the only two ?—A. Tiie only two. 

Q. Were there any other prominent Republicans here posted upon 
your raid upon Spofiord ?—A. There are several others, but they are 
lesser lights. 

Q. That is, such as ^Nlr. Jewett?—A. 1 do not know^ from personal 
knowledge what he knew. 

(,). Who else?—A. I think Mr. Richardson know about it. 

Did anybody else know about it?—A. Yes, sir; a newspaper man. 

Q. Of which iiress ?—A. The Republican press. 

(^. The National Republican press?—A. Yes, sir; 1 believe he wuites 
for three presses ; I believe 1 have his card. 

Q. Let us have it. Thenew'spapersare so generally above suspicion that 
I would like to know’ which one this one is.—A. He is writing for three 
papers, the Courier-Journal and two other pai-ers. He is herein town. 

bO S K 




946 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. I suppose you found it necessaiy, or'tliou.^lit it proper, to let Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg, and these other prominent Republicans know what you 
were at in order to get your reward ?—A. I received none. 

Q. You expected some ?—A. I was working myself back into the 
party—I mean the National Republican party—because I have been 
lighting the State Republicans here myself. 

Q. It was necessary for you to let them know you were working for 
Kellogg and the party; at least they wouldn’t take you back, therefore 
it was necessary to let them know that you were working for the Re¬ 
publican party *? When did you disclose to Governor Kellogg these 
telegrams to Judge Spofford !—A. I do not know who did that. 

Q. Didn’t you tell Kellogg about it 1—A. I told a friend of his. 

Q. W^ho was that friend “?—A. I tcld Mr. Pitkin. 

Q. When did you tell Mr. Pitkin?—A. I told Mr. Ross and he showed 
them to him. 

Q. At what time did you tell Pitkin ?—A. I cannot tell you what 
time. 

Q. About what time ?—A. I cannot tell you about what timej I know 
he sent off a pencil memorandum at the time. 

Q. Who did he send it to?—A. To Governor Kellogg. 

Q. I would like to know about what time that was—last mouth, last 
June, May, April, spring, summer, fall, or wdnter ?—A. I cannot tell you 
exactly. 

Q. i do not want the precise time. That is not so important and ma¬ 
terial as to have you fix about the time, approximate it.—A. Maybe 1 
can find the exact date j I don’t believe I have the date now. 

Q. You can’t tell whether it was before or after the witnesses went to 
Washington?—A. It w’as before they went to Washington. 

Q. Early in your campaign against Spofford—that is to say, some time 
before they w^eut ?—A. Some time before they went. Mr. L. H. Ross, of 
212 Roman street, was present after the communication was made to 
me. 

Q. There was perfect understanding between you and Ward?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You understood each other and had the same object in view?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And both of you were Republicans?—A. Yes, sirj I answer for 
myself, and I presume he was. 

Q. Now, Mr. Phillips, if there was a man named Johnson to whom 
you alluded in the first instance, was he in it too ?—A. No, sir; he was 
not. 

Q. Did you ever have any interview with him afterwards ?—A. I did 
once. 

Q. How came he to drop out?—A. He was out of the city, I think. 

Q. Where did you last see him ?—A. At Judge Sheldon’s court. 

Q. How long ago?—A. I cannot tell exactly, but two or three times, 
in the last five or six months. 

Q. W^'as it Johnson who told you about Spofford being willing to pay 
the money to get the evidence of bribery ?—A. Yes, sir. He told me he 
was authorized by Judge Spofford to pay for it, and he had some checks. 

Q. On what bank were they ?—A. That I cannot tell you. 

Q. Did not he tell you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t you get one of them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t you notice what banks they were on ?—A. I cannot say. 
He was drinking at the time, and I thought it was a little singular. 

Q. How many checks did he have ?—A. That I could not tell you. 


i 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


947 


Q. I nuderstood you to say in your direct examination that you held 
a check for $100 ?—A. He said he would give me a hundred dollars if 
1 would procure the testimony of one witness to swear that Kellogg 
paid money. 

Q. Well, you got more than two ?—A. Yes, sir; but I did not see 
him. 

Q. Did you never apply to him for tlie check?—A. No, sir; for sub¬ 
sequently 1 made an arrangement with Kellogg. 

Q. You did not go back to Johnson about it ?—A. I did not, sir; but 
he tried to offer to others checks. 

Q. What first suggested this scheme to you that you should present 
this matter to Judge Spoft'ord, that the witness should swear to all this, 
and then go back on him ?—A. first suggestion was this man John¬ 

son coming to me. He showed me these checks right up stairs in the 
Saint Louis Hotel, and represented that there was money in it, and I 
thought maybe they would buy up some testimony’, and if they did, I 
would know it. 

Q. Then you and Ward took up the notion that you would come in 
and trap Spolford and get his money ?—A. The purpose, and the sole 
purpose, was to know if any improper means were being used to secure 
this testimony. 

Q. How could you know that it was being done if you were doing it 
yourselves ?—A. That would be the very means for me to find it out. 

Q. But he was only securing it through you and you volunteered to 
procure it ?—A. That was the first start of it. After seeing this man 
Johnson and after Johnson spoke to me and 1 asked him if he was au¬ 
thorized to talk that way and trade around checks, I saw Spofibrd and 
he denied having authorized Johnson. Then Johnson went away and 
I did not see him for two months. 

Q. As he denied it and you had no authority from Johnson, why did 
you go on ?—A. I thought there was a purpose to secure this testimony. 

Q. And you would help ?—A. That I would help and know how it was 
done. 

(»). And get Spofiford’s money and an office in the Kepublican party ? 
—A. Of course, that was it. 

Q. Well, were you personally acquainted with Judge Spofford before 
this thing began ?—A. No, sir ; I never met him except in the campaign 
of 187G. 

Q. Did you know him by sight?—A. By sight, and I met him once 
in Natchitoches. 

Q. You had never been introduced to him ?—A. I do not remember 
I might have been while he was running. 

(^. In your first letter, you stated that you could refer him to parties 
aud information that you were sincere. You referred him to that and 
you re|)resented to Judge Simflford that he could really discover the 
bribery ?—-A. 1 made those representations in tlie letters, as you can see 
for yourself. 

Q. What is your profession ?—x\. I have been practicing law here in 
the city. 

Q. Do you practice law ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you lived in New Orleans?—A. I have lived here 
consecutively since 1872, except when 1 have been out on campaigns. 

Q. Where did you live before you came here ?—A. Jn Kapides aud in 
Grant Parishes. I came to tlie State in October, 18(>5. 

Q. Where did you come from ?—A. I came from Arkansas, but I am 
a native of Alabama. 



948 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you born in Alabama ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wbat oiiice did you bold in Grant Parisb !—A. I was judge there 
for a while. 

Q. Of Grant Parisb ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. O, look here, are you the man whom Stokes paid half of bis salary 
to for an office you did not get ?—A. For an office 1 did not get ? Well, 
sir, I will tell you wbat be did. He gave me two checks. 

Q. Why would not Governor Kellogg commission you judge of Grant 
Parish ?—A. The returning board counted me out. 

Q. What reason did they give for it ?—A. I do not know the reason 
for it, only I had a little spat with the Republicans. 

Q. Did not Governor Kellogg give, as a reason, that you were a man 
of bad character f—A. I have heard of that. I do not think he could 
have refused me if I had been returned elected. 

Q. Judge Stokes said you were elected?—A. I was, sir; and the 
Democrats gave me a certiticate. 

Q. Why did Kellogg refuse to commission you ?—A. He bad nothing 
to do with it after the returning board counted him out. 

Q. Stokes said he was commissioned at the instance of a man named 
Alexander, James Alexander, of Catahoula Parish, and that Kellogg re¬ 
quired him to pay you two $250 checks out of his salary ?—A. If Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg knew anything about it I do not know it; but Alexander 
made the arrangement. 

Q. But Governor Kellogg knew about it and he required it from Stokes, 
did he not?—A. No, sir; not that I knew of. 

Senator Cameron. I must object at this point, and I will state, Mr. 
Chairman, that it was Alexander who made this arrangement, and the 
information came to Governor Kellogg afterwards. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Y^ou say that Governor Kellogg knew nothing about it that you 
know of ?—A. Not that I am aware of. 

Q. How are you considered in that parish ?—A. I think I can beat 
any man in the State of Louisiana there at this time on a square vote. 

Q. Is that a credit to the parish or to yourself?—A. I consider it a 
credit to myself. 

Q. Are you one of the men who was charged with getting up a bloody 
riot in Grant Parish ?—A. I think tbe public press charged it and had 
a good many anathemas to heap on me. 

"Q. Did not you and AVard dp it ?—A. No, sir. I am glad you spoke 
of that. I lived iu Grant Parish, 1 think, a year and six days. 1 think 
this fight occurred on Easter Sunday. 

Q. Of what year ?—A. I think 1873 or 1874; rightabout that time. 
I left there a year and six days before that fight, and I never communi¬ 
cated with a solitary person in that place for six months after I left. I 
do not know anything about that fight. I know there was some trouble 
up there a few days before the fight, and I was here in the city. 

Q. How came they to charge you with it ?—A. 1 do not know why. I 
was here iu tbe city. 

Q. And was Ward here ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And are you not charged with murder iu that parish ?—A. T was 
charged with murder. 

Q. And with robbery ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. With arson ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And with burning up a house ?—A. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Q. Are you not charged with perjury ?—A. Yes, sir; and false regis¬ 
tering. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 949 

(}. Are you not cliarged with forgery?—A. Yes, sir. I believe that 
was included in the charge of perjury. 

• (^. You are charged, then, with murder and all of them ?—A. Every¬ 
thing in the decalogue, I think. 

(i. Not with what is in the decalogue, I reckon, but with the viola¬ 
tions of what is in it ?—A. Well, with the violations of what is in it, 
then. 

Q. Were they made against you before or after you left the parish ?— 
A. Afterward. 

(}. Have you been back since ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(*>. Have the charges all been disposed of?—A. Well, 1 went back to 
four courts and the only witness who ever appeared against me was for 
carrying concealed w’eapons. 1 w’as kidnaped and carried back there. 

(>). What for ?—A. On the charge of illegal voting. 

Q. O, you w^ere charged w ith that, too ?—A. Yes, sir; that is the 
charge of perjury or illegal voting. 

(»>. How’ long has it been since Governor Kellogg notified you that 
you would be called as a witness before the committee ?—A. Not until 
to day. 

Have you not been expecting to be called all the time?—A. No, 
sir. I will be very candid and say that 1 did not expect to be called. 
I believe the question was asked me yesterday if I would be willing to 
testify j but nobody told me until not exceeding an hour before I came 
in before this committee. 

(,>. Who asked you if you would be w illing to testify ?—A. It was 
right here in this building. 

Q. Well, w^ho was it ?—A. I think it was a short, chunky man with 
w'hiskers. 

(}. Well, Morris Marks is a short, chunky man with whiskers.—A. I 
do not know^ him. 

Q. Was it a black man or a w hite man ?—A. It w'as a white man. 

Q. Was it George Norton ?—A. I think it was him. It wuis down¬ 
stairs, and if it was not him it was some one in company wuth him. 
That wns all that was said, would I be wulling to testify ? 

i}. Have you not had several interview's with Governor Kellogg since 
this committee was here ?—A. I hav'e spoken to him several times, but 
not about the testimony. 

Q. Have you been to his room ?—A. Well, sir, he knew it already; 
he knew' it before he came here this time. If there w'as any irregu¬ 
larity in May last, he was pretty well posted about it. 

Q.* When you w'ent to Judge Spofford to be employed by him, did 
you not represent yourself as a Democrat?—A. I did, I believe. I 
Miowed him some indorsements, I believe, and show'ed him the indorse¬ 
ment of the State Central Committee. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. A Democratic committee?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. And did not you represent that Ward w'as the president of the 
Democratic club ?—A. There was some club of that sort. 

Q. Is Ward a white or a colored man?—A. He is a pretty black 
man. 

Q. Y"ou and Ward are chums, as we call it,asso.ciates—are you not?— 
A. No, I cannot say that we are; I cannot say that. 

Q. You ran together and entered into mutual schemes ?—A. No, sir ; 
not since that time. 


950 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Mr. Spofford, you say, was honest enough to pay you sixty-five 
dollars?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did you take to get up the six or seven affidavits?—A. 
Well, I spent a good deal of time at it. There was a bill passed in the 
legislature of the State known as Michael HahiPs bribery bill, and they 
were afraid that they would be indicted for bribery, and it took a good 
deal of talk and persuasion to show them they could uot be indicted. 

Q. Now, I am going to ask you if 3 ou do not know from communica¬ 
tion with these witnesses that there was briber^' in the election of Kel¬ 
logg ?—A. I do not. There was a great deal of rumor about it, but I 
do uot know it is fact. 

Q. Did you hear any of them say so ?—A. No, sir ; I heard a great 
many of them talk, but I heard no member confess that they saw any 
money. 

Q. Did you hear them saj’^ that Souer gave it to them ?—A. There 
was a general rumor to that effect. You could hear that in the State- 
house and on the street, but whether it was done or not I do not know. 

Q. Didn’t De Lacy, Brooks, Watson, or any of them, tell you they 
had been bribed ?—A. I wrote De Lacy’s affidavit. 

Q. What induced De Lacy to make the affidavit—he wasn’t in your 
party?—A. I am prettj^ intimate with the Kepublicans. 

Q. But De Lacy wasn’t in your party that made the affidavits?—A. 
De Lacy was there at the house, and talked it over to us. 

Q. You saw him there?—A. I knew he made the affidavit for I saw 
it, and I know he was there. 

Q. But he swore in Washingion that he did uot make it?—A. I do 
not know what he swore. I know he was one of the party at the house 
when the agreement was to make the affidavits. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Walker (G. L.)?—A. I have the pleasure. 

Q. Do 3 "ou know him better than you do Judge Spofford?—A. No, 
sir; I can’t say that. 

Q. Where did you first meet Mr. Walker?—A. I think I met him 
here the first time in the campaign of the Citizens’ Conservative Asso¬ 
ciation, if I remember correctly. 

Q. You have had several conversations with Mr. Walker upon this 
subject?—A. Yes, sir; I think one or two. 

Q. Where at?—A. Mr. Walker’s office, 160 Common street. I can¬ 
not remember the exact dates, but it was upstairs in his office in the 
front room. 

Q. When was it; before the witnesses went to Washington or after¬ 
wards?—A. O, no; it was afterwards. He had been delegated then 
to act for Spofford. Mr. Cavanac was his agent before that. 

Q. It was since they came back, then?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was the last time?—A. I think three or four weeks ago. 

Q. How many times did you call there ?—A. I think twice, possibly 
three times. 

Q. What reason did Mr. Walker give you for not having anything 
to do with you, or paying you any money ?—A. I said to him in the 
conversation that he knew nothing of what took place between Mr. 
Spofford and myself, that I didn’t suppose he knew, and he said he was 
authorized by Mr. Spofford not to pay another cent; that was about the 
substance of it. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Didn’t I state then to you or Ward, sitting on the sofa, that I 
would talk to you very plainly; that I would listen to j^ou for the names 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


951 


of the parties who knew the facts or any of the facts, and that for past 
services I thought yon liad been snfhciently paid, and that in full for 
all yon liad done. I said that yon and Ward were two of the biggest 
damned scoundrels in the State of Louisiana, and I knew it ?—A. No, 
sir; yon said that to Ward, for he came to the court house and told me. 

Q. Were yon not present?—A. No, sir; yon said to me that that 
service we had rendered yon, we had pa^^ for. The statement 5 011 made 
a while ago I am satisfied yon made, but to AVard, for he came to the 
court-house and told me, bnt he said that yon said it was newspaper 
talk. 

Q. I said it was the general reputation that yon had throughout the 
State.—A. V^es, in the newspapers; that’s what yon said. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Yon stated in your direct examination that yon didn’t think Mr. 
Cavanac knew anything about this arrangement. Now, did not Mr. 
Cavanac tell yon that if your object was money you would not get it, 
that Judge Spotiord wasn’t paying money ; and if your object was to do 
good and vindicate the truth all right, and if your object in comitig 
there was to get mone^^ from Spoffbrd,yon need not come?—A. 1 said 
I am satisfied that Mr. Cavanac knew nothing of the purpose or inten¬ 
tion of those men in coming there. I watched him as much as anybody 
and I never saw him do a disreputable thing. I saw him refuse them 
money ; they asked him for it several times and he refused. 

Q. Didn’t he tell the witnesses that they could not get money ?—A. 
They asked him and he refused, and he gave none of them anything in 
my presence. 

Q. Didn’t he tell them he didn’t want anything bnt the truth ?—A. 
Y"es, sir; Mr. Cavanac told them that. 

Q. Lie said if their afliilavits were not true not to swear to them ?— 
A. That is what he told the witnesses. 

[Beading it.J 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Let me look at those credentials from the Democratic committee. 
Is this one of the Democratic credentials you received ? 

[Beading it.] 

Rooms Executive Committee, 

April 2)6, 1870. 

To llis Excellency Fhancis T. Nictioels, 

Governor of Louisiana : 

The services rendered by Judge Phillips are certainly entitled to recognition, and 
should be rewarded by the bestowal of some eniployinent, w'hich will enable him to 
support his family. At a time when he was most needed he voluntarily stepped for¬ 
ward and aided the cause, and now that success crowns onr efforts, he shoiihl not be 
forgotten. Although your excellency could not assign him to duty with either re¬ 
corder, still I beg leave to suggest, then, when making the appointment, the appointee 
might be made to accept Judge Phillips as one of his employds, and I would suggest 
particularly the clerkship for aftidavits, which position ho would till satisfactorily, I 
am sure. 

LOLTS RUSH, 

Chairman of Executive Committee. 

GEORGE DUPRE, 
Member of Committee. 

J. E. AUSTIN, 

Executive Committee. 

Q. When did you get tluit paper; about the time it was dated ?—A. 
Yes, sir; tlie same day, I tliiiik. 

Senator Cameron. Inasmuch as the character of this witness has 
been called in (piestion, 1 otfer it in evidence. It is a genuine letter. 


952 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


[To tbe wituess.) 

Q. You have other Democratic indorsement ?—A. Yes, sir, and lie- 
publican too. 

Q. Senator Hill. You have Republican indorsement too ?—A. Yes^ 
sir, the whole Senate. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. From whom did you receive that paper —A. From Louis Bush— 
the man whose name is signed first on it. 

Q. Did the others sign it?—A. I went to them and they indorsed and 
signed it. 

Q. You took it and showed it to them, and they severally signed it ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it known in Northern Louisiana that you had been a Re- 
l)ublican ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you travel there under a safe-conduct or anything of that 
sort, issued to you by some prominent Democrats ?—A. No, sir ; I went 
w’ith one of the best men in town—Major Gloiu j he was safe protection 
all around. 

Q. You and he went around together?—A. Yes, sir j we were with 
Maj. Frank Gloin. 

Q. Was he the man who wrote these other affidavits ?—A. He wrote 
one. 

Q. But has he been engaged in this affidavit business,?—A. No, sir ; 
he was called in there that time. The reason he was there was that I 
and he had been out on the campaign, and I suggested that he come 
in. I knew that they had witnesses in the matter, on the way up. 
Twelve o’clock came and he had to go away, and left this affidavit half 
written. 

Q. You stated several times and said what he understood was between 
themselves and Ward—that is, the other you met at your house ; what 
was it ?—A. What he understood was that they were to make these 
affidavits, receive protection, and money, for making them out. It was 
represented to them that it was a national fight and necessary to know 
everything that was going on in regard to the position of a Senator. 

Q. Has Senator Kellogg ever written you, or ever telegraphed you in 
regard to this matter there?—A. I think he did once—not telegraph j 
he wrote me a letter acknowledging the receipt of mine. I am most 
certain that he wrote me a letter acknowledging the receipt of a letter 
from me. 

Q. Can you find it?—A. Yes, sir; I think there are only three or 
four lines in it. The letter is signed by you, governor, but 'written by 
your clerk. It is not your handwriting, but the signature is yours. 

Q. You may explain, if you desire, in reference to this charge made 
against you for murder.—A. I was going to ask the committee for that 
privilege. I think it was in 1874 or 1873, I had some trouble with 
some Republican connected with the legislature. It w^as a kind of 
personal fight between us. It was no political matter, so far as the 
state or national government was concerned. Nothing of that sort was 
involved in it at all. I had sued several parties in Grant Parish, and 
had had them arrested here on the charge of arson; and I instituted 
suit against them inThe United States court, and got judgment. 

Senator Cameron. Don’t go too much into details. 

The Witness (continuing). This man was one of the parties charged 
by me, and he was arrested by the United States, while stationed 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1^53 

ill tlie town of Colfax. Tie was arrested on another charge that I had 
nothing to do with. Nothing of the kind came from me. I had noth¬ 
ing to do with him. He attempted to escape, and the theory is, with 
everybody there, that he tried to escape and was drowned in "the river. 
Afterwards it was said that he was seen in Texas j and everybody 
knows that his family went to Texas. And this was while there was 
ti charge against me for the murder of this man, Waters. The grand 
jury were in the room like that, and the district attorney went in there 
^ind made a speech. Not a witness was summoned before them, and 
the men came out with an indictment against me. There was a prom¬ 
inent judge on the bench, and he said to me : “There is the-con¬ 

spiracy there that I ever saw against a man.” And he said, “If you 
-can pay me $300 1 will expose the whole thing.” That was Senator 
Blackburn. 

Q. Was that Jasper ?—^^A. Yes, sir ; he walked off with me, and told 
tme all about it, from the indictment that was to come in, and all about 
it. Then they came in in the last hours of the meeting with it. It had 
‘been represented to me that the grand jury proposed to bring on the 
indicpnent against me for murder, and 1 ai)pealed to it, and asked 
the court not to adjourn without giving me trial. The court did ad¬ 
journ. This indictment was brought in and tliere was a good deal of 
suspicion aroused. I staid there five days. You asked me if it was 
Jasper Blackburn ; I meant the parish judge, W. F. Blackburn. I got 
nervous and excited when he came and told me about it, and the sheriff’ 
csaid he was powerless to protect me; and I had better make my way 
to New Orleans. 1 came across to Natchez and down here. I ap¬ 
pealed to the district court there for a change of venue ; but the judge 
Jid not grant it. 1 appealed to the supreme court for a change of 
A’enue, but I was there tried, and on all the indictments, except the 
one charge, that of carrying concealed wea])ons, 1 was acquitted. Old 
<Jolonel Clay burn came there to the court-house, and fifty of the best 
citizens came in there, and told them, this is one of the best men in the 
country, and that they could not be made parties to the prosecution. 
•Colonel Clayburn is on my bond. He is one of the best men in the 
State. Not a single witness confronted me on any of these charges 
except the one I mentioned, and that is susceptable of proof. None of 
the resi)ectable peoi)le in Point Coujiee would testify to the same 
thing. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

You furnished a memoranda to a gentleman in town, as you say ? 
I wnderstand you sent it to me in regard to some points taken. With re¬ 
gard to me, did you ever communicate to me yourself ?—A. I never did. 

(}. Did you ever communicate to me, directly or indirectly ?—A. The 
only letter I have from you is the one in which you acknowledge the re- 
•ceipt of the letter from me. The other memorandums were sent to you 
by another gentleman and not signed by me. 

"(^. They were given to friends of mine in town ?—A. ^ es, sir. 

(j. That was months ago?—A. YYs, sir. 

(^. And no other communication was ever had between us?—A. The 
only one, I say, was written by some other person and signed by you. 

Q. Tell the committee what kind of a letter it was. You wrote to me 
and my clerk answered it.—A. Yes, sir; 1 have your letter in my pos¬ 
session. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. This memoranda you gave to Pitkin and Boss to send to him. 



954 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Kellogg tlien knew wliat they were to do with itf—A. They sent it to 
Kellogg, of course. 

Q. You just didiPt want the public to know what you were doing, 
hut you did not tell them not to tell Kellogg f—A. Ko, sir j I did not^ 
The presumption or assumption was that he would know. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q, Aren’t you aware that the person who sent them to me did not 
mention the name of the person, and said they were given to him by a 
man in town^—A. I remember this remark, that 1 did not want to be 
known in it. 

Q. What did you say that man’s name was to whom you gave them ^ 
—A. Pitkin. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Were you a witness in the Grant Parish trials ?—A. I do not think 
I was. 

Q. Did you ever receiv^e any office in consequence of this Democratic 
recommendation ?—A. Ko, sir; I never have. 

Q. Y^ou delivered it to Governor Kellogg?—A. I did. I was assistant 
ruling clerk for one hundred days. 

Q. In the Nicholls legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you visit Senator Kellogg on Sunday morning, or the day after 
he arrived here, in company with Sweazie and others?—A. I did not, 
sir. I have never been in company since- 

Q. Didn’t you visit his room in company with anybody ?—A. I have 
been to Senator Cameron’s room and I saw Senator Kellogg in there. 
I think he has the adjoining rooms. 

Q. Didn’t you say you had been in there and saw^ him ?—A. I think 
not. Here is the recommendation (reading as follows): 


Senate Citamuer, Jamtarij 14,1873. 


To bis Excellency W. P. Kellogg, 

Governor of Louisiana: 


We would respectfully present that Judge W. B. Phillips, our mutual friend^ merits 
your consideration, and would ask that you accept his resignation as parish judge, 
West Baton Rouge, and appoint him inspector of all stock (required by sec. 6- of an 
act of 1869, approved March 8,1869). 

By so doing you will oblige your friends, and most obedient servants,- 


W. W. WHARTON. 

E. L. WEBER. 

OSCAR F. HUNSAKER. 
O. H. BREWSTER. 

R. WORRELL. 

CHAS. P. WARD. 
.TAMES LAW. 

E. BENTLEY. 

RAFORD BLAND. 

J. W. MASICOT. 
ALLEN GREEN. 

M. H. TWITCHELL. 


W. B. STAMPS. 

L. B. JENKS. 

J. HENRI BURCH. 

THOS. A. CAGE. 

GEORGE C. KELSEY. 

JAS. R. ALEXANDER. 
THOS. H. NOLAND. 

THOS. C. ANDERSON. 

W. JASPER BLACKBURN. 
JAMES LONGSTREET. 
CHAS. CLINTON. 



Q. You Stated, in point of fact, that you had always been a Republi¬ 
can ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. You never have been a Democrat ?—A. Except this far—to work 
for the State ticket 

Q. And you have always been a Republican ?—A. Y"es, sir; so far as 
national affairs are concerned. 

Q. I would like to have that letter wherein Senator Kellogg acknowl¬ 
edges the receipt of your letter, because I want to know when that cor- 
jespondence took place,—A, I will bring it. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


955 


By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Did you receive any appointment from Senator Kellogg on pre¬ 
senting that paper ?--A. Xoue at all, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. ho appointed you judge of Grant Parish ?— A. 1 was elected : I 
was judge there for four years. 

Were you ever appointed inspector of animals ?—A. Never, sir. 

Upon motion the committee adjourned until ten o’clock to-morrow 
morning, Wednesday, December 3', ISTO. 


New Orleans, Wednesday^ December 3, 10 o’clock a. m. 

The committee met in pursuance to adjournment; present, all the, 
members ; also C. L. Walker, counsel for the memorialist; the memorial¬ 
ist, Henry M. Spofford, and the sitting member, William Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. The committee will please come to order. I desire to 
read to the committee and have incorporated in the record the follow¬ 
ing telegram, w’bich I have just received from Norvin Green, president 
ot the Western Union Telegraph Company : 

New Yoi’.k, N. Y., 3 .1.') p., Dec. ‘2, 1879. 

To Hon. Ben.i. H. Hill, 

Chairman Snh-committee, U. S. Senate, Xew Orleans: 

Sir: Manager Alleyn lias made report to us concerning his last attendance before 
the committee and his inability to further produce the W. P. Kellogg messages there¬ 
tofore demanded under his subpoena and under the terms of the memorandum fur¬ 
nished to him by the committee. In behalf of this company, I now beg to explain 
that the messages referred to were removed from New Orleans on the information and 
belief that the manager was then finally discharged from further attendance with 
them as a witness before the committee, and not, as was suggested iuthe committee, be¬ 
cause of any intention the part of this company to evade its lawful obligations in the 
premises by resort to a technicality. While this company is most anxious to preserve 
by every lawful means the sanctity of messages entrusted to it by the public, and does 
not concede the right of the committee to have the same produced under subpeena, it 
is yet not willing to place itself in the attitude towards your committee of taking ad¬ 
vantage of the verbal omission in the memorandum referred to. This company will 
therefore hold the messages covered by the memorandum in question subject to the 
lawful demand of the committee, reserving to itself, however, the right to interpose 
such legal objections and defences in opposition to their production as may have ex¬ 
isted at the time the subpccua and memorandum before referred to were served on the 
manager. 

With great respect to your honorable committee and to yourself, I remain, &c., 

‘n()K*vin green. 

President J^esUrn Union Telegraph Company. 


TESTKMONY OF WILLIAM M. BACHICLOB. 

William Bachelor, a witness called for the sitting nieniber, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Where do'yoii reside ?—Answ’er. I reside in the city of New' 
Orleans. 

Q. How long have you lived here ?—A. Since 18G3. 

Q. Do you know' William J. Moore in this city ?—A. Yes, sir; I know 
him well. 




956 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you kuow wliat bis general character is?—A. Yes, sir; I 
know it. 

Q. Is it good or bad ?—A. It is good from all that I have beard. 

Q. From that general character would you believe him on oath in a 
court of justice?—A. I certainly would. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I have no permanent business now. 

Q. No business at all ?—A. Not regular. I work at what I can get. 

Q. Do you work at the custom-house?—A. I work there occasionally, 
by the hour. I have no regular appointment there. 


TESTIMONY OF W. M. SUPvLS. 

W. M. SuRLS, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Are you acquainted with Francis Garrett ?—Answer. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Since 1865 or 1866. 

Q. Is his general character good or bad ?—A. So far as I know it has 
always been good with me. 

Q. From that general character, would you believe him on oath in a 
court of justice ?—A. I would, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I am a steamboat agent 

Q. For what line or what boats ?—A. I am working outside now. I 
am not the agent for any of the pool boats. I look after the Ouachita 
and Bed Biver and coast boats. 

Q. Did you ever hear that Garrett was accused of horse-stealing be¬ 
fore he came here?—A. No, sir; I never heard. 

Q. Did you ever hear that he was imprisoned in Shreveport and broke 
jail and got away ?—A. No, sir ; I never heard of that. 

Q. Did you ever hear that he was imprisoned at Jackson and bribed 
a railroad engineer and escaped?—A. No, sir; I never heard of that. 

Q. Did you ever hear that he was charged with appropriating gov¬ 
ernment property in this city, and convicted by a provost court and 
sent to prison some time ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear of his being imprisoned now?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know as a fact that he was ?—A. I never did know it. 

Q. Whom did you hear say that his character was good?—A. I only 
•speak of ray own knowledge and the business transactions I had with 
him, which have been quite extensive. When I first knew him he had 
a steamboat here, and I was his agent and done his collecting. 

Q. Then you are only speaking of your personal relation with him ?— 
A. Yes, sir ; I want that to be understood. 


TESTIMONY OF’ BEBNABD WILLIAMS. 

Bernard Williams, a witness called for the memorialist, recalled to 
the stand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Williams, I understand you desire to make some explana- 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


957 


tion in regard to some charges made against yon before the committee. 
You have a right to do so, but be as brief as yon can.—Answer. Sen¬ 
ator, I cannot understand the English language so well as you, and [ 
don’t understand what you ask me. 

Q. I understand that you desire to make some explanation to this 
committee vindicating yourself from charges made against you by other 
witnesses. 1 want you to be as short as you can and take up no more 
time than is necessary. 

(The witness produced some papers to the committee, which were ex¬ 
amined by Senators Cameron and Hill.) 

Senator Cameron. These are not legal evidence. 

Senator Hill. I think they are when they are responsive in rebuttal. 

Senator Cameron. I think it will be necessary to call the clerk to 
l)rove them, but I am willing to have it go in for what it is worth. 

The Witness. Gentlemen, if you give me opportunity to it was that 
I was prosecuted for nothing. I would call ui) witnesses to prove 1 am 
an innocent man. 

Senator Vance. We can’t do that, Mr. Williams. We can’t under¬ 
take to try you here. 

Senator Hill then read the following certificate: 


I do hereby certify that a certain Barney Williams never was tried or convicted of 
any felony in the hon. the first district court for the parish of Orleans since the year 
ld55, excepting a case on the docket, 

State of La. ) 

rs. >1G92G. Larceny. 

Munson Alexander &. Barney Williams. ) ^ • 

whereby these persons were convicted on the 19th Febr’y, 16GG, and each sentenced to 

two years at.hard labor in the State i>enitentiary on Febr’y ‘24th, 18GG. 

Clerk’s office, first district court for the parish of Orleans, Nov. ‘iGth, 1879. 

B. OFFENllEK, 

jyy rk. 

I had occasion about one year ago to examine into a matter of a Barney M illiams 
having been convicted before me of larceny, but after a strict iiuiniry became satisfied, 
and am now satisfied, that the Bernard Williams now a witness before the Senate com¬ 
mittee is not the imin. I know him well and have known him for several years. 

E. ABELL, 

Judge First District Coxrt. 


Static ok Louisiana, Parish of Orleans: 

Superior criminal court for the parish of Oilcans. 

I I’ierre Gravois, ch’ef deputy clerk of the superior criminal court for the itarish of 
Orleans, do hereby certify that after a careful examination of the docket anil records 
of this court, it appears that no charge whatsoever has been made at any time against 

Bernard Williams. -, «> i xi 'i c i 

In testimonv whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 
court at the city of New Orleans, this 2Gth day of November, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, and in the one hundred and fourth year 
of the Independence of the United States. 

fSKVl 1 1 . VI A > t*Io, 

■“ . Chief D'u ( lerk Superior Criminal Court. 

]]y Senator Hill: 

(). Ls there any thing else ? 

The Wri’NESS. There is a witness what has been here and swore, 3Ir. 
Morris Marks, the revenue collector in New Orleans. After the sol¬ 
diers were mustered out—if you by Oarrollton, there is a place called 
Greenville. I was at that time with Colonel Olmstead, of the nth 
loiited States Colored Infantry; I was a sutler and sold him clothes. 


.958 


SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Morris Marks was keeping a little store at the corner of Saint 
Charles and Poidras, two doors from the government house. The first 
was the government house and the second was liis clothing-store. 

Senator Cameron. I do not know what this witness is going into, 
but it seems to have some relation to a business transaction between 
him and Morris Marks. I do not think it is right to introduce such 
matters as that here in the record. 

Senator Hill (to the witness). You must not bring out anything but 
Vhat concerns you. Anything that concerns your own acts or about 
your own life, or anything that any of the witnesses said about you, you 
have the right to talk about.—A. That is what I have testified. Senator, 
that about what Morris Marks told the committee. Morris Marks said 
he would not believe me on oath, and I wanted to prove that it was a 
truth, and was whipped and dragged through the streets, and that I want 
to prove now. I saved his life, now, when he was picking the pocket 
of a discharged nigger soldier. 

Q. How long ago was that?—A. I believe I be able to give you the 
time. It was in the year, I believe, if 1 am not mistaken, in the year 
Abraham Lincoln was killed. 

Senator Hill I don’t think that has anything to do with the matter 
of the witness.—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill. Mr. Sweazie, that colored man who was brought in 
here and whom you recognize, has testified before the committee and 
has contradicted your statement about his being present in Kellogg’s 
room in Washington.—A. May I explain that? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. I was very excited. Senator. That gentleman there 
(pointing to Senator Cameron), he makes me so excited and insult me 
so much. I meant to say that Sweazie was emplyoed by Governor Kel¬ 
logg so much like I was. He was sent to Washington, the same as me, 
and for the same purpose. 

Q. He was employed then by Senator Kellogg and was not there as a 
witness?—A. He was employed by the custom-house to go there in the 
interest of Governor Kellogg. I tell you every word for word. That 
nigger came in here, but I did not understand the English language so 
well. He asked me if Sweazie was in the room. He was in there and 
was dead drunk. Johnson is one. He Lacy is two, Blackstone is three. 
Milton Jones, tliat nigger, he shakes hands with me yesterday out there. 
The first time they did not wish to go back on their affidavits. 

Q. Well, Mr. Williams, that has all been gone over before?—A. He 
was one of the men, Milton Jones was, that nigger what shakes hands 
with me. 

Q. Do not state anything that you stated before.—A. Milton Jones 
and He Lacy is two, Blackstone is three, and Johnson I met yesterday : he 
acknowledged that it was all true what I stated to the committee, but 
that I had no right to go back on the boys. 

Q. Was that yesterday you say?—A. Yes, sir; yesterday, Senator, 
about half past four or five, I was witli the sergeant^at-arms. He come 
up and said, Mr. Williams, I am not mad with you, and I said I am not 
mad either, and he said you told the truth, and I said you know I told 
the truth, and he said yes, only you have no right to go back on the 
boys, and I say, that is all right, and I saw him this morning and he 
said that he wished that we had that good cognac that we had in Wash¬ 
ington. 

Q. Now, Williams, yon had some memorandum of some kind in wri¬ 
ting, as I understood it, to Governor Kellogg; I don’t think it was put 
in evidence?—A. Yes, sir; a gentleman took it away from me. 




SrOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


959 


Q. \ou havoone with the name of (Ji)niniest Clarke on it?—A.. Yes, 
sir; I have it. It you will allow me to tell you tru'*, the ev’ery word of 
true, 1 come out with it, I will come out with, it right before the com¬ 
mittee. 

Senator Hill. This is the thing I wanted (reading). 

State of Louisiana, 

EX ECUTIV E r >EFA ETM I'.NT, 

Xew Orlmns, Feb. Ist, 1874. 

Mr. Ciiaim.es Clinton, Auditor : 

Sik: The bearer, B. Williams, a discharged I'nion soldier, wishes a.|>cnnit to peddle 
free of license. If you can give him it, the governor wishes you would do so. 

By order. 

II. CONQUEST CLARKE, 

Private Secretary. 

(Endorsed:) The bearer, B. Williams, has my permission and consent to peddle and 
do anything to enable him to make a living free of charge of State and parish license 
for the year 1874. 

MICHAEL SIEGRASS, 

State Parish Tax-Collector. 

‘ Hight under that: 

The bearer, B. Williams, has my permission and consent to peddle and do anything 
to make a living free of State peddler license for the year 1874. 

J. M. WELLS, 
Tax-Collector^ Actiuq, Parish. 

M. S. l‘EELER, 
Deputy Parish Collector. 

(Renewed:) 11. Conquest Clarke, private secretary. 

State of Louisiana, auditor’s office, Jan., 1874. 

The law vests no discretion in granting permits to the auditor; hence I cannot issue 
such, but call the attention of the tax-collector. 

Senator Hill. There is something not here. (To the witness.) One 
witness—I have forgotten his name—testiiied that, yon were charged 
with larceny of a watch and chain, and that he arrested yon and took 
you to the station-house, and the watch and chain were found on yon.— 
A. Gentlemen, 1 don’t know that; I never done it. I brought yon a 
paper and I bring yon people, if yon allow me to explain myself. That 
man’s profession is a gambler and a scoundrel. I know that man John 
Vigers; he is a rascal, that fellow. 

Q. Is it true that yon have been arrested for stealing a watch and 
chain Xo, sir, gentlemen, never in my life. If 1 been arrested 

for stealing, I never done such a thing in my life. 

(,). He said that yon gave it np to the superior othcer and were dis¬ 
charged.—xi. I didn’t do it. 

Q. It is untrue ?—xV. If yon excuse me. Senators, it was a lie. 

(,). The statement was made, I believe, by John Vigers ?—A. I know 
that, gentlemen. I would not talk with him on the street to the dis¬ 
grace of my family. Everybody know what Johnny Vigers was. I 
never was charged with the crime of stealing in my life. I have got 
papers from yon in the Ilnssian language that yon could get somebody 
to put in English so that yon can understand it, and yon see even in 
Europe I was arrested. 

Q. x\ negro named St. Armand said yon were under ball and chain at 
Ship Island.—xV. I never did in my life have a ball and chain, and I 
don’t intend to. I do not think I ever were at Ship Island in my life. 
That negro was employed by that gentleman there, Senator Kellogg, 
in what yon call the custom-house, and that negro was a contidence 
man. He was just so good as a thief; there is some good citizens come 


960 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


and tell you about it, and 1 don’t think they know exactly what Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg is doing. 

Q. Well, never mind that.—A. I never wore ball and chain in my 
life. 

Q. Is there any other fresh matter that you want to speak of?—A- 
Gentlemen, if you give me an opportunity, a witness has been called 
before this committee and ruined my rei)utation lorever ; this witness 
what you have had. I am not going to be excited. I know that gen¬ 
tleman (pointing to Senator Cameron), and I am used to him. 1 will 
not get excited. 

Q. When Milton Jones was refused to go on the stand in Washington 
you were sitting tliere f—4. There was that gentleman, and there were 
gentlemen ; he was over there (indicating places around the table). 

Q. Go on and state the facts, Mr. Williams, if you have any.—A. I 
think Governor Kellogg can get my own mother to come here and swear 
I was in the penitentiary. You (relerring to Governor Kellogg) sent to 
Milton Jones that he should give you back the $500 what you j)aid him 
if he don’t go on the stand and testify, and he would not do it. The 
committee would not take him on the stand, and I was sent to Milton 
Jones to get back the money. You know, governor, it is true. 

Q. Go on, Mr. Witness.—A. Milton Jones he refused; he said the 
wolf never give up the sheep back. That is what he said. 

Q. Milton Jones said that?—zi. Yes, sir. I believe it was the last 
day of the session or the day ])revious. There was a man who read a 
message on the stand—1 can’t call his name- 

Q. O, well, go on Mr. Witness, and tell us nothing but the lacts now. 
—A. Governor Kellogg asked him himself for the money, in the Capitol, 
upstairs, not far from the committee room. He told kirn that he w’ouldu’t 
give it him back then. He promised the governor that he would testify 
against what Le wanted him. If it is in your recollection. Senator Hill, 
Governor Kellogg he went to the committee and wanted to bring that 
nigger back on the stand to testily, and the committee refused to do so. 

Q. Is there anything else you want to state?—A. I want to state that 
which was take place between Sweazie and DeLacy; that is what I 
want to come to the mistake I have made. Sweazie was merely em¬ 
ployed in the custom-house; he went before I did to the custom-house, 
in the interest of Governor Kellogg; he wasn’t sent by Jim Lewis, the 
same like I was sent. Governor Kellogg couldn’t do much with him, 
he was always drunk ; most of the time he was drunk, Sweazie was. 

Q. Well, go on.—A. The man who took the money, that was not 
Sweazie; it is DeLacy, the man who took the money. This way, if I 
should see the bills to day I think I could know them, they were so stiff 
that they wouldn’t bent, brand new Irom a big envelope, right out of 
the United States Treasury. Governor Kellogg told them, the niggers, 
that he furnished them that he gave all the witnesses, if they would 
bring men here to say one thing, to bring him there to say he wouldn’t 
believe him; that he furnished him all the witnesses that would be in 
favor of Governor Kellogg ; that was Mr. Spofford he was talking about, 

I believe, all the witnesses; and he bring them here to Sweazie for him, 
but we would give him only them witnesses what would be good in favor 
of Governor Kellogg. He told me there plainly. Governor fspeaking 
to Governor Kellogg] ain’t you give me another paper besides what I 
brought before this committee? 

Senator Hill. It is not proper, Mr. Witness, to ask the Governor any 
questions. 

The Witness. Well, you let him tell you. When I come to AVash- 




SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


961 


in"ton I went to the Governor’s room and g:ive him the letters, one from 
Jim Lewis, and one from General Anderson; if I see that letter of 
General Anderson, and if ever I see that letter I can tell it. Anderson 
tohl me that Governor Kellogg knew what it meant, and what was the 
meaning of it. 

Senator Cameron. I object to the witness testifving about the con¬ 
tents of the letter. [The letter was produced and handed to witness.] 

The Witness. I don’t think that is the letter; it was no printing, that 
. was plain paper like that (indicating a plain sheet of letter paper); that 
is not the letter, 1 can prove that ain’t the one. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You say that is not the real letter?—A. No, sir; it is not the letter 
I give to Governor Kellogg; that was on paper with no printing, I 
would recognize it; that is a false letter, gentlemen. 

Q. Do you know what was in that letter?—A. Yes, sir; I do; Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg read it to me; 1 have a man in my house, and he read it 
too. 

Q. What did it say?—A. That is not the letter. Senator; Governor 
Kellogg knows it is not the letter; that is false letter. 

Q. Go on and say what was in the letter you got.—A. The letter 
stated this way, that I am from this city; ‘‘from this city” means that 
I am in the ring to help Governor Kellogg; “ an old man” means that 
I have got plenty of sense; “on business” meant that I am an old de¬ 
tective. 

Q. Is there anything else about it?—A. I can’t recollect. Senator; 
that was a long letter, so wide, and no printing on the head. 

Q. Is there anything else you want to state? You went over what 
passed between Governor Kellogg and Milton Jones.—A. 1 think I did. 

Q. Is there anything else ?—A. Since I am under arrest. Senator, 
there has been, I believe I can’t count them all—since you had me ar¬ 
rested—I was persuaded to go away, to leave New Orleans, and I ain’t 
done it, as I couldn’t do it. 

Q. Who persuaded you ?—A. A gentleman and the sergeant at-arms 
were sitting down; I was sitting in my door, and I couldn’t tell them 
good; they come rushing by the door, and I didn’t look well on them. 
One man name Iliedensfelder, Friday two weeks—it will be three weeks 
Friday coming; he lives on Saint Phili;) street; he sent for me; ho works 
at present in the custom house, under Morris Marks, at one hundred 
dollars a month. 

Q. Did you go to see him ?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

Q. What occurred ?—A. I come over to his house, and he tried me 
hard that I should not hurt Governor Kellogg, and I told him, Yes, I 
did most everything that I know to hurt him; and then he told me that 
I better not stay when you come here in New Orleans; to keep away 
from the committee; and he was to get a idace for one hundred dollars 
lor me. I said, “ No, I am no nigger with the governor ; Kellogg couldn’t 
give me monej’, and I go back on my affidavit, aiul I ain’t going to do 
it; and Heidensfelder he told me that I would be ruined, with my 
family.” I don’t know what he means by that. Senator; but he said 
that iie will lose Ids place if he didn’t get me in Governor Kellogg’s 
favor. I know I am going to tell the truth ; I am no nigger; I made 
that affidavit, and if I see it I know it; and there wasn’t anything prom¬ 
ised to me, not a cent of money, not a drink of water, and I made it free 
and voluntary, to show the people what was going on in the country, 

Cl S K 


962 


SPOFFOKD V8. KP:LL0(JG. 


and what a Senator can do, what kind of a man he was, and what can a 
common man do. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Yon have been in charge of the sergeant at arms since you were 
here before?—A. Yes, sir; the sergeant-at arms lias been with me all 
the time; he didn’t let me go to the corner, even, without him. 


TESTIM0^5Y OF HENRY CONQUEST CLARKE. 

Henry Conquest Clarke, a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, recalled to the stand. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. State to the committee what, if anything, you know about 
that paper [handing to the witness Barnard Williams’s peddler’s license]. 
—Answer. The chairman stated that he had questioned me on that 
paper. 

Senator Hill. I was mistaken. I looked and saw that I was mis¬ 
taken. I thought it was the same paper that I questioned you about. 

The Witness. I will state thatl asked Senator Cameron to question 
me on that subject when I was on the stand before. I saw Barney Will¬ 
iams but once while 1 was in Washington. I was going up the night of 
the arrival, and I was going up to Governor Kellogg’s room, and I saw 
this man and Governor Kellogg standing in the passage-way, and Will¬ 
iams showing him some papers. Kellogg said to him, “ Do you recog¬ 
nize this gentleman ?” \^Mlliams looked at me, and made no sign of 
recognition, and Governor Kellogg said, “ That is my old secretary,” 
and he said, “ O, yes,” in his broken way, and then he pulled out those 
papers, and I with some effort recalled the circumstances.of those pa¬ 
pers, as they are the only ones of the kind that I ever issued. I will 
state that this man came around to the office and bothered me about 
them, and said he was in distress, and an old Union soldier. I said 
there was no law to do what he requested, and he waylaid Governor 
Kellogg at his carriage, and Governor Kellogg said to give him a note 
to the auditor, and I did so. That was the only time I saw him here, 
and the only time I saw him in Washington there that night, and then 
up about the committee-rooms afterwards. 

Q. Did you ever see him about my office ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see him in my room in Washington ?—A. I never did, sir; 
never at all. 

Q. And I gave an order for that note to the auditor, Clinton, from my 
carriage ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And to get rid of him ?—A. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF J. R. G. PITKIN. 

J. R. G. Pitkin, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. You can go on and make such explanation as you deem prop- 





SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


963 


t*rin regard to tlie testimony of tlie witness on yesterday who mentioned 
your name—Mr. Phillips.— Answer. I requested ])^rmission this tnorn- 
in<r, of my own motion, to appear before the committee, and wanted to 
make this explanation. I do not know how it occurred, and all I have 
is the report this morning in The ricaijune ; “ Pitkin knew of the per¬ 
jury, and said that he (Kellogg) know of the progress of events.’’ I do 
not know who he means by “ lie.” 

Senator Cameron. That is you. 

The Witness [reading from the paper|. ‘^The witness said he had 
given Pitkin a cojiy of the telegram from Spofiford to himself; that Pit¬ 
kin sent it on to Kellogg.” 

Senator Hill. I would so state my understanding of it there, that he 
gave yon a copy of a memorandum without his name to it. 

The Witness [reading from the paper). “And that Pitkin sent it on 
to Kellogg before witnesses went to Washington.” 1 want, first, taking 
it in the order in which it reads—I want to except to the term “ perjury.” 

I have been guilty of no perjury—not one. 1 have had no conversation 
with Mr. Spoftbrd except the other day, and I desire to vindicate my¬ 
self from any such charge. 

Senator Hill. Please state the facts, Mr. Pitkin, and do not make an 
argument. 

The Witness. Well, sir, some time in the month of October, 1878, 

1 think the only time I had any conversation with Mr. Phillips, he called 
on me and said he was extremely poor, and wanted a dollar or two ; 
and while I was marshal, he came to me and wanted four bits or some¬ 
thing of the kind ; that he was about to be turned out of his house, and 
things of that sort. I gave him a dollar or two in that way. I never 
conferred with him in reference to this case, but about the month of No¬ 
vember ([ inmgine the middle of the month) he came to me and stated 
that he wanted a place in the custom-house, and said he thought Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg ought to give it to him by reason of past services. 1 felt 
some sympathy for him, and 1 said, “ Phillips, you have since been a 
Democrat; what claim have you on a lleiiublican Senator and he said, 
“ That is true ; but I was recognized as a Democrat” ; and ho said, “ I 
am tired, and 1 want to renew my connection with the Republican party.” 
I recall the conversation now. I said to him, “ You have a right to any 
opinion that you desire to, but if you want to return and to be a Repub¬ 
lican, you can do so, but you ougiit to confer with Kellogg if you want 
a i)lace.” He asked me t(> wTite to him. I said to him 1 was a very in- 
freipient correspondent of Kellogg; but 1 agreed to write, and said to 
him to come next day. Next day he came into the ollice of Mr. Norton, 
where 1 was, and 1 w^’ote the letter. And he said to hie, “ Please in¬ 
close this,” and 1 did, and it was to the elfect that he and Ward had 
overheard a conversation between somebody about a scheme of an iin 
seemly character against Kellogg. I said, “Ido not know anything 
about this—whether it is true or not.” He said that it would show Kel¬ 
logg that he took an interest in him. I sent it, and 1 said, “ 1 inclose 
this at the reipiest of Mr. Phillips; I do not know whether it has the 
elements of self.possession in it; and if it is a fraud, it is a fraud, and if 
it is not, it is not.” Kellogg and I have always been friends. I have 
not seen Mr. Phillips for over a year. I believe that is all I have tc^ 
state. iMight I not add that i acted in this matter not in Mr. Kellogg’s 
interest, but in sympathy with Mr. Phillips, who, I thought, had been at 
one time badly treated by the Republican party. That is why I did 
what 1 did. 


964 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


TESTIMONY OF DR. PHILIP YEISER. 

Dr. Philip Yeiser, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do yon reside ?—Answer. In this city. 

Q. How long have you lived here^—A. Thirty-eight years and ov^er. 

Q. Are you acquainted with a man named Francis Garrett —A. Yes, 
sir; I have known him for about twelve years. 

Q. Do you know his general cliaracter I—A. I consider him a truth¬ 
ful man. 

Q. Would you believe him on oath in a court of justice?—A. I would, 
sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Did you ever hear that he was arrested in this city ?—A. Y''es, 
sir. 

Q. Did you ever hear that he was arrested in Missouri for horse¬ 
stealing?—A. I do not know ; I think it was shortly after the Federal 
Army came here that I became acquainted with him, but the precise 
time I do not remember. 

Q. Did you hear anything of it?—A. I did hear that he was under 
arrest, but heard no particulars. 


TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM WARD. 

William Ward, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Question. Where do you live, Mr. Ward ?—Answer. I live in the city 
of New Orleans, at 98 Gasquet street. 

Q. How long have you lived there?—A. About seven years; I have 
been in the city of New Orleans ever since 1868. t:; 

Q. Where did you live before you came to Louisiana?—A. In Yii^ 
ginia. 

Q. Do you know Judge Spofford ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. W. B. Phillips ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you been engaged in procuring affidavits or other evidence 
in this Kellogg-Spofford case?—A. Yes, sir. - 

Q. Now, Mr. Ward, you begin at the beginning of your connection 
with the case, and go on and state in narrative form all you have done, 
or the conversations with Mr. Spofford, if you had any. Tell your whole 
connection with it.—A. The first connection at all, or understanding 
that I know about it, was in 1877, when the legislature was in session. 
There was a man by the name of Johnson who lived in the city of New 
Orleans. He was at the State-house one day- 

Q. Was that when the Nicholls legislature was in session ?—A. Yes, 
sir. ’ 

Q. Very well, go on.—A. And he said he was authorized, at least he 
told me he was authorized, by Mr. Spofford to secure evidence in his 
case with regard to the bribery, particularly of members who had voted 
for Mr. Kellogg for the United States Senate, and he came to me to 
help him get up this evidence. He had a check, at least he offered me 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


965 


a -^300 check, that is, he said if I got up this evidence he would give 
me 8*300, and he had a check for it in his hand, and I read it. I do not 
rememi)er what hank it was on, but it was for 8300. 

State wliat conversation you liad with Johnson at that time?—A. 
That is what I am stating now. That is the first I understood t\uything 
about tl)is matter ; that is the first that came to my knowledge; that he 
calleil on me and employed me to assist him in getting this evidence up, 
and he would give me 8300 if I would do so. I told him what should 
I offer the men if I succeeded in getting up those men; that I was 
bountl to offer them something. He said, bring the men to me, and he 
would make the arrangement, and I said that would not do; that if I 
api)roach a man under such circumstances I am bound to tell him what 
will be done, and he said, “You get them and I will give you 8300, and 
them 8100 a piece.” I said, “ You come back and see me to-morrow.” He 
was a little drinking, and he said, “ If you cannot do it say so, and I will 
get somebody else,” and I said, “ Do not be in a hurry.” He turned off and 
went to Flowers and two or three more there with checks, and offered 
them to those parties, as I understood. I saw him next day and called 
him ofi. 1 S lid to him, “ 1 have been seeing some of the men ; I saw 
ISenator Sution and some others.” He said, “ What have you done? ” and 
1 said, “ Nothing yet.” He said, “All right; I will see you to-morrow ; ” 
and that was the first I knew of it from anybody. 

Q. What was the next time that you saw him ?—A. Thenext time was 
the time that the Stenger committee was down there. 

Q. State what time it was, as near as you can.—A. It has been two 
years, 1 think ; I cannot come at the exact date, but you will remember 
when that committee was here investigating. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. When was that; this year ?—A. O, no ; not this year. Let us see, 
it has been a cou[)le of years, anyway. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Go on, Mr. Ward.—A. At that time I was engaged in getting up 
evideiHiC again. 

Q. Who were?—A. Me and Judge Phillips. We were trying to get 
up evidence in this same thing, aihl we did not make much headway 
and we ilropped it again, and this year we have taken it up again, and 
got up this evidence. All that time we did not have any interview with 
Mr. Sjioffnrd at all. Then me and Judge Phillips proposed to write a 
letter which would do the work. We then went up to Judge Spottbrd’s 
house, and we had an interview with him at his house, and then, when 
the judge went to Washington, we wrote a letter to him. 

(j. State what occurred between Judge Spotford and yourself and 
Phillips at his house.—A. We went up to Judge Spofford’s house, and 
we had a talk—at least, rather he sent to Phillips’s house a telegraphic 
<lisparch to come right up to his house at once. Philliiis lived at 94 
and 1 at 98 Gasipiet street. Phillips came and called me and we went 
111 ) Jinlp:c Spofford’s house, and we had a talk with the judge in re- 
•gard to going and getting up this evidence. 

(}. State what that talk was as near as you can get at it.—A. I will 
tell what transpired. The judge said he was contesting for his s»"at, 
and he knew or believed that Governor Kellogg was elected by bribery, 
and he wanted to get up the evidence to prove that it was done by bri¬ 
bery ; and he asked if we could get up the evidence to that effect. AVe 
told him that we could. That interview was not very long, and we told 
him over what we heard, that we found we could get it up. He said he 


966 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


was not paying any money, but we could say to tbe men who got it that 
if he got his seat he would have $20,000 that could be divided among 
them. Then after that we went away, and what transpired afterwards 
between us I will tell you. We prepared this letter. We arranged 
that we would write a letter to Judge Spofford for his protection toshow 
that there was no money in it. It was all gotten up for that, and we 
sent it, and I went when he came back and saw him again. I had three 
interviews with him, and he said he would have $20,000 that he did not 
want, and that would be divided among them. 

Q. When did you have the second interview with him ; was it after 
his return from Washington % —A. Yes, sir ; after his return. 

Q. Tell what took place then ?—A. 1 have told, I think, what took 
place at that interview. The next time he came to get the witnesses. 
We sent a letter to him, and we dictated a letter here and sent it to him 
at Washington. 

Q. He understood that the letter was to be writti'u before he went 
away ?—A. O, yes, sir ; we understood all that. 

Q. Who wrote the letter ?—A. Judge Philli|)s wrote the letter. I then 
signed it, and Phillips signed it, and I signed it; both of us. 

Q. State Avhat you did in the matter of getting up those affidavits ?— 
A. I was the one who got those affidavits, for 1 was the one who always 
talked to those men. They were very friendly, and I got Johnson and 
Jones to do so. I talked to these men and asked them if they knew any¬ 
thing about this thing, and the fact is it was all a money-making thing. 
We got it up to make money out of it. I talked to the boys and told 
them that they could make some money out of them, and Jones said he 
did not know what to do, what kind of an affidavit to make; and 1 said, 
“If you know anything about this bribery of men in the house, that is the 
kind to makeA He stated and said, “that h« never got any money from 
Kellogg,” and I said, “ Did you get any from anybody else ? ” and he said, 
‘Well, look here, what is in this?” and I said, “ I am authorized to say that 
there is $20,000; I am to get three of it, and it is to be divided up, and 
you will get two thousand ;” and he said, “I will come and see you to mor¬ 
row.” I said, ‘‘all right; ” and became, and we came to make the affida¬ 
vit; and Jones said, ‘‘ If I make the affidavit I do not want it used,” and 
I said, “I do not know that it would ; we will go and see Mi-. Cavanac.” 
AVe went, and he said he did not want this affidavit to use at all; all 
he Avauted was to get these affidavits to shoAV to the Senators in AYash- 
ington so as to get them to reopen the case; that Judge Spofford had 
already canvassed the Senate and he will get his seat. Kellogg Avill go 
out anyhow, he said; it will never be used against you; and Jones 
agreed then that he Avould make something of the kind. 

Q. Did not Jones and Johnson both say they hadn’t received any 
money from Governor Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir ; they both said that they 
received none from Governor Kellogg. I said, “ Have you received it 
from any /oue else?” and he said to me, “ AA^hat is this ?” and I said to 
him that I was to get $3,000 and he was to get $2,000, him and Jones 
two thousand apiece. Then he wanted to know if he made out the 
affidavit if it would be used against him. 

Q. AYhat, if anything, did you have to do with getting the affidavit of 
Gary?—A. I talked to Gary about his; Gary came to me. He was 
down here in the city of New Orleans. I didn’t know much about him, 
but he came to see me about his affidavit. I talked to him, but didn’t 
get his affidavit; but he told me he didn’t know much about it. That 
was Gary ; but I didn’t have much to do with Gary. 

Q. AA^hat did you have to do Avith the getting of the affidavits of De 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


967 


Lacy*—A. Iliad soinctliiiif^ to do with it. I told De Lacy that it lie 
would make the atUdavit to that effect, which was to show up the bribery 
oil the other party votinfor Kello^^—I said Jud^e Siiotford is getting 
the atUdavits of that kind to reopen his case. That is all he wants with 
them, and that will be all; and I said, “ If yon make the affidavit of that 
kind yon know yon are away from home and want to go back, and if you 
make it yon can get 8-,01)0 and get protection to go home.” He said, 
“Is that a fact'?” and I said to him, “I am authorized to give you 
thatand he said, “ I will see y'on next day,” and sure enough he did 
so see me, and I talked with him and I was afraid he wouldn’t do it. I 
said, “ Come down to the truth now, did Governor Kellogg pay yon any¬ 
thing?” and he said, “Ward, to tell yon the truth, he didn’t;” and I 
said, “ Did yon receive any money from anybody else? ” He said, “ Ko, 
I didn’t; ” and I said, “ Can’t yon make an affidavit of that kind ? ” and 
he said, “Ko, I can’t,” and then we parted. I don’t know -anything 
more of De Lacy’s affidavit, except what I have told you. The next 
day he came back and said, “Yon told me there was only 82,000 in this 
thing and somebody else ofi'ered me three.” 1 said, “ I was only author¬ 
ized to offer yon two.” and I think he said Tom Murrays ottered him more ; 
and that is all 1 know of De Lacy’s affidavit. 

Q. What do you know about Brooks ?—A. Brooks did make an affi¬ 
davit of the same kind. I didn’t see it. I know he did, for Mr. Cavanac 
told me. He sent me for it, and he told me to tell him that as he had 
made the affidavit that he must go and swear to it. He wanted a com¬ 
mission and expected them to serve him, and he didn’t want to serve 
them until they did him. He said he would get a commission from 
Governor ^Mcholls, and just as soon as he gets and signs his affidavit he 
will get it. 1 am not going to give him his commission until he does. 
I went n[) and told him what Mr. Cavanac,had said at that time. 

Q. What commission did he want ?—A. He wanted a commission as 
sheriff in Saint Mary’s Parish. At that time he was down in the custom¬ 
house, and he said as soon as he would get and sign the attidavit he had 
the commission there for him on his table. 

Q. AVas it not in place of Newman as clerk of the court ?—A. Yes, 
sir; that is it. Mr. Cavanac said that he had the commission, and he 
said, Here it is, and as soon as he gets and signs this attidavit 1 will 
give it to him, and forward it (the affidavit) to Washington, and when 
he does that he can have his commission and not before.” 

Q. If yon know anything of AA^atson’s attidavit state it.—A. Yes, sir; 
I know about it. AA'atson came to me and said, “ Ward, I hear you are 
getting up affidavits about the Kellogg-Spottbrd cse.” And I said, 
“ What do you know?” And he said, “I don’t know anything, but I 
can know.” I said “You are not a member and I don’t know what you 
can do.” He said, “I can do a good deal.” I said, “Go on and state 
what you can do; ” and he said, “Tom Alurray told me that I could get 
a subixena from here to Washington and go and make an attidavit that 
I voted in Thomas’s ])lace, and he said I could make three thousand 
dollars by it.” 1 said, “ Did you do it? Did you vote in Thomas’s place ?” 
He said, “No, sir;” and I went and told Mr. Cavanac that before he 
got it. That is all 1 know about Watson’s attidavit. 

Q. Mow about Blackstone’s ?—A. Yes, sir; I tried to get Blackstone 
to make an attidavit, and he said he couldn’t do it. To swear he got 
money from Kellogg and make an affidavit of that effect, he said he 
would not do it, as he was a minister of the gospel, but if he was sub- 
pcenaed he would go to Washington ami tell what he knew. He was 
out at my house. I had him out there. He said he was not going to 


1)68 


SPPOFFOD VS. KELLOGG. 


swear to that in an affidavit, but if they subpoenaed him and he got his 
mileage and per diem, he would testify. He said he had some relations 
down in Maryland, and he told me that he wanted to go and see them, 
but he couldn’t make an affidavit. I knowed I could not get him to 
make one, and I could approach them better than anybody else. 

^ Q. Do you know whether he ever did make an affidavit ?—A. I heard 
so; I heard Mr. Cavanac say so, and that the same notary had it, and 
that he wanted $250 for it. 

Q. Who wanted $250 for it?—A. Blackstone did. That is all I know 
about it. He said that this man Blackstone wanted $250 for it, but so 
far as making it from me I could not get him to do it. 

Q. Was it Mr. p]wart who had the affidavit?—A. I cannot recollect 
the name, though I have heard it. 

Q. Do you know anything about the Seveigne affi<lavit ?—A. No, sir ; 
no more than that I heard Tom Murray was sent out in the country 
for it. 

Q. Who did you hear say that ?—A. Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Did yon ever talk with Tom Murray about this matter ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; rather Mr. Flowers brought Tom Murray down to 1S4 Peters street, 
where they have a claim agency. Flowers brought Tom Murray there 
to me and wanted me to employ Tom Murray to get up affidavits, as he 
was a good witness himself; and I said to Mr. Cavanac that Tom was 
making up a lot of lies, and that he was just getting in to make money out 
of it and expected to make a good deal of money. 1 asked him, ‘‘Tom, do 
you know anything about this,” and he said, “ No ; I was sergeant-at- 
arms, and during the time I was sergeant-at arms a good deal of money 
was flying around.” I said, “ What we want is to get evidence in this 
case. Did you see Governor Kellogg pay any member of the house for 
voting for him ?” and he said, “ No ; two or three were speaking there 
who were paid.” I said, “Who?” and he said Dickerson and some 
others whom he named. He says, “ 1 can get witnesses to that,” and 
he said, “ we paid the money,” and I said if you did not see it yourself 
then it will do no good ; and he said, “ If 1 get a subpoena and go to 
Washington, I will look out for it;” but he wanted to see the subpoena. 
He said that he could be subj)cenaed to Washington, and to let him go 
there, and he could make money out of it; and he said that once he got 
into Washington he could make somebody squeal, either Spoflord or 
Kellogg. Once he got there and he’d make them squeal. And I said, “ I 
don’t think that could be unless you saw it yourself” And he said, 
“ What’s the difference. I was sergeant-at-arms,” I said “ and what’s the 
difference? ” He said “ The sergeant-at-arms of a legislature is bound to 
know something. That’s the case in all prominent bodies, and it will have 
some effect?” And I said, “ You come back tomorrow and we may take 
you on.” I went and told Mr. Cavanac, and he didn’t want him, and he 
wanted no evidence of that kind, and the next thing 1 knew he had him 
and he took Watson up there. I told him the same thing. He said him 
and AYatson—those same two men—“ we wanted to make money out of 
it, we wanted to be subpoenaed to AVaslnngton and get their mileage 
and i)er diem.” 

Q. And you say none of them told you that they got money?—A. No, sir; 
not one of them told me that he got any money from Kellogg. Johnson 
told me that he got some from AYard on his warrants alone, and J never 
did get any one of them to tell me that he got money on his warrants. 
Mr. Kellogg wrote me out in that what we wanted was to get affidavits 
to send to Judge Spoflord to justify the Senate in reopening the case. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


969 


Hy Senator Hill : 

Stop, Mr. itness. You have .stated that two or three times. It is 
^ettijijv tiresome now. 

l)y Senator Cameron : 

Q. A\ (‘le yon i)resent at the time Milton and Jones signed that affi¬ 
davit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether there was a duplicate or copy of it made at 
that timef—A. Y>s, sir. 

Q Tell us what you know about it.—A. The affidavit was wrote and 
then another copy was taken from it. We left the original in Cavanac's 
hands and Jones kept the other. 

Q. Do you know whose handwriting the copy was in ?—A. Judge 
Phillips’. 

Q. Mr. Phillii)s, it appeared, wrote two or three letters to Judge Spof- 
ford while he was in Washington. He wrote another which you signed 
with him, twoothers which 30 U did not sign. Do you know anything of 
them?—A. Yes, sir; I saw j)retty much all the letters. There was 
pr(*tty steady communication between them. There were one or two, 
perhaps three letters that had my name in them, one of them certain, 
and one letter was very lengthy, written on foolscap letter-paper, written 
by Judge Spoftord and sent to Judge Phillips, and my name was in it, 
too. 

Q. Yon mean it was mentioned in it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Phillips said he received a letter from Judge Spotlord and showed 
the envelope it was in, and said that the letter was lost, and went on to 
state tln^ contents of it?—A. Yes, sir ; he stated the contents of it. 

Q. Did you see it ?—A. Yes, sir. Y^esterday the Judge Phillips gave 
part of it, but 1 heard it read several times. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. State w hat it contained.—A. It was in reference to the witnesses 
to keep quiet and have patience, but the main part of it was that he had 
made a thorough canvass of the Democratic Senators and that all he 
had to do was to make a showing, and to send him a few’affidavits to have 
the c tse reopened. They had agreed to seat him in. 

Q. Y'ou aided to get up those affidavits. Did you help to get up any 
others than those you have mentioned ?—A. No, sir; only those three, 
Jones, De Laciy, and Johnson’s. Some others I talked to, but I didn’t 
bring them ut) myself. Tom Murray, I think, Flowers brought in. 

Cross examined by Senator Hill: 

Q. It was a good long time between that interview’ with the man, 
Oarley dohnson, before you saw Judge Si)offi)rd ?—A. Ves, sir. 

Q. How long; a year or two years?—A. No, sir; about a year. 

Q. That was in 1877 ?—A. Yes, it may have been tw’o years. I had 
an int(‘rview’ with Cailey Johnson in the Saint Louis Hotel when the 
legislature w’as in session, the last ot January or the first of February. 
J must say it was two years from the time we first thought of this case. 
Of course it was this year that I had that interview with Judge Spofford. 

Q. Before you had the interview with Judge Spofford you had 
chopped Johiison ?—A. Y^es, sir; he w^as dropped. 

(,). You had nothing more to do with him ?—A. ^Ye had nothing more 
to do w ith him. 

' Did you tell Judge Spofford anything about Johnson ?—A. I did. 

Q. You say you l)ad three interviews w ith Spofford ?—A. Y'es, sir. 


970 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


(^. AYas Phillips with you every time ?—A. One time he wasn’t, twice 
he was with me. I was by myself once. 

Q. AVhere was the first interview yon had with him f—A. It was up 
to his house. 

Q. AVhenf—A. As near as I can recollect—I don’t know first, I can’t 
tell yon exactly the time, but I believe it was some time in May when 
it was made to Judge S[)oftor(l. I knew Judge IS|)oftord a good while. 

Q. AYhere did yon know him ?—A. In the city ol New Orleans. 

Q. Had yon ever s})oIven lo hitn in \onr life ?—A. les, sir; I spoke 
to him n[) in Governor Nicdiolls’s house. I passed time, with him saying, 
“How are yon, judge?” when I passed him. 

Q. Didn’t Pliillips introduce yon to him in his house as Captain AA ard, 
president of some Democratic club?—A. No, sir; Judge Sj)offord 
knowed me well enough. 

Q. AVhen was the second interview ?—A. At his house on Sunday 
morning. 

Q. AVell, now, is that telling me when it was?—A. It was on the 
Ist day of June. 

Q. Last?—A. No, sir; I had another after that. 

Q. I mean the 1st day ot June, 1879?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. \A"hen was the othor ?—A. On the 2d. 

(k). On the 2(1 day ot June, 1879 ?—A. Yes, sir. • 

Q. AA'^hen was the fir^c one ?—A. In May. 

Q. And 3011 had three interviews with him this year?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. One in May and two in June?—A. Yes, sir; besides, I received 
communications forom AVashington and took Judge Walker in. 

Q. About the interviews now, those three were all?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Did Judge Si)()fford, in any of those interviews, tell yon or Phillips 
that he wanted to get up evidence that was untrue ?—A. He never told 
me to get up auy that was true or untrue. He wanted evidence of 
that character. 

Q. You say he believed that he was elected Senator fairly ?—A. Never 
told nothing about belief, one waj^ or the other. 

Q. Didn’t he tell yon that Kellogg was elected dishonestlj" and he 
wanted to prove it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did 3 "on tell Judge Si)offord that yon were going to get n[) any 
false testimoiyy?—A. I didn't tell him that. ! 

Q. AAY presume what yon were going to get was true, then?—A. I did 
not sa,y whether it was to l>e true or untrue. 

Q. Was your object in getting into this case to get any kind of testi- 
mon^g whether true or false ?—A. That would make no (lifference to me 
what these men said, whether it was true or not. It was nothing to me. 

Q. AAYre you present when Jones and Johnson made their affidavits? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You saw them swear to them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know that tlie.y did swear to them ?—A. No, sir; I know 
the.y were made out and left there and they were to be sworn to. 

Q. Did you tell them to make them? You said you got their affidavits. 
—A. Yes, sir; I told them to make them. 

Q. Did you promise and encourage them to make these affiJavits for 
money, knowing them to be false?—A. No, sir; not knowing them to be 
false. 

Q. You said they told you before that that they knew nothing?—A. 
No, sir. Not knowing them to be false; I did not do anything of that' 
kind. 

Q. Did you advise and encourage them to make these atiidavits as be- 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 971 

iug false ?—A. No, sir; not from Governor Kellogg. They said they had 
borrowed some money, but not from Governor Kellogg. 

Q. Borrowed it for what?—A. On their time; they said they bor¬ 
rowed it. 

Q. You told Senator Cameron that none of them told you they had ever 
go-t any money from Ciovernor Kellogg.—A. No, sir; and never said 
they got it from anybody else; they never saiil they got a nickel from 
Governor Kellogg 

Q. The affidavits state that they got it from Kellogg.—A. I don’t be¬ 
lieve they wrote those affidavits. 

Q. Weren’t they read over to them ; don’t you know what were in 
those affidavits?—A. I heanl they read part of them. 

Q. You know what the aflidavits were for?—A. That they were to 
prove that they got the money. That is what they were for. 

Q; Did you encourage and j)ersuade them to make the affidavits stat¬ 
ing that they got money ; and knowing that it was lalse, that it was not 
true ?—A. 1 didn’t know so; I didn’t say that I did, knowing it to be un¬ 
true. 

Q. You heard so from them ?—A. Yes, sir; thej" told me so. 

Q. You did that then no more than Mr. Cavanac. Did you encourage 
them to make the affidavits ?—A. J told them over and over; 1 told them 
to make the affidavits. 

Q. Did you tell tlietu to make untrue affidavits?—A. I did not know 
it to be untrue^ 

Q. You knew it from them ; they made the affidavits, and I am not 
responsible for them. You knew from them that the affidavits were un¬ 
true. Didn’t they tell you sof—A. I had this information, that they did 
not receive any money from Kellogg. 

Q. You say you took the affidavits of Jones and Johnson of De Soto 
and De Lacy, and now you say that they were told that if they would 
make these affidavits they would get two thousand dollars apiece. Who 
told them that ?—A. 1 told them so. 

Q. Who authorized you to do that ?—A. Judge Spofford authorized 
me, or rather told me that if he got his seat he would get twenty thou¬ 
sand dollars of back pay, and did not want it, and that it would be 
divid(Hl between those boys, and pixsiiions given them in the custom¬ 
house. Jones was to be janitoi-, and he said—Mr. Cavanac it was who 
said it—said Mr. Spofford promised t> make him collector of the port, 
and he would make Jones janitor. 

Q. You say that was what Cavanac said ?—A. Y\\s, sir; and Judge 
St)offord said he would have twenty thousand dollars that would be 
divided. 

. Q. And you said to the witnesses that they would get two thousand 
dollars apiece ?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Then you divided it up for him ? —A. Yes, sir; I was trying to make 
some money. 

Q. Did you see that Jones said nobody offered him any money to make 
his affidavit '?—A. 1 read the newspaper. 

Q. He says he did not have anything offered to him ; and if he says 
so, he tells a falsehood, doesn’t he ?—A. 1 know I ottered him money 
out of that twenty thousand dollars. 

Q. He stated that he refused to swear to the affidavit.—A. I took him 
dowfi there to make that affidavit. \Ve understood it to be this way- 

Q. Answer me. Was that affidavit made to be sworn to or not? Was 
that the intention of the i)arties ? Was it made with that intention or 



:972 


SPOFFORD VS, KELLOGG 


not?—A. That question I could understand. That 1 knew they were to 
be sworn to, and that they should be affidavits, I did not. 

Q. How could they be affidavits without they were sworn to ?—A. 
That I do not know. It* they weren’t sworn to- 

Q. Did you not state to him a little while a«:o that they were to be 
sworn to?—A. I do not remember that I did—that they were to be 
sworn to. 

Q. Did not yon tell me so ?—A. I do not remember that I did. If it 
is down there that way, I would rather correct that. If I did say that 
the understanding* was that they were to be sworn to, it is a mistake 
of mine, for this reason : when we got the telegram from Judge 8pofford 
to take these men down to Oavanac, he said he wanted these affidavits 
to be made out, and they were made out and left there; and if they were 
sworn to it was in my absence. I never said they were sworn to. 

Q. All this time you and Judge Phillips were acting together ?--A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. There was perfect accord existing between each other?—A. Y^es, 
sir; pretty well. 

Q. Were you really intending to benefit Judge Spofford or Kellogg ?— 
A. I was trying to make money. 

Q. Then you did not care for Kellogg or Spofford either ?—A. I shall 
4Juswer that question, and I say I was going to make money out of it. 

Q. You work for money, do you ?—A. I work for it and try to make it. 

Q. But who did you expect to benefit by your work/?—A. I would 
like to benefit Mr. Kellogg, because he was a Republican and L was one. 

Q. Did not you and Phillips represent to Judge Spofford that you 
were Democratic?—A. No, sir; I never represented to be a Democrat 
in my life. 

Q. Did not Judge Phillips?—A. I do not know. 

Q. He says you were with him and he introduced you as a Democrat, 
and that he was a good Democrat, and that he was along at the time?— 
A. He might have done so. 

Q. You were present?—A. I might have been there. 

Q. Did he do that?—A. He might have said it, sir. I wouldn’t like 
to say he didn’t. 

Q. Then he may have introduced you as a Democrat?—A. Judge 
Spofford was well aware that we affiliated with the Democratic party 
since 1868. I don’t remember his asking me anything about it, for I 
acted with the party. 

Q. Did Phillips and you keep Kellogg informed of what was done ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Phillips said he did?—A. I don’t know anything about that. 

Q. Did you tell prominent Republicans what you were doing?—A. 
Only those I was working with. 

Q. As 1 understand you, you were trying to make money ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I wanted to make money. 

Q. And when men told you they knew nothing about it, you still 
wanted them to make affidavits and say that they did?—A. No, sir; I 
told them what Judge Spoff*ord wanted, and asked them if they could 
make such affidavits. 

Q. Murray wanted to make an affidavit, did he?—A. That is what 
he told me. 

Q. Did you discourage him from doing it?—A. I told him not to; 
that it would be of no good from what he told me he knew. 

Q. Now, you were going around hunting iq) affidavits for Judge, Spof- 
ford, for which you were to get $20,000, and you say Murray came and 



SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


973 


offertMl you one of the very thinj^s you wanted, and you would not take 
it, and went ami told Mr. Gavanac about it ! —A. \^)u have not heard 
anythin*; from me about takin*; allidavits. except from members of the 
lefrislature. He said rlud^e Spotford wanted the aihdavits ot members 
of the legislature. Outside [)arties cannot vote for Senator. 

Q. Well, I am glad to know that is the rule in Louisiana. But can¬ 
not an outside party know of the t)ayment of money ?—A. It is very 
ditticult, sir. 

(,). Did you discourage him, and tell him it would do no good for him 
to make an attidavit ?—A. If he had been a member of the legislature 
it would have been diffeient. 

Q. Answer my question. Did you discourage him, and tell him it 
would do no good for him to make an atiidavit A. I said I did not 
think it would. I told him to meet me the next day, and 1 went and 
told Mr. Gavanac about it. 

Q. Did not Mr. Gavanac afterwards take his affidavit f —A. Well, if 
he was amind to take it it makes no difference to me. 

Q. You didn’t take it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. When did you tell Governor Kellogg about your testimony’?—A. 
I am telling him right now. 

Q. Did ,\ou never meet him before and talk with him ?—A. I met him 
a few days after he come here, on the corner of Common and Saint Charles 
streets, and shook hands with him and passed. I have seen him two or 
three times about here while passing, and would merely shake hands 
with him just in passing. 

Q. Y’ou met Governor Kellogg where ?—A. The first time since he got 
back, on the corner of Common and Saint Charles streets. 

Q. Did you want to meet this case?—A. No, sir; I have not told him 
anything about this case. 

Q. Wiien have you talked to him about tlie evidence in this case ?— 
A. 1 have not talked to liim at all.. 

Q. Who have you talked to about this case since the committee has 
been in session ?—A. 1 suppose a dozen people. 

Q. Give their names.—A. Every time I would pick up the i)aper would 
I speak to somebody about the testimony; but I sui)pose you mean of my 
coming here ? 

(}. Have you talked to Phillips about it ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

(^). Did you talk to Phillii)S and Kellogg together ?—A. Me and 
Philiii)s were together, and we met him out there, and “ Well, governor, 
you are down here again ; you have got a big fight on your hands,” and 
it i)assed off pretty much that way. 

Q. Didn’t you say that you were going back on Spoffbrd and make it 
hot for him ?—A. No, sir; 1 did not. 

(^>. Never to anybody ?—A. No, sir; 1 did not. 

Q. You never at any place stated tliat you were going back on Spof- 
ford and make it hot for liim ?—A. I did not. 

Q. 'Where was it you talked to Kellogg and Phillips—the corner of 
Saint Charles and Common streets?—A. Yes, sir; right out there, not 
far from the corner. 

Q. Did you speak to anybody on Union street?—A. I did not know 
particularly where I might have talked every day to some i)ersons. 

Did you tell Judge Spoffbrd you could get proof that Kellogg was 
elected by bribery ?—A. I did. 

Q. J)i(i you meai^to get false affidavits of the fnct ?—A. 1 did not 
mean to be false, but 1 thought i could get the affidavits. 


974 


SPOP^FORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you believe they woiiM make the affidavits if they were not 
true?—A. 1 did not know; I could not tell. 

Q. You told him that you thought you could ^^’et the affidavits that 
Kellogg was elected by bi ibery. Now, did you mean to get true or false 
affidavits?—A. I did not care. I di<l not intend they should be all true 
or false. I was not resimnsible for it. These men were in the legisla^ 
ture, and I saw them, and they met them. 

Q. These men, you say, wanted to go to Washington ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they thought this was a chance to get to AVashington?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you understand that they would go to VA^ashington and testify 
differently from what was in their affidavits?—A. No, sir; 1 did not 
know of any such understanding. 

Q. Did you understand that they were to go to Washington and testify 
the same things?—A. I did not know whether they were or not. 

Q. AVere you surprised when you found that they went back on them¬ 
selves at Washington ?—A. 1 do not know, sir; I was sick at the time. 

Q. AA^ere you surprised that they did go back ?—A. I cannot say that 
I am very much. 

Q. You are not surprised at anything a member of the Packard leg¬ 
islature would swear to, are you?—A. No, sir; I suppose they went 
back on them because they did not get the $20,000. 

Q. Were they to get $20,000 ?—A. They were to get it out of the 
back pay of $20,000. 

Q. Well, he had not got his seat, had he?—A. But he was to get the 
$2,000 before that. I said to them when they made the affidavits they 
would get a $1,000 before and a $1,000 after they testified in AA^ashiug- 
ton. 1 was responsible for that statement. 

Q. You said that Judge Spofford told you and Phillips he believed 
that Kellogg got his seat by bribery, and if he proved that and got his 
seat he would gain $20,000, and would divide that with the boys. And, 
now, then, the next thing you say is, that he was to have paid them a 
thousand dollars before testifying and a thousand dollars afterwards. 
How do you reconcile these two statements ?—A. He was not to get 
his back pay. First, he was to pay me, and I was deceived myself. I 
tell you what the judge told me. He told me he had $20,000 back pay. 

Q. Yes, Mr. AVitness, but how would he get his back i)ay without he 
got his seat ?—A. I told them outside of what he said, that they would 
get $2,000, and get a thousand then, before thej testified. 

Q. Then you deceived them about that?—A. I deceived them, of 
course, because 1 was deceived. 

Q. Yes ; but how were you deceived when you were to get yours out 
of the $20,000 ?—A. 1 was not to be paid out of the $20,000. He was 
to pay me right away. 

Q. How much was he to pay you ?—A. He was to take me to AVash- 
ington and I was to receive the same amount of per diem and mileage 
that a member did, and pay for every day that I worked, and then a 
bonus. 

Q. Even if the affidavits were false ?—A. I had nothing to do with 
that. 

Q. Then, if I understand you. Judge Spofford was to pay you for get¬ 
ting affidavits, and you were to get up the affidavits of certain men 
and they were to go to Washington and testify, and if a man testified 
that these affidavits were untrue, were you still to^be paid ; were you 
to be paid for getting up affidavits that the witnesses would not stand 
up to ?—A. I will explain that before I answer it. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


975 


Q. If the witnesses went bank on their attidavits and tliey were not 
worth a cent to flnd^^e S[)offord, were yon to get your pay ?—A. 1 will 
explain for that, sir. 

Q. Werey.oii to get [lay for aflidavits that were no good and that they 
went ba(;k on ?—A. There was no agreement that way, sir. 

Q. And you expected Spotford to pay you whether the witnesses 
stood up to their affidavirs or not ?—A. i had nothing to do with that. 
I was to go to Wasliington with those men. 

Q. Who did you make that agreement with ?—A. Judge Spoftbrd. 

Q. Was Phillips present ?—A. He were. 

Q. Was Phillips to go to Washington ?—x\. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, Phillips did not tell us anything about that.—A. He can, 
though ; we were to go together. 

Q. Philli])s said that he knew before they went to Washington they 
would go back on their affidavits.—A. I didn’t know anything about 
that. 

Q. Did you not state to somebody that if you had gone to Washing¬ 
ton the witnesses would not have gone back on their affidavits ?—A. I 
might have said that. 

Q. Didn’t you say so to Mr. Walker?—A. Y"es, sir ; I might. 

Q. AVell, if you liad, do you think they would have stood ’ y their 
affidavits ?—A. They might if the <!ontract had been carried out. 

Q. You mean they would have done it if money had been paid them? 
— A. Well, they went into it for money. 

Q. You say they had gone into it for money, and if there was no 
money they would go back on their affidavits?—A. I don’t know that 
that is my idea. 

Q. You told Mr. Walker that if you had gone, they wouldn’t have 
gone back on their affidavits?—A. Yes, sir; I think I might have made 
it different if I had gone, and all ihearrangements had been carried out, 
and the contract carried out, so they might have stood up. 

Q. Didn’t you tell him that you felt certain, if you went there, that 
you arc positive they would not have done so ?—A. Xo, sir; I didn’t 
say positive; 1 said, I believe”; that’s the way I said the word. 

Q. Did you ever come to Mr. Walker’s office more than once ?—A. 
Yes, sir; twice or three times. 

Q. When was the hist time?—A. 1 think about three weeks ago; I 
think it were. 

Q. Three weeks ago ?—A. Y^u mean, is that the hrst time I ever went 
there ? 

(,>. l"es, sir.—A. O, several times two years ago. 

(^). On this business ?—A. Well, that’s three weeks ago; the commit¬ 
tee hadn’t got here then, and the next visit was the next day. 

Q. Didn’t iAIr. Walker tell you that you and Philli|)s were both noto¬ 
riously a pair of the meanest damned scoundrels in the State of Louis¬ 
iana ?—A. He said this, that we were umlerniitting damned scoundrels. 

Q. Did he not say,‘Minmitigated ” damned scoundrels ?—A. That’s 
the word—that’s wliat he said; and I went to Judge Spolford, and he 
sent me to Mr. Walker, and he got out of it that way; but that’s the 
reason I went there. 

Q. Well, he has not got his back pay yet, has he ?—A. AVell, I went 
to iMr. Spolford, he told me to go and see Mr. Walker, and I came to 
him for a settlement, and Mr. AValker said what he did about our being 
paid money, and 1 said, “ Mr. AValker you have got a character that is 
very resiiectable, but 1 defy any man to come before me and show or 
prove anything of my telling an untruth. 1 have been a United States 


976 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


soldier, and have an honorable discharge; they might say I was con 
nected with the Grant Parish light up there, and that was a political 
fight” ; and he then said that he felt kinder towards me, and he said, “I 
don’t believe what people say about you”; and I said, ^^You couldn’t, 
because there is no record of it,” and he rather seemed to wish he 
hadn’t said what he did say. And another thing I said, “The only 
thing you can say is about the Grant Parish riot, that was April 3, 
1873”; he said, “Yes, and Kellogg was mixed up in that; ” and I said, 
“ What did I have to do with that killing up in TensasI got nothing 
to do with it”; and Mr. W’^alker said, “ I am a man who believes in kill¬ 
ing, too.” 

By Senator Vance: 

Q. In the first interview with Mr. Spofford, I understood you to say 
that you told him that, from what you heard, you could get the evidence 
that he wanted; what is it you heard T—A. I had heard it as a rumor, 
and it was generally known as street rumor and newspaper talk, that 
Governor Kellogg was elected by bribery. 

Q. Did that rumor and that talk point to any particular men?—A. It 
related to members of the legislature. 

Q. Well, I supposed that was the way they elected Senators down 
here, by members of the legislature.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did that general rumor point out any particular person ?—A. Yes, 
sir, it did. 

Q. Who did you point out?—A. Johnson, DeLacy, and Jones. 

Q. What had you heard about them?—A. I had not heard anything 
more about them than the rest, but 1 thought I had a little the advan¬ 
tage of them. 

Q. What was the advantage you had of them ?—A. These boys were 
down here and wanted to get home. They said they were driven from 
home, and they wanted to go home to their families, and I told them I 
thought they could do so and that I could do them some good. 

Q. You thought you could do them some good ?—A. Yes, sir ; I told 
them that if they would make the affidavits to these facts, that 1 would 
tell them how they could got home. 

Q. Did you tell them what you wanted, and if they would make such 
affidavits it would do them good at home ?—A. Yes, sir ; I told them so. 

Q. Where is this man Carroll Johnson, now ?—A. I believe he lives 
in the tenth ward; he did live uj) there. 

Q. When have you seen him last ?—A. Two or three months ago. 

Q. What kind of a man is he?—A. He is a small, medium sized man, 
with little side whiskers. 

Q. What kind of hair has he got ?—A. Black hair. 

Q. What kind of eyes has he got ?—A. I do not remember the color 
of them; they are either black or blue. 

Q. Y"ou say that he was intoxicated that day ?—A. I thought so, sir ; 
as he was calling on so many persons to do this thing. 

Q. He had his checks with him?—A. YYs, sir; in his hand. I took 
and looked at it when he offered me the 8300 one. 

Q. Do you know who signed it ?—A. No, sir; I do not know who 
signed it. 

By Senator Cameron : 

When you called on Judge Si)oftbrd first for his settlement with 
you, when was that ?—A. I never had an opportunity of meeting him 
face to face, and he would not see me. I sent my card in three times to 
see him at his house, and he referred me to Mr. Walker. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


977 


Did he ever refuse to see you before the witnesses went to Wash- 
injiton ?—A. No, sir; I could go to see him au}' time then, but since 
that time I cannot get in. 

Q. How much has been ])aid you by Cavanac or Spotford A. I 
have not had a cent from Cavanac. 

(»>. How much did you get from Spolford ?—A. Sixty dollars. I got 
$10 in his house the 1st day of June, and $50 on the 2d day of June. 

(,). You stated, in reply to'a riuestion of the chairman, that you or 
Phillips had at some time or other affiliated with the Democratic party ; 
is that so ?—A. That is so, sir. 

Q. AVOen did you affiliate with that party • —A. I went with it in 
October, 1875 or 1870. It was October 5, I think, that we set out from 
here. 

Q. AVhat services did you perform for them ?—A. I canvassed several 
of the Red River parislies, s[)eaking to the colored people. 

Q. AVho accompanied you iu that canvass ?—A. Major AIcGloin. 

Q. This Major AlcGIoin is the man who wrote some of those affidavits, 
is he not?—A. Yes, sir; Alajor McGloin wrote Johnson’s affidavit, and 
I think one part of Jones’s. 

Q. Have j’ou received any written recommendations signed by prom¬ 
inent Democrats in this city ?—A. 1 have, sir. 

Q. Have you got them with you ?—A. 1 have, sir; they are my cre¬ 
dentials. 

Q. Let me see them. 

The witness handed a paper to Senator Cameron, who read as fol¬ 
lows : 

I. AV. Patton, President. Philip Power, Jr., Secretary. Louis Busii, Vice President. 

Rooms Executive Committee 

State Central Com^iittee Democratic Conservative Party, 

Xeic Orleans, October 4, ld7G. 

Mr. William Ward is acting under the auspices of the Deinocra Ipiece torn onf] va- 
tive party, all Deinocr [jut-ce torn onf] servatives of the State are invited to give him 
countenance and support in his patriotic etforts. 

By order of the committee. 

PHILIP POWER, Jr., 

Secretary. 

Q. What other recommendations have you from the Democratic 
party ?—A. 1 have got letters of recommendation for i)osilions and one 
thing and another. That was a recommendation for a position to the 
governor, signed by this gentleman. 

Q. Here is a document signed by Frank McGloin (reading the paper, 
which was as follows): 

I hereby certify that William Ward left this city with E. H. Flowers and W. B. 
Philips, ill my charge, on ()etoher 5, 187(1, and I accompanied them as far as Natchi¬ 
toches, La., where I left them. That they wenr, commissioned by the State central 
committee of the Democratic Conservative party, to canvass, in the intere.sts of Tildeu 
and Nicholls, the parishes of Kajiides, Grant, Natchitoches, and Red River. * 

That in undertaking said campaign said William Ward knowingly incurred great 
damper at the hands of the white people of that section and at the hands of the Re- 
pubTicans, ami that he had narrow escajies, which dangers he faced with courage. 

That he labored zealously and honestly iu the interests of our party in said parishes, 
and, I can sav, with satisfactory results. 

I do not think that justice has been done to him in failing to give Ward some em- 
plovment and giving public work To Quinn and others, wko have never come to usiu 
heart, and who? when they did co-operate with us, did so only when self-interest was 
incompatible with any other course, and after they had used every etfort to injure us 

and defeat our can.se. , , , 

I think it was a grave wrong to reward such characters and leave u ard to sutler, 
he having afliliated with us in time of doubt and uncertainty, and at a time when it 
was dangerous for a colored man to pronounce for us. 

FRANK McGLOIN. 


02 S K 


978 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. I wil] ask .you generally if you have a number of other Democratic 
recommendations?—A. 1 have, sir. 

Q. Without putting the papers in, state by whom they are signed. 

(The witness handed a paper to Senator Cameron.) 

Senator Cameron. This is “ to the Democratic Conservative citizens 
of the parish of Orleans. I take pleasure in giving this recommenda¬ 
tion of William Ward and Etienne Lascar in acknowledgment of their 
services in canvassing and working for the Democratic ticket. John Fitz¬ 
patrick, J. W. Patton.” Here is a letter of recommendation signed by 
H. D. Ogden, dated June 8, 1877: 

New Orleans, 8th Tune, 1877. 

William Ward, as stated by Colonel McGloin, left the city under his charge, and by 
aiithority of the executive committee of the Democratic Conservative party, and did 
good and efficient service, surrounded by many difficulties, which entitle him to recog¬ 
nition and employment to enable him to gain a livelihood and support his family. 

LOUIS BUSH, 

Chairman Executive Committee. 

I. W. PATTON. 

PHILIP POWER, Jr., 

Secretary. 

FRED. N. OGDEN. 

H. D. OGDEN. 

EUGENE MAY. 

Q. Did a man named Flowers act with you and Phillips in procuring 
any of these votes ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What votes did he procure?—A. I think he got Tom Murray. 

Q. He employed Tom in the case?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Were you ever a Democrat?—A. Ko, sir; I never was. 

Q. You always were a Kepublican ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You atded with the Democrats ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you do it for office?—A. Xo, sir; but because they said that 
so much of the trouble in Louisiana and the city came from the Kepub¬ 
lican party, and that if they got the government in their hands, every¬ 
thing would be lovely and quiet, and that the negro would have his 
chances. 

Q. Stop. I don’t want any speech from yon. Yon got those docu¬ 
ments which you presented to get a position with?—A. I got them as 
they were promised me. 

Q. Didn’t they give those documents to you as a Democrat ?—A. I 
am not a Democrat in principle, but I have affiliated with them. 

Q. Y^ou tliink you can affiliate with them and still be a Kepublican ? 
—A. People in New York do it, and I can vote for any good man I 
want to. 

Q. You have not any politics, then ?—A. These are my politics : If I 
think a man a good man, I will vote for him ; he is good enough for me, 
no matter what his politics are. 

Q. Didn’t you know why they were giving you these certificates; 
didn’t you think they were giving them to you as a Democrat ?—A. No, 
sir; they gave them to me for my services, as they promised me. 

TESTIMONY OF ADOLPH LEMEE. 

Adolph Lemee, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined: 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. At present in this city. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


979 


Q. Where are you from ?—A. I am from Xacbitoclies Parish. 

Q. Are you acquainted with W. B. Phillips, a man they call “ Judfre 
Phillips, and William Ward ?—A. Both of them I am acquainted with. 
There are two AVards ; one is William Ward, who is a colored man, and 
the other is D. W. AVard, a white man. 

Q. The one I am talking about is a colored man.—A. Yes, sir; I 
know him. 

Q. Bo you know the character of these men ?—A. I know the estima¬ 
tion in which they are held by the community. 

Q. Is it good or bad ?—A. I believe generally it is unfavorable to 
them. 

Q. Would you believe them on oath in a court of justice ?—A. I can¬ 
not answer that. I believe that a man may be a liar, but he may tell 
the truth a hundred times under oath when he would lie once, and that 
would not go to his credit. 

Q. AA'ell, Air. Witness, from his character—his general character—are 
they such men as you would believe under oath in a court of justice; 
do you think the community would believe them, from their character f 
—A. As such they would not be believed, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. I am by profession a lawyer, sir, 
and I hav^e been in the city for the last year attending to business for 
my sister-in-law. 

Q. AVhere did you first become acquainted with AA'ard ?—A. In the 
parish of Grant and town of Colfax. 

Q. AVhen?—A. In 1871, I think. I think it was, to the best of my 
recollection. 

Q. Speak a little louder, sir.—A. In the month of October, 1871. 

Q. Where did you then reside ?—A. I think 1 resided then in the par¬ 
ish of Grant. I had been living there eight or ten months. 

Q. How soon thereafter did you leave the parish of Grant ?—A. In 
the month of February following. 

Q. Then how long did you know AVard in the parish of Grant ?—A. 
AA^ell, I have known him all the time, oft’ and on, ever since. 

Q. But you left the parish in a few months yourself?—A. I resided 
in the parish of Nachitoches subsequently, but practiced law in the 
l>arish of Grant. I was residing there, but almost every day I was in 
the parish of Grant. 

Q. When did you become acquainted with Phillips ?—A. In 1871. 
AVell, no, sir; I wbhdraw that. I think I knew Air. Phillii)s previous to 
that. He was chairman of the central convention which was held in 
the parish of Xachitoches maybe a year or two or three years previous. 

Q. Where were you at the time of the Colfax massacre, socalled?— 
A. I was in the parish of Nachitoches at that time, sick. 

Q. Didn’t you hear a good deal of talk at that time about AA^ard being 
connected with it?—A. I have heard a good deal of it, a great deal of 
the investigation here in New Orleans at the circuit court of the United 
States against Crukshanks; by special permission, being an attorney, I 
was permitted not to be marshaled with the other witnesses. 

Q. Give us the name of some person whom you have heard say they 
would not believe either of these men on oath.—A. Excuse me, sir; 
but it seems that isn’t a fair question. 

Q. If you have heard any, you can say so.—A. A have heard several 
say so, but 1 dislike to name those parties. 

Q. Are you able to do so ?—A. I am able. 


080 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. AVill you do so ?—A. I prefer not. 

Q (live the name of some person whom yon have heard speak of these 
two men and their reputation for truth.—A. You have already asked 
me of the general reputation of these men. 

Q. I did not, sir.—A. I was asked the question. 

Q. That was in the direct examination ; as a lawyer, you know it was 
the only question that was proi)er to ask in the direct examination, and 
now 1 am cross-exmining you, and it is quite within the rule for me to 
ask you this question. I ask you to give this committee the name of 
any person or |)ersous whom yon have heard st)eak of the reputation of 
these men for the truth.—A. As I said, sir, that question has been an¬ 
swered. I have heard many speak of it, but as to giving the name of 
any particular individuals, that would be impossible, without my liabil¬ 
ity to make a mistake. 

Q. Then you are not able to give them ?—A. I could, I think, state 
them, but might be mistaken. 

Q. When did Ward remove from the ])arish of Grant ?—A. Ward re¬ 
moved from the ])arish of Grant a few da.ys previous to the 13th day of 
A])ril, 1873, he afterwards continued his business in that parish, but 
never claimed it as his residence. 

Q. Do you know from your own knowledge or information where he 
has since resided ?—A. He has generally been in this city. 

(}. Where did Phillips remove to from the parish of Grant?—A. 
Phillips left the parish, 1 think, in October, ’71. lY^s, sir; it was after 
those occurrences in October, ’71. 


TESTLAIOXY OF E. II. FLOWERS. 

E. H. Flowers, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member’ 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Ca^iekon : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. In Xew Orleans. 

Q. How long have you lived here?—A. Since 1873. - 

Q. How long have you resided in Louisiana?—A. Since 18G5 or 180G; 
I believe it was the 22d of December of either one of those years. 

Are you acquainted with William Ward?—A. W>11, the acquaint¬ 
ance we have—we have been comiades for sixteen years. 

Q. Are you acquainted with W. B. Phillips?—A. I have been ac¬ 
quainted with him since 1871. 

Q. Had you any connection with getting up certain affidavits in the 
Kellogg-Spoftbrd contest ?—xi. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Begin at the beginning and state in detail what you had to do with 
getting up those affidavits or any other evidence.—A. My first entrance 
into the case was with Tom Murray. He met me on Canal street, right 
in front of the custom house, and told me he wanted me to become a 
witness; that Hubbard had been talking to him, but he put no confi 
deuce in anything that Lawrence Hubbard told him, and if I told him 
anything he would believe it. I said that I would go and see Cavanac. 
Cavanac said to bring him up to his office, it was the last day of April 
when he told me to bring him up, and by some hook or crook Mr. Oa- 
vanac did not get to see liim, and the next day, or the first of May, 1 
took Tom Murray to Cavanac and he made his affidavit, and after I took 
him there I had to go for Major McGloin, to the corner of Camp and 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


981 


Conuiiercial alley, and lie written out the aflidavitin my jiresenee. He 
read it to Murray and went down to Mr. Bnisson, the third jus¬ 
tice ot the peace, at the corner of P^xchange alley and Custom-house 
street, and went up stairs and sworn to it in my presence. I also 
saw ^yatson—a man by the name of Watson. I had been told by 
Captain Flood and Murray that Watson had made an ailidavit before 
that, betore somebody else—I can’t remember who—and they told 
me it was no use in making a second ailidavit, and I said to be sure 
ot W atson L took him to iMr. Cavanac, and he said yes, and took his 
aflidavit; and iMr. Cavanac’s clerk written that out, and those are the 
only two direct aflidavits that I know of my own [lersonal knowledge, 
though I knew of affidavits being made before that. I knew of John¬ 
son’s, J3e Lacy’s, and Milton Jones’s; that was before; before I had got 
into the case. I went then to see ^Nlr. Cavanac and asked him about 
my own self, whether I would get a chance, by procuring the witnesses, 
to go on to Washington myself; and he said, “I will see to that; you will 
get a subpoena and go on with the witnesses: I am ^Mr. Spotfonl’s at¬ 
torney, and whatever I say Mr. Spofford does.” And Ward and Phillips 
told me in procuring those witnesses I was to be sure and otter them 
82,000. I was to be sure to offer them the 82,000 ; one thousand before 
they testified in Washington, and a thousand afterwards. Murr.iy and 
I had an agreement between ourselves when he went on that if I was 
left in this matter he would take care of me. If there was any mone}’ 
in it he was to divide a fourth of what he made, and he did not do that. 
Jle did not keep that agreement with me. 

Q. How much, if anything, were you to be paid for your service in 
the matter ?—A. I was to get my subpcena to go to Washington with 
the balance of the witnesses. Mr. Spofford told me that himself in his 
own house, on Sunday morning, the 1st dny of June. I told him that 
1 did not like particularly to be left in this matter; and he said, ‘‘ My 
little friend, you won’t be left.” He says, “ What I say to you I will 
stand to. I can subiuena you to Washington, and I will give you about 
what the witnevsses get; the same amount of what they’d get for about 
a month, the number of days and the mileage; will that satisfy you ?” 
And I said “Yes”; and with that 1 left. 

Q. Is that the only interview you had with him ?—A. That is the only 
one that day. 

Q. If you had any others, please state them.— rV. When Judge Spof¬ 
ford and the sergeant-at arms got here on Monday morning, the second 
of June, the witnesses did not show up and 3Ir. Cavanac asked me 
where were the witnesses. 1 said I did not know, but T would go and 
look for them. I got car change from De Lacy and I went down to 
Canal street and jumped on a car and stood on the corner of Robinson 
and Canal street. 1 saw Johnson, and I said, why, in the name of (ro<l 
don’t you go down to Cavanac. He said he wanted to see Ward, and I 
said, come down with me, and we went, and 1 saw Ward, Phillips, Sev- 
eignes, De Lacy, and Jones there. 

At Cavanac’s office ?—A. Yes, sir; and ^lurray too. And I took 
Muiray aside and asked Murray as to the arrangement, whether they 
had their subpauias. He said no, we have got no subiaenas, but we 
have got to go on to night, and I said, are you prepared, have you got 
anything to ])ay .your expenses. He said, “ Yes, they 82J apiece,” 
and J sjiid “ Is that all ? ” and he says, “ Yes,” and then Ward came in, 
and said that ]Mr. Spotlbid had come. He came in a carriage and sent 
a message in for Cavanac, and Cavanac came out and went to the car¬ 
riage, and they talked there for a little while in the carriage. It was 


982 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


raining that morning, and there was an oil cloth covering over the car¬ 
riage, and Mr. Spofford gave to Mr. Cavanac an envelope which was 
partly open at the top, a large official envelope in which yon could see 
there was money; the amount I do not know. Immediately after Oav- 
anac left the carriage Judge Phillips went to the carriage and Judge 
Spofford gave Phillips $50, on the steps of the carriage, and immediately 
after Ward went and he gave Ward $50, and after Ward left I went 
there and he told me to see Mr. Cavanac—no, he told me to see him 
the next morning at his house, which 1 did. I went early but did not 
meet him the lirst, and I went to the corner of Carondelet street and 
stood there and I looked up and saw Mr. Spoflord coming towards Saint 
Charles street, I went towards him and met him and spoke to him, and 
asked him for some money\ He gave me $5 and said he could not give 
me any more then, but to call around to-morrow. He said that he did 
not know me in the matter and I would have to see Mr. Cavanac, and I 
went away and said all right. The nextday, when Judge Phillips went up 
there I sent a letter to him, and from what Judge Phillips said when became 
back he seemed to be very much insulted by it; that is, by the letter that 
I sent him. His views and mine seemed todifferasto what lought to have. 
After he came back here this fall a month or six weeks ago (I can’t be 
particular as to dates), when I heard that Mr Spofford was in town, I 
tried to get to see him and could not see him, and I went to see Mr. 
Cavanac and met him on Sunday, and I said, “Mr. Cavanac, will you 
set me right before Judge Spofford ? ” And he said “ I have been informed 
by parties that you and Ward and Philips acted very bad in the matter, 
and told the witnesses not to go on;” but I said “It was not myself, but 
what the others did.” I don’t know but I wanted, as for me, that he 
should set me right with Judge Spofford. He told me he would do it; 
that he would see Mr. Spofford for me. Whether he did or not I don’t 
know. Anyhow, I went to see IMr. Walker and Mr. Walker received 
me very kindly at his office. I met him one evening and he was very 
busy and asked that I should excuse him that evening, and call again 
the next evening or any evening after four o’clock. I went to see him, 
and soon after I got in Judge Phillii)s and Tom Murray came in there. 
I spoke to iMr. Walker and he said, “ What can I do for you ? ” And he 
said for me to sit down and tell him all I knew. I said to him I had 
been promised something, and I think the services good as any that 
had been rendered by Philips or Ward; that the only witness that 
went on and stood was Tom Murray and that I got him. Mr. Walker 
asked what that was worth, and I said I didn’t know, and he asked me 
one or two minor questions. Then he said “ I can’t tell you anything 
more until I see Mr. Spofford and iMr. Cavanac. I can’t tell you auv- 
thing further now, come back the next evening,” and I went; and he 
called me up to him and said that he had seen Spofford and Cavanac, and 
it seems they didn’t know anything about you. I said I certainly 
worked and “the workman is certainly worthy of his hire and the la¬ 
borer of his meat.” “Yes, sir,” he said,‘ “ but I have seen them both and 
they didn’t know you in the case. “ Well,” I said, “ I certainly got 
Murray,” and he was the only witness who did him any good in Wash¬ 
ington. He said “ What do you think that is worth f’ and I said I didn’t 
know. He said “ Do you know whether Spofford paid W^ard and Phillips 
anything.” I said “ Yes, sir; he paid them $51) that I know of, and they 
said sixty. They got $10 at another time.” I can’t swear to that, but 
that in what they told me. I left Mr. Walker and saw’ him no more 
until I saw Mr. Spofford on Carondelet street, and I asked him if he 
had seen Mr. Cavanac in regard to my matter, and he said “Ko;” and 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


983 


I said “ Well, what are you goiujr to do with me ? You are satisfied 
that I got Murray, aud he stood He said “ I don’t know you in the 
matter; and I said to him “ AVell, I got Tom Murray, aud he was the only 
man among all the witnesses who done you any good in Washington.” 
He said “ He done me no good, aud he was arrested in Washington like 
the rest, and did me no good at all, and as for your working and running 
around the street for a few days, I have paid you for that.” I said no 
more about it. He was in a hurry aud went away. I said to myself 

every dog has his day,” and maybe mine will come some time. 

Q. So you are the man who procured Murray as a witness in this 
case?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hadn’t Tom been employed in it before ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Do you know anything about it?—A. Only what he had been tell¬ 
ing me himself. I didn’t know anything about it till he told me about 
Hubbard, of the third ward, and Phillips expostulated with me about 
taking him, because they would not believe him ; aud I said “ He is a 
good witness; you had better take him.” Cavanac asked him, but AVard 
and Philips never wanted him in the case. Since that time there is a 
man by the name of AA^estou come to see AVard and I in the street. 
AA^eston said “I have been talking to Judge Spofford. He was talking 
to AVard in ray presence then, an<i Judge Spolford authorized me to say 
to you that if you can get him one man who can swear that he saw Kel¬ 
logg pay money to any member for voting for Kellogg or any member 
who can swear to it, he will give you $000. AA^ard said “Tell him to 
l)ay his old bill first, and then he would trust him, but he would not 
trust him now further than he could throw a Tennessee bull by the 
tail.” 

Q. Did you ever affiliate with the Democratic party ?—A. Yes, vsir. 

Q. AVheu ?—A. In 1870. 

Q. AATiat services did you do for them ?—A. I canvassed the greatest 
portion of the fourth Congressional district. 

Q. AA^'ho engaged you to canvass it?—A. The State central commit¬ 
tee, of which Patton was chairman. 

Q. Did they furnish you with what might be called credentials?—A. 
Y>s, sir. 

Q. Have you got those ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

AA^hat is the object of getting these credentials ? This witness has 
not been impeached. He is not on trial—neither is the Democratic 
liarty. 

Senator Cameron (to the stenographer). Just state that he produced 
papers similar to those produced by the witnesses AA^ai’d and Phillips 
from Democratic headquarters. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You say that Judge Spofford promised to pay you and didn’t do 
it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The services you rendered are that you got Tom Alurray '.—A. I 
got another witness, AVatson. 

Q. Murray is the man who stood up aud you thought you ought to 
get pav for him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He stood up, did he, in Washington ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you get Alurray ?—A. Two days before ilie first of Alay. 

Q. Are you certain of that ?—A. Yes, sir ; I am positive of it. Alur- 
rav came there the first of Alay and made his affida\ it. 

Q. AVas that the first time that he had been there ?—A. Ho had been 


984 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


there before. He was disappointed by Mr. McGloiu. We could not get 
him to write the affidavit. 

Q. Was that the first time that he had been there !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you say you found Murray?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And took him up there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that was the first that Cavanac knew of it?—A. I don’t 
know about that, sir. 

Q. Murray had never made his appearance there before that ?—A. I 
don’t know, sir; I never heard of it. 

Q. If he had, your services had not been worth anything ?—A. I never 
beard of it if he been there before. 

Q. That was the service you wanted pay for?—A. Yes, sir; I had 
been told by Mr. Cavanac that I should get it and by Mr. Spofford who 
said that I should get it. 

Q. Mr. Cavanac, Spofford, and Walker recognized that they were in¬ 
debted to' you for Murray’s testimony?—A. Yes, sir; Mr. Walker 
didn’t, but Mr. Cavanac did. 

Q. AAYre you ever a Democrat ?—A. I acted with the Democrats. 

Q. You pretended to be a Democrat ?—A. A^es, sir. 

Q. But you were not ?—A. 1 acted in good faith with them, sir. 

Q. What are your politics now ?—A. I don’t know what they are. 
My feelings are better towards the Republican party than they are for 
the Democrats. 

Q. You worked for money, didn’t you ?—A. AYs, sir. 

Q. Who are you working for now ?—A. I live with Mr. Belden, on 
Carondelet street. 

Q. But what are you working for now, I asked you ?—A. I am work¬ 
ing for the Republican party. 

Q. Who is paying you for that?—A. I am getting back home. I 
have been ostracized ever since I have been workijig in the Democratic 
party. 

Q. Who ostracized you ?—A. Well, sir, the colored people, and now I 
am looking for sociability in my own color. 

Q. Well, the white people would not ostracize you for being a Demo¬ 
crat, would they ?—A. Well, sir, they left me out in the cold. 

Q. It was your colored people who did that, wasn’t it?—A. Well, I 
am going into the Republican party again. They put me out in the 
cold and didn’t have much to do with me. 

Q. A^ou are going back into the Republican party?—A. AYs, sir; I 
think I can’t do worse there than in the Democratic party where 1 have 
been for three years. 

Q. AYur idea of going into politics is to make a living, is it ?—A. Yo, 
sir; I am fixing my political status and then I think maybe I can get 
a living. 

Q. Is it not the colored people’s generally to go into politics for 
money ?—A. I don’t know as to others, I only know for myself. 

. Q. Well, is that your idea ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. AYur idea is one of patriotic duty ?—A. A"es, sir ; I thought so. 

Q. And working for your country ?—A. AYs, sir. 

Q. Were you doing a patriotic duty when you were working in the 
Democratic party?—A. Yes, sir; I thought so. I thought I \vould be 
doing my duty. 

Q. Were you working for the Democratic party for patriotism or for 
a living!—A. I thought I was working for patriotism. 

Q. Have you ever had any oflice under them ?—A. I have had some 
small positions. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


985 


Q. Did Mr. (Javanac tell you to leave bis ofiBce aud never come .back 
into it?—A. No, sir; be never did. Since be bas been in Saint Pat¬ 
rick’s Hall be bas never told me that. 

Q. Didn’t be tell you so when be came there and said you ought to be 
paid for Murray? Didn’t be tell you be didn’t think so ?—A. No, sir; 
1 was to have gone on with the witnesses to help to keep them straight. 

Q. Did you think the witnesses were going back on their affidavits 
when they got to Washington ?—A. I thought so. I thought- 

Q. Answer my question. Didn’t you think when they swore a thing 
here they w’ould stand up to it there ?—A. I will explain. 

Q. Answer my question, and then explain.—A. I thought they were 
going back on their affidavits. 

Q. Did you think Murray would?—A. No, sir; not as to Murray; I 
thought not. 

Q. But you thought the others would ?—A. A'es, sir; that is, if the 
agreement was not carried out between Ward and Phillips. 

Senator Cameron. The Chairman asked you if you were really Re¬ 
publican when you were acting with the Democrats? What induced 
you to affiliate with the Democratic party in 1876 ?—A. The greatest in¬ 
ducement I had I will tell you. We have been here in this city having 
a great deal of trouble, and there has been a fearful loss of life in every 
campaign, and in the elections, and it alw^ays more or less redounded 
tow^ard the colored man. 

Q. He was the man who got hurt, was he ?—A. Wherever there was 
a rough-and-tumble fight the darky got hurt, and I thought on the broad 
platform of the Democratic party, if some of the colored people would 
get on that they would be given life and protection for the colored peo¬ 
ple throughout the State, aud that possibly w as the thing that actuated 
me myself to act in concert with the Democratic party, while there were 
some little things that I did not like in the Republican party. 


TESTIMONY OF T. J. BUISSON. 

T. J. Buisson, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill: 

Question. What is your office, Mr. Buisson ?—Answer. Third justice 
of the peace. 

Q. How long have you been third justice of the peace?—A. Since 
November, 1878. 

Q. Look at that affidavit (handing witness the Milton Jones aftida- 
vit).—A. That is my signature, sir, and the seal of my office. 

Q. Did you see Milton Jones sign that affidavit?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. Did you swear him to it before he signed it ?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. Did he make any objection to swearing to it?—A. None wffiat- 
ever. 

Q. He swore to it voluntarily, did he ?—A. Yes, sir; he did. 

Q. Was it read over to him ?—A. I do not know’ whether 1 read it to 
him or aske<i him if ho was familiar with its contents. 

Q. Y^ou did one or the other ?—A. Yes. sir; and upon his favorable 
ausw’er I swore him. 

Q. Y^ou swear that he swore to it ?—A. Y'es, sir; he gave me an af¬ 
firmative answer, and stated that the facts w^ere true aud correct. 



D86 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. .And you witnessed it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you swear more than one of those people?—A. Yes, sirj I 
swore several of them. 

Q. Did you swear Watson ?—A. I could not tell by the name. I 
could only state by seeing the affidavit, and my signature and seal of 
office. 

Q. Did you swear De Lacy ?—A. I think I remember such a man, but 
I am not positive. 

Q. Do you remember swearing DeLacy?—A. I think I did, sir. I 
think I have heard the name. 

Q. If you swore him will the affidavit show it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If you did, he sw^ore to it voluntarily, did he?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did DeLacy sign it himself ?—A. He did, sir. 

Q. He signed it and swore to it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that the facts stated were true and correct?—A. True and 
correct, sir. 

Q. DeLacy testified in Washington that he never signed it, and that 
the signature had “ e ” in it, and he never signed his name with an “ e.*^ 
That statement was false, was it?—A. Yes, sir; most unquestionably 
it was false. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When did you first become acquainted with Milton Jones?—A. I 
am not acquainted with him, sir. 

Q. Did you ever see him before he came to your office that day ?—A. 
I think not, sir ; I do not remember him. 

Q. How long did he remain ?—A. Only a few minutes ; long enough 
to sign his name. 

Q. Can you describe the man ?—A. No, sir; I cannot. 

Q. You cannot describe him at all ?—A. No, sir ; I cannot. 

Q. Do you know whether he is colored or not?—A. He was colored. 

Q. Do you know whether he is a negro or mulatto ?—A. I cannot 
say ; I do not know him at all. 

Q. Do you remember anything that he said when he was there in your 
office?—A. Nothing beyond swearing him to the correctness of the 
affidavit. 

Q. Do you remember that in fact, or do you state it because it is not 
your custom to swear any person to an affidavit without you read it to 
him, or you ask him if he is acquainted with its contents ?—A. It is not 
only my custom, but I have never departed from it. 

Q. Do you state that Jones did it because you know it is your cus¬ 
tom?—A. I swore every one of those parties, sir. 

Q. Did you swear Jones, and are you positive of it?—A. I swore 
Jones. They were brought to me by Mr. Cavanac. I knew what the 
affidavits were taken for, and I swore each one of them carefully. 

Q. When did you first make the acquaintance of De Lacy ?—A. I do 
not know any one of them, sir. 

Q. Do you remember to have seen De Lacy since?—A. No, sir ; I do 
not know as I would know him now. 

Q. Do you know that you would know any one of them ?—A. No, sir; 
I do not. 

Q. Can you give the names of those persons who appeared before you 
and were sworn ?—A. No, sir; I cannot. 

Q. Do you remember a man named Milon ?—A. No, sir ; I do not re¬ 
member him. 

Q. How many were taken before you by Mr. Cavanac ?—A. I do not 
remember; I think four or five, or may be six. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


987 


Q. Do you know a man named Thomas Murray?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Can you state whether he was one of the number or not?—A. No, 
sir ; I could not. 

Senator Hill. The identical one that he showed you, with Milton 
Jones’s name, was shown to Milton Jones here yesterday mcrning, and 
he admitted that it was his signature, but said he signed it as a state¬ 
ment and refused to swear to it. 

The Witness. lie states a falsehood. He signed it, and swore to it. 

Q* Senator Hill.) It is the same paper, and he said he never 
swore to it, and did not know how you came to i)ut that jurat there.— 
A. I am not surprised, sir, at any such testimony being given. 


TESTIMONY OF FRANK McGLOIN. 

Frank McGloin, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and 
examined : 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Look at that affidavit, Mr. McGloin (handing witness the 
Milton Jones affidavit).—Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever see it before?—A. It is my handwriting. 

Q. You wrote it yourself?—A. A^es, sir. 

Q. Whose affidavit is it?—A. It is Milton Jones’s. 

Q. State if Milton Jones made it and knew its contents.—A. It was 
written at his dictation. There is nothing in it that he did not dictate, 
and nothing in there he did not state and reiterate j and many things 
that he wanted put in were not put in. 

Q. Was it sworn to?—A. I took one of them down to be sworn to, 
but I do not know whether he swore to this one or not. It was read 
over to him j read and fully explained, sir. 

Q. Well, the one of Johnson ; do you remember that?—A. Yes, sir; 
it was written out and nothing was stated except what they put in 
themselves; and I will state that at their request I looked up the laws 
of the State to see whether they could be i)iosecuted for making these 
affidavits. 

Q. Was it bribery or perjury ?—A. It was one or the other; I don’t 
remember which. I was there at the time, and looked it up, and I know 
it was one or the other. 

Q. Can you say whether it was bribery or perjury under the law, if it 
could be made anything ?—A. 1 think it was bribery, and there was a 
period of two years, I think, in which the indictment or prosecutions 
had to be laid. I looked up the law at their request. 

Q. And you found that the time had expired?—A. Yes, sir; I think 
so. And I advised them it was safe for them to make the affidavits. 

Q. Then it must have been bribery ?—A. I think it was bribery. Have 
jou the other affidavit there ? I think there were two more. 

Senator Hill. Johnson’s is missing now. 

The Witness. I think there were three that I wrote. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do you remember the other one ?—A. No, sir. I think there \yere 
three, but I don’t remember the name, but could tell it when I saw it. 

Q. AVas it Murray or De Lacy ?—A. Murray, I think it was. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Mr. McGloin, can you state who were present at the time you drew 



988 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


np the affidavit/?—A. There were present during the time that all of 
them were being drawn, Judge W. B. Phillips, and during some of it, 
William Ward; and during part of the time, I think, Flowers j and Mr. 
Cavanac was there, of course. 

Q. At whose request did you draw it !—A. I think, at the time. Judge 
Phillips cam*e up, or Ward, and said these colored people had more con¬ 
fidence in me than anybody else, and desired me to draw them up. 

Q. You remember whether these papers drawn by you were copied in 
your office and copies given to the parties!—A. I do not believe the parties 
were given copies. They were not drawn up in my office. I was a mem¬ 
ber of the constitutional convention at the time, and it was just ad¬ 
journed, and I was called from my seat to Cavanac’s office, and they 
were drawn in his office. 

Q. You were not present at the time thovse affidavits purport to be 
sworn to?—A. I went with one of them, I think now it was Johnson. 
1 went to Buisson and had it signed in my presence. 

Q. Do you recollect whether you w’ere signed to it as a subscribing 
witness ?—A. 1 do not remember. If my name appears, that w'as the 
one of them that I went with. 

Q. I ask you, in your experience, whether or not it is usual to have 
subscribing w itnesses to affidavits in this State?—A. It is usual and al¬ 
most requisite, where the parties sign with a mark, but I cannot say it 
is usual where the parties sign in their owm handwriting. It may be 
done as a matter of caution, but it is not usually done. 

Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Phillips completed part of the affi¬ 
davit that you drew up, or not!—A. 1 do not know, sir; I do not think 
he did. 

Senator Hill. That was a copy ? 

The Witness. The copy he may have completed; the original, 1 think, 
was ail in my own handwriting. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Are you acquainted with these men, Phillips, AYard, and Flowers? 
—A. I know all three of them. 

Q. Have they been having conversations with you about this matter?— 
A. Yes, sir; very frequently. If I w’ere to believe what all three stated, 
they have told me that they have more confidence in my advice and 
good will toward them than any other Democrat in the State, especially 
Ward. 

Q. Did you ever hear from them any complaint as to what was prom¬ 
ised to them and not paid to them ?—A. I lieard Ward complain several 
times that Mr. Spofi'ord and Mr. Cavanac were not paying him, and that 
he was not getting the means necessary to do this thing with; Ward 
especially said so. 

Q. Did he say anything about working for false affidavits ?—A. Yo, 
sir; none of them said anything about that. They know me better than 
to apply to me to draw up a false affidavit. 

Q. Did they say they were to get any money for it?—A. Yo, sir; on 
the contrary, I heard from Ward his complaint that he was getting no 
money, and if it wms dealt out to him he could do more for the cause. 

Q. Did he state anytldng about what was promised to him ?—A. Not 
a word from the lips of either, and I heard them speak of it frequently. 
If I remember rightly. Ward has told me he was out money out of his 
own pocket in this case. 

Q. AVhat did he profess to you was his motive in getting up this tes¬ 
timony ?—A. I do not know as he said anything especially. He made 
no special assignment of a reason. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


980 


Q. Were y6u with Ward here in any wounding of him over this mat¬ 
ter ?—A. 1 was not with him, but he told me it was a cowardly thing, an 
attempt to assassinate him on the part of the custom-house people. 
Ross kStewart assaulted him, and he wounded him. He wanted to prose¬ 
cute Stewart for it, but 1 did not have time nor inclination .to do it. 

Ry Senator Cameron : 

Q. If those men were acting deceitfully or corruptly, you have no idea 
of it? Nothing was said to you about it, and you think they would 
have avoided that with you?—A. Yes, sir; I do not think they would 
have confided anything of that sort to me. 


TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK J. STOKES. 

Frederick J. Stokes, a witness called for the momorialist, recalled 
to the stand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. xVre you acquainted with W. B. Phillips, called Judge Phil¬ 
lips, and a man called William Ward?—Answ^er. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know their general characters ?—Yes, sir. 

Q. Are they good or bad?—A. They are bad. 

Q. Are they very bad ?—A. Yes, sir ; they are very bad. 

Q. From this general character, wmuld you believe them on oath in a 
court ot justice?—A. I have never had anything to do with either of 
the men, but their reputation is such in the parish of Grant that they 
would not be believed there; their reputation is simply infamous. 

Q. Do you know Flowers ?—A. I have not any acquaintance with 
Flowers. 1 only know him from speaking to him, but I never asked 
him any questions. 


"testimony of CHARLES CAVANAC. 

Charles Cavanac, a witness called for the memorialist, recalled to 
the stand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Mr. Cavanac, there have been some references made to you 
that 1 do not know whether I can recollect, but William Ward testifies 
that you said on one occasion that if Judge Spollbrd secured his seat 
you would be made collector of customs, and you would appoint Jones 
janitor in the custom house.—Answer. There is not a word-of truth in 
it; it is a lie. 

Q. The whole of it a lie ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever promise one of them money or office ?—A. No, sir ; 
I never did. 

Q. He said you told him on one occasion that one of the witnesses 
asked $250 for his affidavit.—A. I never said any such thing. 

Q. Did you hear the testimony of this man Flowers ?—A. I heard him 
testify tliat he brought Murray to my ofiice. He never brought Murray 
there. He came frequently, so much so that I requested him not to 
come there; he was very annoying. Murray had been there long be- 




990 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


fore Flowers had, and, in fact, made his affidavit. He came to me some 
time ago into my office, on Camp street, and asked me if I did not think 
lie was entitled to something. 1 asked him what for ? He said he 
brought Murray, and that he was the only witness who stood to me. 
I said, I do not think you did ^ and if you did, I am not paying for any 
such services. 

Q. Have you ever had anything to do with this man Flowers in this 
matter?—A. I have had nothing to do with him. I gave instructions 
to my clerk to keep him out of m 3 ’ office. 

Q. You never had anything to do with him at all in it ?—A. No, sir ; 
nothing at all. 

Q. What is the reputation of these three men?—A. From all I ever 
heard of them it is very bad. 

Q. Did you ever encourage them to bring to you any witnesses unless 
to prove a fact?—A. I always told them that I wanted no testimony 
that was not true, and I was not paying anything for it. I never sought 
them out; they came to my office every time and brought them there. 
I never offered any inducement either of money or office or went out of 
it to seek testimony. Those men voluntarily came to my office. 

By Mr. Cameron : 

Q. When did you first learn that Phillips and Ward were first em¬ 
ployed in this case ?—A. I did not know it; they came to my office and 
told it. 

Q. When was it ?—A. It may have been in April or May, 1879. 

Q. Did you have more than one interview with them ?—A. Many, 
sir. 

Q. You knew at that time that they were disreputable characters ?— 
A. 1 did, sir. They wanted to go to Washington City, and I did not 
care to have them go. 

Q. Did they bring any of the witnesses that went to Washington to 
your office?—A. Yes, sir; they brought Jones and Johnson. 

Q. Did they not bring De Lacy ?—A. No, sir ; I kuov/ they did not. 

Q. Who brought him?—xV. I think Murray did. 

Q. What about Seveignes?—A. Nobody brought him ; I think he 
came in and introduced himself. That is my impression now. 

By Mr. Hill : 

Q. You say you had no confidence in these men ?—A. None at all; 
they were very annoying. They were for exacting money, and I said 
if it was money they wanted they would oblige me by not coming into 
my office at all. 


TESTIMONY OF F. 0. ZACHAPJE. 

F. C. Zacharie, a witness called for the memorialist, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Were you a member of the State senate at an}" time?_ 

Answer. Yes, sir; I was elected in 1860 from the second district of New 
Orleans. 

Q. Were you at this caucus committee testified to by Mr. Boatner to 

investigate this matter of the title of Senator Kellogg "to his seat ?_A.. 

I was appointed a member to the committee of which Boatner was a 



SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


991 


cliairuijin duriug the recess of the senate in 1878. AVhen Boatner re¬ 
signed on account of his removal from the parish of Catahoula, putting 
himself out of the district from which he was elected, 1 was appointed 
by the Lieutenant-Governor W:ltz, with the consent of the other mem¬ 
bers, chairman of that committee, and I took up the investigation of the 
means alleged under which Kellogg was elected to the United States- 
Senate. 

Q. Did you ever make any report ?—A. Ko, sir, I did not; I saw Mr^ 
Seymour, ]Mr. Ewart, and ^Ir. Spearing, and I saw a number of affida¬ 
vits that had been taken under the instructions of Senator Boatner; one 
by Blackstone and others hy other members or the Packard legislature, 
in which they admitted they had been paid so much money for their 
votes. Mr. Spearing said he could get other testimony in the country.. 
Some time in the summer, prior to the meeting of the legislature in 
January, 1870, I met Judge Spofford and had a conversation with him 
about that investigation. 

Senator Cameron. I object to the witness giving any of the conver¬ 
sation that passed between himself and Judge Spofford. I think it 
necesssary only to state the objection. 

Senator Hill. That is right. Senator. 

Q. (To the witness.) Why did you not make a report ?—A. I thought 
the purposes of the investigation would be defeated. 1 said then and 
believed that Kellogg would buy up those witnesses. The venal char¬ 
acter of those people was such that we could not rely upon them. They 
were that kiu(l of cattle, that if their affidavits were made public, we 
felt assured the sitting member would purchase them and buy them 
up. It was probable that a committee would be appointed by the Uni¬ 
ted States Senate to come out here and investigate the matter and have 
these witnesses before them. 

Q. And you left it to the Senate of the United States ?—A. A>s, sir,, 
and never made any report. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

I simply wish to inquire if this was Wm. E. Spearing ?—A. He is- 
the Spearing who keeps the stalde on Gravier street. 

Q. The same one wIjo testified before the Field committee in the Lit¬ 
tlefield matter * —A. A>s, sir. 

Q. About the Vernon Parish returns ?—A. Yes, sir; I think he is the- 
same man. 

By Senator Hill: 

(*>. 1 am requested by 3Ir. Walker to call your attention to the testi¬ 
mony before the Morrison committee, from page Ifi to page 23, which 
included the report which the committee, composed of Zacharie and 
Burke, Gauthreaux, McGloin, Cavanac, and others, made. Now, it ap- 
I)ears in their report in the return of the seventh ward, of this city, the 
three Bepublican candidates were elected. Will you please explain 
that A. Under instructions of the Democratic State central commit¬ 
tee, by whom we were appointed, it was made our duty to make a tabu- 
latioir of the returns as they ai)peared before the returning board. 
That is the prima facie case on the papers. In the case of the seventh 
ward there were some two or three hundred votes where the names of the 
legal voters had been ilKgally stricken otf by .Aloore, the supervisor for 
that ward,who \\as a candidate for election to the legislature. Those votes 
were refused and put in a separate box with the registration pai)ers at¬ 
tached, and with an affidavit to each, that if they were allowed to vote 
they would vote that particular ticket. But the list had been annulled. 


992 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


arbitrarily by Mr. Moore, and when the returns came up they did not 
count the votes in this box, and, consequently, they were not counted ; 
and then afterwards whon making out a list of the house for Mr. Treze- 
vant, the clerk of the N^icholls legislature, I made out a list of those 
votes of the men actually elected by those votes, and the Democratic 
candidates were elected in that ward. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. According to your recollection now, how many names were stricken 
in the seventh ward f—A. Now I cannot say ; my memory is not suffi- 
cently upon the point. It would be difiScult to say, but enough to elect 
the democratic members in that ward. 

Q. You stated your recollection that it was between two and three 
hundred ?—A. Yes, sir; but my recollection is not sufficiently accurate 
as to the number. 

Q. You are not certain, then I —A. No, sir; but I know the number 
was sufficient to make the difference. 1 am speaking by recollection 
after three years, and tell you the best that 1 know. The fa(d, however, 
is carried in my mind that those votes rejected turned the scale in the 
ward. 

Q. Were yon present when the registration was being purged in a 
room in tlm custom-house!—A. No, sir. No democrat was allowed in 
there at all. It was a sort of star-chamber secret proceeding. 

Q. Do you know whether any democrats were allowed in there or 
not!—A. I know I was a member of the State central committee and 
we were trying to find out what was doing in there. 

Q. Quite a number of witnesses have sworn here that democrats 
were allowed in there !—A. I believe there were a few in there, but 
their protests were overruled, and the thing was done with such dispatch 
and hurry that we w^ere unable to resist it. 

Q. You examined the registration list of that year for the seventh 
ward !—A. No, sir; I do not know as I have. I have seen this list of 
votes and these ballots. 

Q. Have you ever examined tbe registration rolls yourself!—A. No, 
sir; I do not think I have. My ideas are formed on the basis of the 
registration papers with the ballots attached. To illustrate; Here is 
Jack Smith been a resident of the ward forty years, goes with his 
l)aper to vote, and his name is stricken off. He offers to vote; is re¬ 
fused ; protests against it; makes an affidavit there that he is entitled 
to vote and has been refused to vote. If he had voted, he would have 
voted the ticket which be attaches. The ballot, the affidavit, and the 
registration paper were put in that box of which I have spoken, and 
t'lose ballots were considered when we made out the returns for Mr. 
Trezevant. 

Q. Look at that, Mr. Zacharie (handing witness a paper).—A. That 
is a certificate that we promulgated under the instruction of the State 
central committee that we should only promulgate what at>peared on the 
papers there. 

Q. This affidavit!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And purports to give the result of the elections in the ward !—A. 
Yes, sir; made up from the sworn returns, as I have exi)lained. 

At this point the following were admitted in evidence from the 
testimony of Stephen Packard before the sub-committee, Mr. Stenger, 
chairman of the Morrison committee : 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


993 


SEVENTH WARD.— ‘A. 


Jerry Hlackstone.1,910 

Eugene Gardere.1,903 

W. J. Moore.1,901 

Henry Trenioulet.1,854 

J. M. Cressy.1,834 

Charles Rolle.1,828 


We, the undersigned, a sub-committee appointed by the Democratic Conservative 
executive committee, to witness the canvassing and compiling of the returns by the 
returning board of the State of Louisiana of the votes cast at au election held on the 
7th day of November, 1876, do hereby certify under oath that the above statement and 
compilation for members of the house of representatives of the State of Louisiana 
was made by us from the sworn duplicates and certified copies of the original state¬ 
ments of votes filed in the clerks’ offices of the district court and the secretary of state 
for the parish of Orleans, as required by law. 

F. C. ZACHARIE, 

E. A. BURKE, 

J. R. ALCEE GAUTHREAUX, 
H. C. BROWN, 

FRANK McGLOIN, 

ClIAS. CAVANAC. 


Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of December, A. D. 1876. 

WM. II. HOLMES, 

Second Justice of the Peace, Parish of Orleans. 


By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. What ward do you reside in ?—A. The fourth ward. 

Q. AVliere were you on the day of the election in 1870'?—A. On the 
day of election, in *1870, I was at the Democratic State central head- 
(luarters, a block above this buildiug, I think, the whole night before, 
during tlie day, and the night after the election. 

Q. Were you in the seventh ward that day ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Where this box was which was at the poll you spoke off—A. I 
do not know but that at each poll it was a matter of notoriety. 

Q. AVhere did you count those votes !—A. At the Democratic head¬ 
quarters, on Canal street. 

Q. They were not deposited in any court ?—A. No, sir; they were 
taken to the Democratic headquarters; that was a matter that Mr. 
Trezevant considered as to whether the clerk had the right to make up 
the rolls, considering that the returning board had no right to judge of 
election qualifications of members of the legislature, and following the 
plan of the United States Congress we took these votes and counted 

them. . 

Q. So he satisfied himself from the affidavits at the Democratic head¬ 
quarters ?—A. Yes, sir; he took it from them, or our say so, as to who 
were elected. 

Q. Did you see any of these affidavits made f—A. No, sir; but I saw 
the whole of them. 

Q. Do you know that any of these parties lived in the seventh ward: 
—A. 1 recognized, I suppose, a dozen of my acquaintances. 

Senator Kellogg. That will do, Mr. Zacharie. 

Senator II ill. I will hear any motion that can be made. 

Senator Yance. 1 will move to adjourn sine die. 

Senator IliLL. AVe will not adjourn sine die, but when we do adjourn, 
we will adjourn to meet in AA ashington. 

Mr. AAAlker. Before the committee start the subject of adjournment, 
I would like to recalll Tom Murray to the stand. 

G3 s K 








994 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


TESTIMONY OF THOMAS MUHKAY. 


Thomas Murray (colored), a witness called tor the memorialist, re¬ 
called to the stand. 

By Senator Hill : 

Question. Murray, a record from the mint, being thereport of H.S. Foote 
to the department at Washington, has been bronght.to the committee, 
to the effect that you were discharged because of some improper con¬ 
duct which was painful to the said Foote. You said something of your 
discharge the other day, and if you have any official paper on that sub¬ 
ject, you have a right to produce it to the committee, for your own vin¬ 
dication.—Answer. Here is my discharge, sir. 

Senator Hill. [Taking the paper and reading.] 


The Mint of the United States at New Orleans, La., 

December 31, 1878. 

Sir: I am directed by the superintendent to notify you that your servicei will not 
be required in this mint on and after to-morrow, January 1, 1879. 

Your name will, however, be held in remembrance as that of an applicant, in case 
there shall be any employment for you. 

Very respectfully, 

T. G. TRACY, 

Chief Cleric. 

Mr. Thomas Murray, 

Laborer United States Mint, New Orleans, La. 


Q. That was given to yon officially?—A. Yes, sir. I have a copy 
there to go in the record. If the committee will allow me I will state 
my position in the mint, and show whether I was dishonest. I was the 
first appointee Governor Hahn made after he took the mint; I wag ap¬ 
pointed as laborer and detailed to the superintendent’s office. My duty 
was to take checks around at the end of the month; for all bills over one 
hundred dollars I took checks for, and for bills under one hundred dol¬ 
lars the money to pay them. I staid there three or four months, and 
brought the money back and helped to count it. I had the keys of the 
vault every day, and was backwards and forwards in there, and could 
have taken a hundred dollars any day, or ten dollars, if I had been so 
disposed. I was in and out with the money all the time; that was my 
duty in the superintendent’s office; and there was nothing against me 
that I know of until I was discharged, and Governor Foote he discharged 
me the second day he took charge; when I went to him he said, “ I don’t 
know you; I am discharging you on the recommendation of Mr. Tracy 
and Mr. May, the two head men here.” I asked him if he had anything 
against me, and he said, ‘‘Nothing that I know ol; I have too much 
force here, with two of you,” and I asked him which of the two he would 
keep, and he said he would keep Ike; this was Tracy’s man. I went off 
very sore and wrote a severe letter to Mr. Sherman, and he wrote me to 
go and see Foote, and Foote treated me very rough, and I took an attor¬ 
ney down there, and the attorney said, “ it is a put-up job on you, and 
you needn’t try to get back;” he told me 1 couldn’t make it, and Gover¬ 
nor Foote said if I hadn’t written to John Sherman he would have 
reinstated me on the first of tbe mouth, and then he said there were 
some charges against me. I asked him what it was, and he said about 
the ice bill, and 1 said 1 knew nothing about it; and he handed me a 
piece of paper, and asked if I ever saw it before, and I said yes, and he 
said where, did you get it, and I said it was given to me, and he said 
who gave it to you, and I said I wouldn’t give the name, I thought there 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


995 


was some honor in men ; be said was it the man in the mint, and I said 
yes: and he said, won’t you give it up ? I said no, and we parted. 
I said 1 would be exonerated from the charges, and I wrote to John 
Sherman telling him I had only my reputation to save, and I was going 
to do it, and thanking him for what he did for me. 

Q. There has been a man named Flowers before this committee, and 
he said he was the man who procured you for Mr. Oavanac and took 
you to make your affidavit?—A. No, sir ; that is not true. 

Q. He said you made your affidavit on the 1st of May?—A. No, sir'; 
I made a statement to Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Had you seen Flowers before that?—A. No, sir. He came to me 
and said Mr. Oavanac wanted to see me, and I went down to see him. 

Q. Had you not seen Mr. Oavanac before the 1st of May ?—A. I 
had seen him every day all along. I think we had talked this matter 
over before the 1st of May, but not about giving the affidavit. 

Q. Did you give Oavanac the affidavit before the 1st of May ?—A. I 
don’t know whether it was the 1st of May or not. I think it was some 
time last spring. I didn’t contine myself to dates and months. 

Q. Is there anything you want to state in explanation of anything 
which has been said here about you ? If there is, go on.—A. I would 
like to give the committee what these men are who came and swore to 
my character. 

Senator Hill. That is not necessary, Murray; they only gave their 
opinion of you; they testified to no specific act except this mint mat¬ 
ter; others swore that they would believe you, and you must stand on 
that. '5 

The Witness. I would like for this letter to Sherman to be read, for 
I said 1 would refer him to Governor Kellogg for my reputation. 

Senator Hill. No, no; that is not necessary. 


TESTIMONY OF JAMES COOPER. 

James Cooper, a witness who had previously been called for the sit¬ 
ting member, but whose testimony had been stricken from the record, 
was recalled to the stand and examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Do you know Robert Johnson ?—Answer. Yes, sir. 

(i. Was he ever a member of the Nicholls house of representatives?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What parish did he represent?—A. Terrebone; if I am not mis¬ 
taken, it was Terrebone. 

Q. Do you understand that he voted for Mr. Spotford for Senator?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has he, at any time, admitted to you that he was paid for that 
vote ?—A. He didn’t to me, but I heard him talking about it. 

Q. State what he said.—A. I was at Bruce Johnson’s shop, on St. Jo¬ 
seph street, between Saint Charles and Carondelet, sometime last week, 
and heard him say he received money for voting for Spotford; that he 
got a small amount at first and then he was to get the other; there 
were other gentlemen present, and I paid not much attention to it ; it 
amounted to nothing to me. 

Q. Give the conversation that took place, as near as you can remem¬ 
ber it.—A. There was not only there me, but other gentlemen there. 



996 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Yerv well, go on.—A. Well, sir, they got up a conversation about 
this Kellogg-Spofford case. I asked liim a little something about it, 
and asked him if he had been before tlie committee, and he said, 
and I said, “I suppose Si)offord ))aid for his election as well as any¬ 
body else’’; and lie said, “Yes; that he had been paid money”; and one 
word brought on another, and that’s all I remember of it. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. You said you supposed Spofford had paid out money as well as 
any body else?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you lUean by that, that Kellogg had paid money ?—A. Ko, 
sir; because, when they had driven us out from the Saint Louis Hotel, 
I went down to the Nicholls legislature and saw Burke and others 
aspiring for positions, and I supposed the}^ had paid money to be 
elected. 


TESTIMONY OF GEOEGE A. J. SWEAZIE. 

George A. J. Sweazie, a witness called on the behalf of the sitting 
member, recalled to the stand by Senator Oaraerou. 

Question. Do >ou know Emile Weber ?—Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long liave you known him?—A. Since 1865. 

Q. Did you know Lucius Early, of West Feliciana, in his life time?— 
A. I did. 

Q. He, I believe, is not living now ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know what his pecuniary condition was early in ’77 ?—A. 
In 1874-’75 and ’77 he farmed. He farmed in West Feliciana and was 
killed in 1877. 

Q. Was he a man of some means ?—A. In 1876, to my certain knowl¬ 
edge, he raised between thirty and forty bales of cotton that year. 
His merchant was Julius Friedhiem, one of the largest merchants up 
there. 

Q. Do you know whether he had money when he came to the legisla¬ 
ture?—A. Yes, sir; he had mouey all along and at any time. 

Q. Can you state what amount he had?—A. He might not have had 
it on him all the time, but he was worth between four and five hundred 
dollars in cash realized out of his crop of 1876. I recollect being with 
him on Canal street during the sitting of the Packard legislature and 
met- 

Q. Never mind about that. Mr. Weber has testified before this com¬ 
mittee iu regard to yourself that George A. J. Sweazie, accredited repre¬ 
sentative from the parish of West Feliciana, also stated to me that if 
Governor Kellogg did not provide for him in the custom-house, he 
would appear before the Potter committee and testify that he took a 
bribe for voting for him for United States Senator. (The Witness. 
That is false.) He called around to my room the night I was going to 
Washington, anu the landlord called him into the house and he took a 
seat in the front room, and called for me, and he said, “ I am going to 
Washington,”and I said,“ What for?” He said, “ I am going therein the 
interest of the Democratic party, and I tell you, George, the Democratic 
party has got this country, and if you will come and go along with me 
and modify your affiadvit you can make money.” I said to him, “Do 
you remember that your brother has just been killed in West Feliciana, 
and now you are going to help them?” He said “Fighting them will not 
bring back my brother back to life, and I have been indicted about some 



5P0FF0RD VS. KELLOGG. 


997 


school fund,” and lio said, ^ I want to get out of it, and I tliink I can 
make $10,000, and you can make two,” and I said to him, “ How is it 
that one man is worth more than another, and that I wanted to make 
as much as you do.” And he said, that I know more than you and I 
am more valuable as a witness. I came out with him on the street and 
took a drink, and he said, “You can go for old Kellogg,” and I said 
‘ How P and he says, “ Don’t you know something about his paying 
money to be elected United States Senator;” and I said “ No, I didn’t, not 
a dollar.” We parted, and he said if he got to Washington he would 
write to me and let me know how he was getting along, and after he 
came back from Washington and went up to Donaldsonville, he came 
to my house to see me again the next time he came to the city, but not 
about this thing. 

Q. Weber goes on : “ Sweazie came to me when the sub-Potter com¬ 
mittee were here, and intimated that he felt sore. He said, if I would 
get him a thousand dollars he would expose Senator Kellogg, and tes¬ 
tify as to the manner in which the members were gotten to vote for 
Kellogg.” Did you make some such statement as thatf—A. That is 
false in every particular; in every particular that is false. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Weber whilst the sub- 
Potter committee were here ?—A. Mr. Weber came to my room between 
eleven and twelve o’clock with Mr. St. Martin. He had me woke up j I was 
in bed, and he carried me out on the corner of Basin street, and we took 
a drink, and he persuaded me to go into this thing, and I would not do 
it, and f said, “Weber, I am a colored man and a Republican, and I can¬ 
not go into any thing like this ; and he said, “ You are a damned fool;” 
and 1 said, “ Maybe I am.” Then he said, “ You can make $500 cash 
down.” He says, “I have been to Wasliington, and I know what is in 
this thing; I will give you $500 and one of my places up in West Fe¬ 
liciana, and you may come with me.” He sent Judge Dooley for me to 
75 Conti street, and I went arouud there with him, and he again per¬ 
suaded me to go into it, and he said, “ You can make $500, and I will 
give you one of my plantations, but you can get a situation here, or 
you can go to West Feliciana.” I said, “ So far as guarantees are 
concerned, I know as much about them as I desire. If I can go on 
my own merits, I will go ; and if I can’t, I won’t go at all.” 

Senator Hill. Senator Cameron, I must object to all this going on 
the record ; I think it is extremely unnecessary, and I cannot see what 
good object is to be compassed by it. 

Senator Cameron. And on the other hand I must insist that it should 
go into it to explain the witness’s testimony with reference to the tes- 
mouy given by Mr. Weber. 

Senator Hir-L. The witness 1ms got a right to explain anything that 
occurred on that subject ; but all this narrative on irrelevant matter, I 
think, is out of order. 

Senator Cameron. I know what the rule is, and 1 do not differ with 
the chairman ; but I want him to take into consideration that Mr. Weber 
has not been cross-examined, and I ask that the chairman under those 
circumstances will relax the rule a little. 

The Witness (resumifig). As I went on to say, he persuaded me to 
go into this thing, and I said I could not do it. He says, “All the boys 
are going to do it; ” and I said, “ That is none of my business what the 
boys do; if they choose to make an aflidavitto tell a lie, that is nothing 
to me, I cannot do it and put myself in a false position.” He said, “What 
are you doing now; where are j’ou atf” I said I was in the custom¬ 
house. , He said, “ How much are you getting ?” I told him that I had 


998 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


got a position as a laborer. He said, “You can do better than that.” I said 
“There are not good places there for all.’’ He said, “ You are a fool; I 
have been to Washington, and a man has got no need to labor in the 
custom-house like that; there is no reason why he should not have a 
good position.” I said, “ I can’t help it f’ and as to saying that 1 would 
squeal on Kellogg, there was no such thing. I never said anything of 
the sort to him. He met me afterwards and said tliat a resolution was 
passed re-opening this case. I was going to the constitutional conven¬ 
tion and he was, in Exchange Alley purchasing goods, and I seen him 
and called him out, asked him how he was, and he said all right, and he 
said, “You have got another chance to get even with old Kellogg,” and 
I said, “ How He said the case has been reopened and a committee 
is to examine into it. He said, “I am going to make something out of 
this thing.” I said, “I do not know how to do it.” I said, “You are a 
white man and can be pig or pup, I cannot ; I am a colored man and 
a Eepublican.” . He laughed at me, and I left him. I got angry with 
him and did not even stop to tell him good-by. At another time, three 
or four weeks ago, on Decatur street, between Custom-house and Canal, 
I passed him ; he was in conversation with a gentleman, and I stopped 
a moment, and he asked if I wanted to see him, and I said nothing 
more than to speak to him as a friend. He said, “ Can’t you come down 
to the house to-night?” And I said, “Ko.” He said, “ I want to see you 
then. I said no that I could not come. He says, “ Then I will not be 
able to see you again, as I was up late in political matters last night.” 
I said that I did not want to see him on politics, but just as an old 
friend, and told him good-by, and seen nothing of him since until he 
came out of the committee-room the other day. 

Q. Well, what about this statement regarding Maddox and those other 
gentlemen ?—A. As to Mr. Maddox, he sent for me by Andrew Duncan, 
who had been acting deputy sergeant at-arms, and sent up the country 
for witnesses; he sent for me by him. 

Q. Weber testified in regard to a letter signed by Mr. Twitcbell and 
addressed to him (Weber) that is dated, as appears in the report of the 
Potter committee, on the 13th of January, 1877 ; he stated that that let¬ 
ter was conveyed to him by you 5 what do you know in regard to that 
letter ?—A. It is a falsehood j I saw nothing of it except what I saw be 
testified in the pa{)er the other day. I never carried a letter to him, never, 
from Mr. Twitchell in my life. 

Q. He stated that you were hunting for him all around town ?—A. At 
that time he absented himselt from the Packard legislature; being from 
the same district that E represented, I went down to the Conti Veranda 
Hotel to see if I could not get him to come back. I had no other pur¬ 
pose in the world, and that is the only time I went to him. 


TESTIMONY OF W. L. McMILLEN. 

W. L. MoMillen, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. Were you a member of the Packard legislature ?—Answer. 
Yes, sir; I was elected in 1876. 

Q. Were you present on the day the ballot was taken for Senator?— 
A. I was. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


999 


Q. Do you know anything regarding whether there was a quorum of 
the general assembly present?—A. 1 was pretty clear in my own mind 
that there was a quorum in joint convention. There was a quorum of 
the house, but not of the senate, but when together there was a quorum 
ot both. 

Q. There was a inajorit}" of the members there ?—A. Yes, sir, when 
they were present. 

' Q. Please state, if you know, of any member being paid to vote for 
me ?—A. I know of none. 

Q. Was there any rumor regarding it about the State-house *— A. My 
recollection is there were rumors that members had been paid, but they 
were principally in the i)ublic prints and on the streets. 

Q. Were there rumors of members being paid to leave the legislature 
and go to the other legislature?—A. Yes, sir; there were many rumors 
at that time upon all sorts of subjects. 

Q. Did you move in the matter in any way to investigate the truth of 
any of those rumors ?—A. I moved as a member of the legislature, an in¬ 
vestigation of this matter so far as the house of representatives was 
concerned, and it was raised and an investigation made. 

Q. Was there a report made?—A. Yea, sir ; there was a report made 
exonerating all parties. 

Q. Was there any evidence about it going to show that any member 
of the legislature was paid for voting for me as United States Senator? 
—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill. I must object to this testimony going into the record, 
because if there was a report made, the report is the best legal evidence 
of the fact of its contents. 

Senator Kellogg. That report, Mr. Chairman, is already in the 
record. 

Senator Hill. Very well, then, I simply made the objection because, 
naturally, if there was a report made, it would be the best evidence of 
its contents. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Wasn’t all the leaders of the party, the State government and the 
Packard government, in favor of my election ?—A. On the day of the 
election; yes, sir. 

Q. There were great differences before, but did they not all agree on 
the day of election ?—A. Y^es, sir, your election, as I remember, was 
unanimous; there was not a single vote against you that I remember. 


TESTIMONY OF ALBEET BO URGES. 

Albert Bourges, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Question. Where do you reside? Do you reside in this city?—An¬ 
swer. I do. 

Q. How long have you lived here?—A. I have been here all my life. 
I was born here. 

Q. A witness named Baugnon has testified before this committee, 
and 1 wish to ask you are you acquainted with him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been acquainted with him ?—A. About four 
years. ' ’ . 



1000 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you know what his general character is?—A. Well, not very 
good. 

Q. From what you know of his general character would you believe 
him on oath in a court of justice?—A. From what I know of it through 
circumstances that came to my knowledge I would not. 


TESTIMONY OF JACK WHAETON. 

Jack Wharton, a witness called for the sitting member, sworn and 
examined. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Question. Do you reside here ?—Answer. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided here in New Orleans ?—A. A dozen 
years, I suppose. 

Q. You are the present United States marshal in this city?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. How long have you held that position ?—A. Two and a half years, 
I think; two years and more, anyhow. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Emil L. Weber ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been acquainted with him ?—A. Some time, 
sir. I knew him best when Mr. Packard and myself made the campaign 
of the State three years ago. 

Q. Do you know what his general character is ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it good or bad ?—A. Do you mean what people say about him? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Then it is the w^orst in the <vorld. 

Q. From what you know^ of his general character would you believe 
him on oath in a court of justice?—A. I could not possibly. 

By Senator Hill : * 

Q. Were not the members of that Packard legislature generally very 
bad characters by general reputation?—A. Yes, sir; both Democrats 
and Eepublicans. There were a good many of them who were pretty 
bad fellows. 

Q. Were there any Democrats in there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many?—A. I mean of that and the other legislature both. 

Q. Were they not generally, Mr. Wharton, a pretty hard set?—A. 
Yes, sir; they were. 

Senator Vance. Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee do now 
adjourn to meet again in the city of Washington. 

Senator Hill. I think we have done our duty here and given full 
justice to both parties. Senator Vance moves to adjourn to meet again 
in Washington. What do you say Senator Cameron ? 

Senator Cameron. I vote for it. 

Whereupon, by unanimous vote, the committee adjourned to meet 
next in the city of Washington. No day for the meeting was assigned. 


Exhibit A .—{Referring to testimony of E. A. Burke.) 

United States op America, 

District of Louisiana, Parish of Orleans: 

And, having? been duly sworn, each for himself, on oath, says that he is a citizen of 
the State of Louisiana, residing in, and a qualified elector of said parish of Orleans, 
duly registered, and that his name appears as a registered elector upon the registration 
books of said parish for the year 1876; and they further say, each for himself, that 
they have made due and diligent personal enquiry for-, registered upon 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1001 


tlie registration books of the -ward of the city of New Orleans, No. —, and 

claiming to reside at No.-street, in said ward and city, and that said- 

-- does not reside in or upon the premises described as aforesaid, and that to the 

best of their knowledge and belief said- - does not reside in said- 

ward or parish of Orleans aforesaid ", that therefore said-, on or about the 

— day of-, A. D. 187-, did fraudulently obtain registration as aforesaid in 

said ward and parish as stated, as an elector in said ward and parish, contrary 

to the 21st section of act No. 155 of the session of 1874 of the general assembly of the 
State of Louisiana, and contrary to, and in contravention of section 5512 of the Re¬ 
vised Statutes of the United States. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, on this 
[L. s.] 


No. —. 


day of-, 1876. 

United States Commissioner in and 
for the District of Louisiana. 


Exhibit B.— {Referring to testimony of A. E. Milon.) 


Custom-House, New Orleans, La., 

Surveyor’s Office, October 1st, 1879. 


To the Collector of the Port : 


Sir: I respectfully ask a leave of absence for five days from 3d iust., hoping that 
the same be granted. 

Respectfully, 

A. E. MILON, 

Night Inspector. 

Through Surveyor of Port. 

Surveyor’s Office, Oct. Is/, ’79. 

Respectfully forwarded. 

A]>proved. 


A. C. WELLS, 

SpH D'y Surveyor. 


Exhibit C.— {Referring to testimony of A. E. Milon.) 

, New Orleans, May 9,1879. 

Hon. W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

I am told that a certain written statement is in existence, in which Republican 
members of the Packard legislature in 1876 & ’77 are said to acknowledge that they had 
been bribed for voting for you for U. S. Senator. 

I was a member of that legislature representing the parish of Plaqnemine, and I do 
solemnly declare that the statement, as far as I am concerned, is entirely false. I voted 
for you because as a Republican, and for your past services as such. 1 thought then 
as l think now, that our interests would bo best represented by sending you to Con¬ 
gress. I voted for you for United ^tatos Senator without any inducement or promise 
from you, either personally or otherwise. 

Very respectfully, 

A. E. MILON. 


Exhibit D.— {Referring to testimony of Charles S. Abell.) 

LIST OF clerks LOUISIANA RETURNING-BOARD. 

Chas. S. Abell, secretary. 

Geo. P. Davis, chief clerk at custom-house. 

- Eaton, clerk, not in the city. 

- McCormick, clerk, not in the city. 

York Woodward, clerk, with Wood Bros., 25 Camp. 

- Littlefield, clerk, not in the city. 

Wm. H. Green, clerk United States custom-house. 

- Casanave, clerk, storekeeper custom-house. 

G. Boutain, clerk in city, address unknown. 





























1002 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Exiiibi E. —(Referring to testimony of F. J, Siol'es.) 

Statement of facts by F. J. Stokes. 

The requisition for me was signed September ‘20thj 1875. 

On the 2l8t of September, 1875, I was told by Kelly (messenger) that (governor An¬ 
toine wanted to see me. I saw him. He told me he had signed a requisition from the 
governor of the State of Texas for F. W. Stokes, a defaulting tax-collector from Cass 
County, Texas. I told him that my name was F. J. Stokes, not F. W. Stokes; that I had 
never been a tax-collector in Texas. Was told by Autoiue that he had examined the 
records of his office, and that he was satisfied that I was not the man that was wanted 
in Texas. 

H. Conquest Clarke, the governor’s private secretary, was ordered to show me the 
requisition, and the answer of the attorney-general. Antoine said he would not have 
signed the requisition if the attorney-general had not said he liad no discretion in the 
matter, and told me to go and see the attorney-general. I did sw, and was told that I 
must prove I was not the man F. W. Stokes; and on stating to Antoine Field’s 
answer, he advised me to get a lawyer by the name of Shaw ; that he liafl been speak¬ 
ing to him (Shaw) about the case. I did not see Shaw, but saw W. R. Whitaker, who 
went to the central police station with me to see the chief of police, but did not find 
him in. Mr. Whitaker then saw the chief of detectives, Malone, also the special offi¬ 
cers Cain aud Walsh; told Malone that there was a requisition for one F. W. Stokes, 
and that my name was F. J. Stokes. G. L. Cain told Malone and Mr. Whitaker that 
he had known me when in the U. S. Quartermaster’s Department in 1865, and that 
I then went by the name of F. J. Stokes, and that he was sure I was never a tax-col¬ 
lector in Cass County, Texas. Malone then promised Mr. Whitaker that I should not 
be arrested without his (W.’s) knowing it, and should the arrest be made at or during 
the night time, he, Malone, would send word to Whitaker’s house by a messenger, and 
also requested Mr. Whitaker to go to the State-house, see the requisition, aud find out 
the name of the sheriff, and telegraph him from the State-house if the statement of F. 

J. Stokes was correct regarding the requisition. Mr. Whitaker did telegraph that the 
requisition had been signed, to Malone. 

September 22,1875, at about 1 o’clock this day I was arrested in the store of M. B. 
Morrison & Co., corner Canal & Magazine streets, by special officers Cain and Walsh, 
and was told by them that the chief of police wanted to see me. I asked the officers to 
go by the office of Mr. Whitaker so that I could tell him I had been arrested ; they both 
refused to let me go, neither would they go with me. I asked if I was under arrest; 
they replied, “ It would be all right as soon as I had seen the chief of police,” and evaded 
answering my questions; took me to the central station and turned over in charge 
of the chief of police, W. F. Loan. I then asked Loan to send a messenger to W. R. 
Whitaker; he refused. I then asked Captain Badger to write a note to Whitaker stat¬ 
ing I was under arrest, but Loan would not allow him to do so. I appealed to Loan, 
stating that 1 was innocent and could prove it by Doctor Scott (corner Magazine aud 
Canal streets); he refused to listen to me at all. I then wrote a note and asked Captain 
Scott, deputy sheriff, to be good enough to give it to Whitaker; he refused, saying he 
must see Loan, but when I told him I was a prisoner, and was about to be run out of 
town, he said that being the case he would take the note for me. I wanted him to 
procure a carriage; I would pay all expenses. When Loan saw me give the note to 
Scott he put me in charge of W. W. Williams, the sheriff from Texas, without ever , 
reading or showing any warrant, or requisition for my arrest, or of telling me why I 
had been arrested. I was taken to the corner of Girod and Carondelet streets, placed 
again in charge of Cain and Walsh, special officers, who had followed the Texas sheriff 
and myself from Loan’s office. We all four remaine#together for a half hour, when we 
went into abar-roomat the corner of Camp and Girod streets; the sheriff and Walsh went 
away, leaving me in charge of Cain. We had been there one hour before Walsh came;, 
he came alone, aud I saw no more of the sheriff until I saw him on board of the steamboat 
Col. A. P. Kouns at 7 o’clock in the evening. Whilst in charge of Cain in the saloon, 

I wanted to write to my friend, but Cain would not let me, aud on Walsh’s coming 
back, I was taken out Girod street to Front levee. Walsh stated he had seen Whitaker 
at the chief’s office, writing out a writ of habeas corpus, aud that he was obeying his 
(Whitaker’s) instructions in trying to hide me from the sheriff. We kept down Front 
street to Canal, crossed Canal, stopped at the coffee-house opposite the Mobile Railroad 
depot. 

Walsh again left me with Cain at the harbor station, and was gone a half hour ; re¬ 
turned, spoke to Cain and again left us ; was gone about twenty minutes, and when he 
returned I was taken in one of the small boats of harbor police, Cain stating he 
wanted to go to Algiers to avoid the sheriff. When we got into the boat there were 
two men already in her, armed with large navy revolvers ; this was, think about 4 p. m. 

I was kept in the boat till 7 p. m., was then put on board of the steamer Col. A. P. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


1003 


Kouns, in the middle of tbo river. Walsh did not get in the boat with Cain, but when 
1 was ])nt on the steamer Walsh got into the small boat from the steamer to go ashore. 

^ As soon as I reached the boiler-deck of the steamer I saw for the (irst time since two 
o clock the sherifl, \\ illiams, who immediately searched me and put handcuffs on me; 
he found nothing on me but a small pocket-knife, which he took. I was handcuffed 
every night until I reached Linden, Cass Co., Texas. Whenever the steamer passed 
any town during the daj’ time, he would take me into a stateroom and remain there 
until the boat had passed. He told the officers of the boat and all the passengers that 
I was a defaulting tax-collector, and that whenever the peojile would refuse to pay 
their taxes to me that I would send the military after them; he further stated that I 
had robbed the people ot Texas, had gone to Louisiana and had changed my name. Wheu 
he was asked by Mr. Graves if he might not be mistaken, he replied no, he was sure I 
was the man. As the steamer neared the mouth of Red River he (the sheriff) allowed 
me to write and send three letters, one of them to my lawyer, W. R. Whitaker, but 
compelled me to show their contents to him before sending. On another occasion, 
when I asked the clerk for some jiaper to write a letter, he told me that be as well as 
all the officers and men on the boat had been forbidden by the sheriff'of Texas (Wil¬ 
liams) to give any or sell any to me. I offered the barkeejier ^oO to take a note ashore 
for ine at. Alexandria, La.; he refused and stated that the captain of the boat had 
forbidden it under ])enalty of being immediately discharged ; that I was a criminal 
and should be punished—so t ere was not one of them that was not against me. 

When writing I stated that I had been smuggled out of the city by the sheriff’ from 
Texas, but he made me state that it was done by two police officers. 

Monday, l27th Sejitember, 187.'), the sheriff took me off the steamer Konns, one mile 
below Shreveport, before daylight in the morning, to keep me out of the way of the 
writ of habeas corpus. I had a severe chill from having gotten wet in the grass; the 
morning wjis a veiy cool one. We then went into Captain Head’s house, and at day¬ 
light he gave me some quinine. The sheriff stated to Cajitain Head that he took me 
from the boat in order to escape the writ of habeas corpus; that I had robbed the peo¬ 
ple of Texas, and that he had a fearful time getting me out of New Orleans. We re¬ 
mained on the river bank about t.alf an hour, and in Captain Head’s hous^ about 20 
minutes; we took the middle road through the field to the ferry-landing opposite 
Shreveport, and remained there until ehwen o’clock on that day. There was a writ of 
habeas corpus out for me, but the sheriff could not find me. I was kept in a back 
room of a grocery until the steamer Konns was ready to go to Jefferson. 

The Kouns left the landing without blowing her whistle or ringing her bell as is 
usual and required. I was made to walk up the river bank about a half mile when the 
boat landed and took us on board without making any noise. 

Tuesday, 28th September, 1875, arrived at Jeff’erson about sundown ; here the sheriff' 
again informed every one that I was the defaulting tax-collector, but he could find no 
one to identify me. Next morning, while we were waiting to take the cars. Colonel 
Lowry, an editor of a newspaper in Marshall, told the sheriff' that “ he had the wrong 
SOW' by the ear,” and advised him to let me go. We had but fifteen miles to go to get 
to Kildare, Cass County. 

When we arrived there we had to wait for the hack to take us to Linden, the county 
seat, the sheriff'still telling every one that I w'as the man that had robbed them, but he 
could yet find no one to think so. I le then advised me to plead guilty ; that by so doing 
he thought I could get clear under the plea of prescriiition. 

I still asserted my innocence, and stated that I had never been in the country. 

We arrived at Linden at J.30 p.m. 

Wednesday, the 29th. No sooner had I sat dow n on the porch, when about fifty men, 
comprising lawyers, merchants, mechanics, jdanters, ministers and others, in fact nearly 
every one of the male population of Linden, turned out to see the defaulting tax-col¬ 
lector, but not a single man in that w'hole crow'd could say I w'as the man. 

I slept in the house of the sheriff’, and for the first time w'as not handcuff’ed at night. 

Thursday, JOth Seiitember. The sheriff' sent out his deputies all over the country in 
order to find a man to identify me. About twenty men came in, some saying that if I 
had a crijipled finger, or if my foot w’as crippled, that 1 was the man, but on exposing 
my feet and hands they w ere satisfiotl that I was not the man. Another person stated 
there should be an eagle on one arm, and a coat of arms on the other, if I were the 
jierson. Another desired me to lift up my shirt, saying tliere should be a scar across my 
belly, the effects of having been struck by a shell, but w'heu I again made the neces¬ 
sary ex])osure of arms and belly, they all declared I w as not the man. 

October 1. The sheritf this day ‘stated that I was the defaulting tax-collector 
(Stokes) to some 15 or 20 tnen who had come in fro.m the country. They all examined 

me carefully and stated that I was ;<ot the man. 

I then .said to the sheriff’, “You are doing me an injustice—I am an innnocent man. 

Saturday, October 2, 1875, about 9 o’clock, the sheriff’ came over to the court-house, 
told me to get my satchel and to get on a horse; he then took mo to the station and 
said, “You are free.” 


1004 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Ill March, 1875, at New Orleans, Governor Kellogg sent for me, with a view of ap¬ 
pointing me parish judge of Grant Parish. He said Judge Phillips had been elected, 
but he was a bad man and he would not issue him a commission. He said he wished 
me to take the appointment, as Senator Alexander requested. He said he had promised 
Governor M. Wells to give the place to Howard McKnight, but Senator Alexander would 
not listen to it. He made me give Judge Phillips two vouchers for $250 each, amount¬ 
ing to $500, to keep him, Phillips, quiet, he, Kellogg, promising me if I done so that 
the balance of my warrants should be in cash. He, Kellogg, gave me an order on Mr. 
Clinton, State auditor, to cash my warrants, bnt Mr. Clinton refused, looking to me 
like a plan entered into between Kellogg and Clinton, as Kellogg had just came from 
an interview with Clinton in his office. 

Some time after. Governor Wells, seeing that his friend, Howard McKnight, did not 
get the place of parish judge, he wrote a letter (which is hereto attached) to the sheriff 
of Davis County, Texas, with a view of having me “put out of the way to make room 
for McKnight,’’ which a document also annexed shows everything relating to my arrest 
and persecution during my trip to Texas and my acquittal, &g. 

When I came back from Texas I went before the grand jury and found it packed 
with five of the tools of Kellogg (all policemen). One of the jurymen named Jerry Don- 
ivan would carry all the testimony given in the case to W. F. Loar., then chief of police. 
A gentleman named Colonel Woods, of the firm of Welshan & Woods, was foreman of 
the grand jury at that time. Colonel Woods went and saw Judge Steele ^ in relation 
to members of the grand jury perjuring themselves; then he told Colonel Woods all he 
could do would be to dismiss the grand jury, which he failed to do. At the expiration 
of their term, the new grand jury impaneled was of exactly the same stripe. I then 
made a statement of the way I was treated to Governor Kellogg, asking for j ustice. He 
told me he could do nothing himself personally, but go before the grand jury aud make 
a charge against Steele for not giving me justice in his court. I went to Kellogg again 
and asked him for a requisition for W. W. Williams, sheriff of Davis County, Texas, for 
kidnapi)iug, perjury, aud forger^". He promised me he would, but every time put 
me off, and I never received justice. The names of the witnesses ai)pearing before the 
^ grand jury in my behalf were William R. Whitaker, esq., Patton Graves, esq., and 
’ Capt. Charles Drown. 

During the campaign of 1876 I went with Ward, superintendent of registration, 
parish of Grant, to see Kellogg. He, Kellogg, then told me to fix the thing with Ward, 
as he did not wish him to go back, as I had told him (after his asking) the jiarish went 
about 75 or 80 Democratic majority. He then told me to go and see Je’wett and 
Blanchard, with a view of having the parish thrown out, as it was Democratic, but by 
no means to allow Ward to go back, knowing that they could hold no election if there 
was no supervisor in the parish. 

In relation to the documents or letters hereto annexed, Chief Justice Manning, Judge 
William R. Whitaker, and Captain White, attorney-at-law in Alexandria, La., identify 
them as the handwriting of Governor M. Wells. 


Mr. Sheriff, 

Davis County^ Tex.: 

Your defaulting tax-collector, F. J. Stokes, is here, and if you want him you can get 
him by sending a writ for him to Howard McKnight, deputy sheriff, Colfax, Grant 
Parish, Louisiana. 

9th July, 1875. 

This was directed to this county aud opened by Vines. 


Colfax, Parish of Grant, La., 

April, 1876. 

The title-papers to the Rock Island plantation are to be found in the recorder’s office 
at Natchitoches. First, see James Bowie’s power of attorney to T. J. Wells, authorizing 
a sale to Littleton Baily; the sale of Baily to T. J. Wells of one-half of the tract; the 
sale by T. J. Wells to the half purchased from Baily to J. M. Wells; and, in 1859, sale 
from J. M. Wells to Mrs. Littleton Baily. You will find also a sale of the same land 
from Adams to Wade H. T. Bynum, and a sale of Wade H. T. Bynum to J. M. Wells, a 
mortgage by Wells of the same tract to the Canal Bank, and a sale of the bank upon 
her mortgage, and a purchase thereunder by J. K. Eiger for the benefit of J. M. Wells. 


Judge of supreme criminal court. 







Exhibit F. — {Re/etring 1o testimony of Robert Grindley.) 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1005 . 








00 


.2 8 

<«• 

00 

'S 

o 

JS *=> 

t .5.. 

9C >iS^ 

. 

'It-'* 

« V. 

51 

h;<: 


d 

52 ; 

Vote for goveru- 
or, November4, 
1672 —Foreiuau 
Mitchell board. 

IBJOX 

Tj* 

Oi 01 

r- 'O 

cf —* ci 

- 

V> CO X 

CO* cf 

3.169 

1,894 

1,800 

1,271 

851 

5,816 

•jBJOoraoQ ‘iCaoug^Di^ 

w ^ d 

in 

<0 r: ^ 

2,115 

758 

486 

•n* P 0 CO 0 

lO lA lO JO 
Cl Cl I'* 

3, 842 

•UBOttqnda^ S^oipx 

0 01 

0 ^. m 
w 0 

^ ^ ^ 

O) CO Od 

^ iTi CO 

mco 

« •^pxoi 

^ ’-r n ^ 

o> inci 

1,974 

1 

1 

*' 

c 

J2: 

Vote for .audit¬ 
or, November 
7, 1670. 

T^jox 

0 ?o 

of 

5,181 

1,800 

710 

2,510 

1,745 

2, 903 

"779 

5, 427 

•IBJOouioa ‘[ouinp 

803 

303 

288 

1,394 

501 

370 

^ yext 

— d 

X X 

ra 

38 

X 

•uBDiiqndaji ‘niBqBJf) 

1, 273 

1, 174 

1,340 

3, 787 

1,209 

340 

1 , 639 

1,032 

2, 075 

Cl 

05 

CO 

1 

1 

:s 

d 

! ^ 

I’opulatiou of Louisi- 
aua, United Statea 
ceiiaua, 1670. 

•IBJOX 

13, 490 

10, 499 

12, 961 

36,979 

11,582 

4,820 

16, 402 

14, 962 

18, 265 

CO 

10 

CO* 

05* 

CO 

•dsauiqo puB UBtpui 


• • 

^ . "T 

• Cl 

i'- 


•paaoioo 

«51 

cf 00 * cf 

CO 

CO bt Cl 

10 00 Cl 

r- ^0 

-t» V5 Cl 

0 00 Ci 

0 * 05* 0 * 

i'- 

X 

‘O 

•ojjqAi 

4, 106 
1,583 
3, 752 

9,441 

3, 759 

2, 596 

6, 355 

5,111 

7,312 

d 

(C5 

lO 

^* 

m 

0 

i-** 

S 

X 

No. 5. 

’0181 JO uoHBJ^siSaH; 

^ ^ ^ 

of of of 

8,080 

2, 550 

974 

X 05 

Cl ’T X) 

m X 

cc" cf •^* 

Cl 

0 

Cl 

No. 4. 

V oto for electora, 
November 3, 
1666. 

IBJOX 

iC ^ Oi 

00 ^ 

0 r* •r 

■-f ^ 

6,288 

1,933 

531 

2, 464 

1,260 

3, 290 

I 

X 

X 

s 

0 * 

•OnBJOOtUOQ ‘OOB^ 

— 00 ;o 

^ •«T 0> 

^ 0 00 

2, 955 

1, 101 
503 

1, 604 

1,260 

1,375 

Cl 

X 

X 

r- 

0 

cf 

•UBoqqndoji ‘jioquBp 

644 

1,136 

1,553 

3, 333 

832 

28 

0 • uo 

CD • ^ 

X • C5 

Cl 

r* 

05 1 

No. 3. 

•8Z.8I JO noiiBJieiSoa; 

2,410 

2,053 

2, 706 

7,169 

2, 353 

768 

3,121 

2,361 

3,849 

1,063 

7,273 

No. 2. 

Vote for govern¬ 
or, April 17 
and 18, 1868. 

'IBJOX 

2,029 

1,584 

2,066 

5, 699 

1,765 

509 

Tj* d X 

t- 0 r^ 

d t’* CO 

cf 1-H d* 

s? 

1 4,835 

•OJJOJKIIBX 

CO 01 

^ lO 

00 X ce 

1, 872 

347 

437 

784 

1,053 

566 

05 

1,878 

•moni.iBAl. 

1,163 

1,210 

1,434 

3. 827 

1,418 

“ 72 

1,490 

649 

2,112 


t-- 

in 1 

05 

cf 

rH 

6 

>5 

Registration of 
1667, under the 
reconstruction 
acts. 

•l«JOX 

2, 203 

1,964 

2, 724 

S s?} 

X ox 

CO* cf 

2, 851 

2, 299 

3,043 

0 

X 

^ ; 
CO* 

•pojoioo 

rr ^ CD 
r- 00 ^ 

CO CO 01 

v-T ^ of 

5, 579 

1, 483 
435j 

X P 1”- 

05 Sc? 

1-H* f-T d* 

d 

CO 

4,364 

•OJRAV 

Oi 10 00 

o* 0 

10 OliO 

1,312 

1 

! 546 

1 387 

CO CO CO 

CO ^ X 

Oi CD CO 

05 

m 

1,758 

l’ari.slie8. 

• 

^lII SEXATOUIA-L district. 

eliciana. 

•'eliciana. 

toupee . 

'otal. 

VIII Senatorial district. 

ill. 

.’otal. 

;:XII Senatorial district. 

toches.-. 

ivfir_ _ _ _ 

• • 

• * 

t 1 

• • 

« 1 

• • 

• 1 

t • 

• • 

• 1 

• • 

• • 

t • 

• • 

• • 

1 • 

• • 

• < 

• • 

• • 

• • 

: 1 

• 0 






o 

V 


•S 


&! 

55 


V. 


s 

§- 

a- 

OD 


2 


{D O) 


«*.55 

o ce 

ou 


.i. 

















































































































1006 






<« 

s 




rsi 


CD 

00 


o 

§ 

s 

e 


o 




« 


No. 15. 

Vote for govern¬ 
or, November 7, 

1876. 

SPOFFORD Ni 

TBlox 

5. KELLO 

. C» f- 

• CO CD 
. GC O 

I ^ 

GG. 

05 0^0 

0< 05 05 

05 O CO 

co" ^-f 

0 40 0 
00 CO 1-H CO 

CO 40 05 

^ tH CO *-H 

7,017 

’(jerooraod ‘snoqoi^ 

. 00 CO 

* o 

» ^ 

1,334 

353 

! 486! 

839 

620 

1, 433 

415 

907 

3, 375 

•uvoijqnday; pj'eqo'Bj 

• lO tH 

• 

1 CO Ci 

• ^ 

lO 05 05 

05 CO O 

lO o? 

of 

X) 0 CO 

—1 i- CO ci 
05 ^ 0 CX) 

of 

3, 642 

tH 

d 

Eegistration of 
1876. 

•mox 

CO »-l 

1-I CO CJ 

CO cf co" 

lO ou 

4/0 GO r- 

CO CO o 

05 " co" i-T 

OJ 00 

CO ’I' CO 1-H 

^ 05 r- ^ 

HtT Cf V ^ 

10, 579 

•poaoioo 

r- CO 

(M I-H 
tH DJ Oi 

ci of of 

O! OJ 05 

t- 05 00 

0< CO 

t^" of 

^ 40 00 00 

00 05 40 1-H CO 

00 CO 05 (7< CJ 

cf —T cf 1 -h" 

6,135 


05 O 

o o: 00 

O CO 05 

rH 

CO o^ 0 . 

00 05 00 

CO 05 40 

of 

— < CO 05 0 

GO 40 GO 05 — 

40 Tji 05 

^ fH t->4 

Tfi 

No. 13. 

Entitled to vote 
as per State 
census of 1875. 

•mox 

Oi 00 
r- I'- 
Oi t- 0< 

co" o« co" 

40 

Cl 01 40 

CO 00 

05 " co" r-T 

CO C? t-- 00 0 

t-* CO 1-H Tt« 

0 CO CO ^ 

of 1-h" —" 

r-* 

CO 

X 

05 " 

•pojoioo 

^ O 1-H 
OJ CO 
0< OJ 

of of of 

6,025 

2,102 

456 

X lO d CO CO 

40 CO CO tt 

40 CO 0 1 -H d 

d" 1 -h" co" 

6, 116 


O Oi 

CO lO ^ 
O LO 00 

rH 

2, 399 

923 

595 

CO I'- 40 40 

th X X r- CO 

40 0 d •H' X 

1—4 1 -H rH 

3,711 

No. 12. 

Vote for treas¬ 
urer, 1874. 

•I^IOX 

liO C5 C5 
CO lO o« 
lO 00 CO 

of r-T of 

7, 023 

2, 460 
941 

• CO *-T 

0 • CO CO 

■rf* • X 1-H r- 

co" i d" I-T 

4, 771 

•uBoqqndag; ‘i^opnquQ; 

1, 688 
1, 358. 
1, 990 

5, 036 

1,694 

400 

-J1 • Ht* Htl ^ 

05 • CO 

0 • 40 

d" • 1 -h" 

0 

rH 

CO 

of 

•^BJOoraod ‘ojnouoj^ 

^ 

O CO 

00 110 CO 

1,987 

766 

541 

r- . 05 0 Cl 

0 • 40 TT CO 

CO * d •’T 

1-H 1 tH 

2, 461 

tH 

d 

Registration of 
1874. 


CO O^ 

T? CO 

o o 
of of co" 

7, 855 

2, 645 
1,017 

d 0 CO 05 

CO CQ CO CO -- 

CO 0 CO d 05 

co" of co" 

7,912 

1 

•po.10100 

^ o ou 

O 

00 CO CO 

—r ^*'of 

5,829 

1,819 

461 

2, 280 

1, 036 

2, 383 
915 
227 

4 , 561 

•QlRAi 

lO 0» C5 

IC o< 

00 t- 

CO CO cc 

01 0< lO 

0 00 40 

of 

d HT CO d d 

X d X 40 05 

CO 0 d CO CO 

3, 351 

o 

rH 

d 

^25 

Vote for govern¬ 
or, November, 
4, 1872. — Lynch 
and Bovee board. 

•moj. 

2, 343 
1,582 
2, 546 

6,471 

2, 047' 
855| 

d d CO 40 1-H 

0 0 40 

05 X d d X 

cf th" i-T ^ 

5, 144 ! 

1 

•(^ujoouiod ‘A’joudopj; 

CO CO o^ 

lO C5 

CO Ol o 

rH 

2,018 

606 

486 

d 0 • d 05 

05 C5 • CO X 

0 • CO 

tH • 

1, 941 

•uuonqndo'a; ‘ggo[[9y[ 

O C5 TT 

05 O lO 

CO CO -T 

1-t T-T 

CM 1—05 

40 rr CO 

^ CO 

r-T 

1, 810 

1,022 

1,206 

913 

62 

3, 203 

05 

6 

Fusion registra¬ 
tion, 1872. 

'l^iox 

^ »0 CO 

irt o ^ 

CO 00 

CO"of CO 

0 00 Oi 

05 ot 

05" co" i-f 

X 0 i- d 

0 0 40 0 CO 

rj« HT CO X 

d"c0"i-H" 

8, 026 

•poiopo 

»-H TT r-* 

IC OL O 

CO O 00 

of of of 

< 7 * tH CC 

1-H 00 

'N CO 10 

if 

CO CO CO r-H 

05 0 CO CO 40 

X 'cr X 05 rH 

d rH 1 -H 

4, 353 


1, 100 
521 
1,039 

2, 660 

970 

541 

1,511 

1,004 

1,517 

441 

711 

3, 673 

Parishes. 

XII Senatokial distkict. 

East Feliciana. 

West Feliciana. 

Point Coupee. 

Total. 

XVIII Senatorial district. 

Ouachita. 

Caldwell . 

Total... 

XXII Senatorial district. 

De Soto . 

Natchitoches . 

Red River. 

Sabine . 

Total ... 




















































































































SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


1007 


Exhihit G.— (Referring to the testimony of J. T. Alleyn.) 
[Copies of telegrams.] 


New Orleans, May 6, 1879. 

To Senator \V. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Zebra ash hat Murrell matter moon Rice Moon since Vance and Tucker temporary 
crown. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, May 13, l'^79. 

I’o Senator \V. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Chapron requested delay few days to secure better hat. Brandy chaprou hat to¬ 
morrow eye to-day stone bloodhound pin. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, May 15, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, I). C.: 

Hat brandy chaprou. Walden Adolph for pigeon. Blacksmith and tiger hat dexter 

. A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, May 23, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Bulldog’i)ork. Heard pot visited St. Mary and Iberia for dish jockey pot not rain¬ 
bow although Marks hat. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, May 20, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

It is pots brother after Vipers. Violet says positive proof crutch Thomas in grapes. 
Hope boat rainbow. 

^ A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, May 28, 1879. 


To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Number letters and keep memoramlum to Violet Rose who will acknowledge. Vio¬ 
let received letters daily recently. Rose frequently. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, May 29, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, I). C.: 

Getting good gnat. Don’t encourage Setter for Salles place. Horse rainbow mad 
Salles removed, besides too many grai)es there. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, June 1, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, I). C.: 

Will Terrier, .Jefferson Jockey before or after Dish jockey Canter Mutton wants 
resign and have hat serve Jefferson. 


A. S. BADGER. 










1008 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


New Orleans, June 3,1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington D. C.: 

If dish Vermont fail show parole terrier hunt unnecessary. Rose can’t buck hunt 
until terrier buck dish iockev. 

A. S. BADGER. 


To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 
Believe all moon save boat; latter demoralized. 


New Orleans, June 3, 1879. 

Consult oak about amity Vermont. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, June 6, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Best gnat offset boat are foundry leopard eagle believed pin dish officer Mercury 
Venus Adams should buck remain. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, June 7, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Sent for foundry eagle yesterday. Temper screw doubtful. Adams must buck officer 
blank Jefferson returnable ninth have extended. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, June 7, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Sorghum fir dropped stonewall Monday last enable them disclaim parole. Guichard, 
Clover, Clipper, Watson, Jefferson to-day last walk conspiracy. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, June 7, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.; 

Do you mean water no dish or no terrier. Vermonts made bales which interest ex¬ 
plain foundry gulfport rainbow. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, June 8,1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Violet cotton Guichard foundry Clover Watson clipper eagle mercury if not 
wanted answer quick none made bales favor dish. 

A. S. BADGER. 




New Orleans, June 8, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Violet Watson foundry Guichard brig clipper brutus Venus Watson only bale cotton 
eagle to-morrow. 


A. S. BADGER. 









SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1009 


New Orleans, June 9, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Cotton eagle clover bmtns Venus Wands not heard from. Vermont avoided Jeffer¬ 
son intentionally endeavor moon bocock and others. 

A. S. BADGER. 


New Orleans, June 10,1879. 


To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Officer brutus saturn alone learn nothing two dish Vermonts. 

A. S. BADGER 




New Orleans, June 12, 1879. 


To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Leopard gulfportmoon Jefferson by buck if wanted. Answer. 

A. S. BADGER. 


[Half-rate message.] 


Neav Orleans, June 14, 1879. 


To Hon. Wm. Pitt Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

When will Congress adjourn ? Shall I come ? Answer by telegraph. 

M. MARKS. 


New Orleans, June 15, 1879. 

To Senator W. P. Kellogg, Washington, D. C.: 

Long unrainbow offers table jockey if dangerous telegraph post Violet latter neede 
here. 

A. S. BADGER. 


64 B K 








TESTIMONY BEFORE AND PROCEEDINGS 


OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS, 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

(AT WASHINGTON, D. C.,) 


IN THE 


MATTER OF THE MEMORIAL OF HENRY M. SPOFFORD 


RELATIVE TO 


THE SEAT IN THE SENATE HELD BY WM. PITT KELLOGG. 















I 



r \ 




v*" 

'it' 


•K. 



/ ' , 

. J 


t 


t 



/ 










\ • # 


A . . . • 


t 


•• 


' -Y: K 


/> 


» 



♦ 


t 


« 


\ 


, */- t • \ ** ' ^ • ' .^ • 


, -<• *«r 




'<V ' , >' 

- * ' * • r 


/ /- 


V 




I. s 


. ^ 


j ‘ 

. 

< 


Vii 




> • 


; 


». 


« 


I 







I 




4 


i« 





PROCEEDINGS. 


Washington, D. C., 
Saturday^ January 10, 1880. 

The^Committee on Privileges and Elections met at 10 o’clock a. m., to 
further consider and hear testimony in the matter of the memorial of 
Henry M. Spofford relative to his title to the seat in the United States 
Senate now held by William Pitt Kellogg. 

Present, Messrs. Saiilsbury (chairman). Hill, Kernan, Bailey, Vance, 
Cameron, Hoar, and Logan. 

Senator Saulsbury (chairman). The committee will now come to 
order. 1 believe the first thing is the consideration of the Louisiana 
case. I see counsel present, and will call the witnesses if you say so. 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. Governor Kellogg asked the other day to 
subpoena a man named Watson, I think. 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. Whose affidavit was introduced in New 
Orleans. Watson’s affidavit was talked about, but was not introduced, 
and is not in the record. That is my recollection, that we talked a good 
deal about it, but it is not in the record, and therefore it will be un¬ 
necessary to subpoena Waters to meet that affidavit. 

A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE. I supposed the Other day that it 
was in the record. 

Senator Cameron, of Wisconsin. I remember at the time a good deal 
was said about the affidavit; but whether it was introduced or not I 
cannot remember. 

Senator Kellogg. I have had a good deal of trouble, Mr. Chairman, 
in getting the proofs of the testimony up to this time, but I understand 
they are all ready this morning; but, in the absence of them, we adopted 
in New Orleans this report of the Times, as being the best made by 
the press. I think 1 stated it, and the stenographer is here and can say 
whether I am correet or not, that Mr. Walker introduced the afiidavit 
of J. R. Watson, of Bossier. The witness made two affidavits; of the 
one now presented he knew nothing. I took the afiidavit and read it. 
It purported to be by P. J. Watson, of Madison Parish; and he, Wat¬ 
son, is made to say in it that he was present when I was voted for for 
Senator, and cast the vote of Thomas, of Bossier. That was introduced, 
and the stenographer here, Mr. Small, I think will say the same. 
Whether it was in the record or not, it was proven, and I should like to 
se^ all the evidence in the hands of the printer before determining fur¬ 
ther in regard to this witness. 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. That refreshes my recollection. What pur¬ 
ports to be the Watson affidavit was produced, handed to the witness, 
and referred to, and it turned out that the affidavit was not the genuine 
affidavit, and it was not introduced. 

Mr. Merrick (counsel for IMr. Simfibrd). It was not the one it was 
supposed to be when it was offered ? 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. 1 think it turned out that the affidavit was 
not the right one, and that then it was not introduced. 



1014 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. There was an affidavit that was produced, 
however 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. I think it came out that the affidavit was 
introduced, and nothing was said about it at the time until it w^as dis¬ 
covered that it was not the true paper. Then, I think, it w^as not intro¬ 
duced for the purpose of going into the record. 

The Chairman. W hen the testimony comes out, if the affidavit is there, 
he can introduce the witness; if it is not, then it will not be necessary to 
have him. 

Senator Kellogg. I will state that when I learned that it was not 
in there I telegraphed to them in New Orleans to come on, and I will 
pay for them myself in order to have their testimony. 

The Chairman. Is that the order that you asked for on Friday I 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; those two witnesses are here in Wash¬ 
ington. 

Senator Hill, ot Georgia. I called attention to the matter in order to 
correct a mistake on all our sides. 1 see that the subpoena is issued and 
the witness is coming, and if it turns out that the affidavit was admitted, 
he can come in and testify; but you must not pay for it. Senator Kel¬ 
logg. We will look after that ourselves. 

Senator Kellogg. I had the object in making this statement of ex 
onerating myself with the committee. 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. If it turns out, on examination, that it was 
introduced, he can come on and testify. 

The Chairman. I desire to ask the counsel on the respective sides if 
they are ready to proceed. I understand this investigation in New 
Orleans was conducted in the presence of counsel upon the one side and 
by Governor Kellogg personally. I desire to ask if they propose to do 
it in the same manner now just as in New Orleans, with the privilege to 
Senator Kellogg of examining the witnesses himself if he so desires. I 
wish to know the pleasure of the counsel. 

Mr. Shellabarger (counsel for Senator Kellogg). So far as I am 
concerned, Mr. Chairman, I have no special choice in regard to that 
matter. I would like to be relieved from the labor of examining the 
witnesses, but will conform to the pleasure of the committee, and will, if 
it is the pleasure of the committee, so examine the witnesses. I hope, with 
* the assistance of Governor Kellogg, to acquaint myself with the testi¬ 
mony in New Orleans sufficiently, and if it is the pleasure of the com¬ 
mittee, and will save it some labor, I will conduct the examination. I 
therefore submit it to the pleasure of the committee that I wish to say 
that in this matter, with reference to the Watson witness, that there is 
in the record, and will be found there when it is printed, evidence as 
to the contents of Watson’s affidavit; and if he has not been examined, 
I shall ask likewise that all the evidence upon that point be excluded 
from the record. 

Mr. Merrick. In reference, Mr. Chairman, to the last part of the 
learned gentleman’s observations, we can come to no conclusion until 
we see the evidence. As to the part that counsel shall take, I api)re- 
ciate very highly the chairman’s kindness in asking their views. We 
w'ould prefer that the examination should be confined to the members 
of the committee. I shall, for myself, endeavor to prepare the facts for 
the members who, on our side, will assist with the examination. 1 be¬ 
lieve that was the course pursued in New Orleans. The course in Wash¬ 
ington must differ, the committee acting wholly as judges, and leaving 
the counsel to pursue the course best calculated to bring out the facts. 
That course, while it embarrassed me somewhat, still is one that I do 


SPOFFORD VS. KILLOGG. 


1015 


uot object to if tlie committee prefer it. We would prefer to act in a 
subordinate position with reference to the direct examination. When 
1 speak of counsel, I refer also to the parties. 

The Chairman. I do not think the committee desire to exclude the 
examination of witnesses by Senator Kello^^g. That was permitted in 
New Orleans. He was permitted to examine them personally if he de¬ 
sired to do so. I do not think, where the rights of the party are con¬ 
cerned, that we would deny him the privilege of examining the wit¬ 
nesses themselves. As Mr. Shellabarger has expressed a desire to 
examine the witnesses, I think it is better to pursue that course. 

Mr. Merrick. I appreciate that, at the first blush, it looks like a 
privilege that he should not be debarred from—that Governor Kellogg 
should be allowed to examine his own witnesses, but Judge Spoiford 
should be allowed to do so also. I submit to the orders of the commit¬ 
tee, and propose, with tlie most profound respect, to do what I may be 
called on to do to assist in bringing out the facts in this case, preferring 
at the same time a subordinate place. I expected that Mr. Spottbrd 
would be here. He has been very sick and not able to come. I know 
nothing of the testimony or investigation in New Orleans. I also ex¬ 
pected Mr. Walker, who conducted and prepared the case in New Or¬ 
leans, would be here, but he is not, and I have had no personal com¬ 
munication with them except by telegram. 1 have had no conference 
with any gentlemen in New Orleans on our side; cousecpiently, I am 
very much in the dark on the subject; but the members of the commit¬ 
tee who are present, are, 1 think, familiar with it, and could conduct 
the examination to the satisfaction of all concerned. 

Senator Hoar. I do not propose to make other than a suggestion as 
to the conduct of business here; but it occurs to me that if this tele¬ 
graph matter that is here this morning can be disposed of in ten or fifteen 
minutes, and this other is to take some time, we had better dispose of 
the telegTai)h matter first. I suggest whether it would not be l)etter to 
take that up and dispose of. it before taking tlie other matter. 1 sup¬ 
pose that the witness will simply put in a bunch of dispatclies, and it 
will only take a few minutes. 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. As reference has been made to the conduct 
of the examination in New Orleans, the course pursued tliere was at my 
original suggestion. The committee did not think it right to go to New 
Orleans very early, and when we did go, there were apiirehensions that 
we had gone too soon. It was only two weeks belore the session of Con¬ 
gress, and our object was toeconomize time. Theohject was to get simply 
the facts in the case, without any prolongation of time, and my observa¬ 
tion was, here in June and elsewhere, that the better plan would be lor the 
committee to keep control of the examination. I subinitted that to my 
associates, and stated that w'e w^ould extend the privilege to either 
party or their counsel, if we omittbd anything, to examine the witnesses. 
I think Judge Spofford w\as granted the privilege once at his reriuest, 
and that Governor Kellogg was allowed to do so every time that he 
asked. 1 think the course was a wise one, and I think it was so luoven 
there. We examined 120 witnesses in half the time that is usual for the 
examination of that number before a committee, and I think we got all 
that w’as necessary to the case from them. Counsel for »Tudge Spollord 
sat by me, and I interrogated the witnesses, and Governor Kellogg sat 
by Senator Cameron, and I suppose the object ol Senator Cameron was, 
like m 3 " ow n, to get the truth and go home. We were not partisan in 
any sense, and [ think, from my experience dowui there, that it would 
save a good deal of time and i)rinting to pursue the same course here. 


1016 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 

Senator Kernan. I move, to bring this matter to a conclusion,-that 
we call the witnesses and examine them, and if, at the end of the time, 
anything further is wanted to be asked by either party, they can be 
permitted to do so. 

Senator Kellogg. I want to say a word onl 3 \ I only ask the privi¬ 
lege of examining the witnesses, and I think it is usual to grant it when 
a witness comes on the stand and testifies to things which I ought to 
know about. I mean simply to be allowed to interrogate him. 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. You may do so. Senator. That is usual. 

The Chairman. That is the course which is intended by the Senator 
from New York, Mr. Kernan. 

Senator Hoar. I hope Senator Kernan’s motion will not pass. That 
was a case of Mr. Hill’s where it was a sub committee, anxious to com¬ 
plete its labors early. The usual course with this committee has been 
otherwise. It puts the members of the committee in the attitude of 
counsel on one side or the other. The members of the tribunal who are 
to make up the decision in this case in the first instance, one way or the 
other, should not act as if they were counsel. We all know when one 
is examining witnesses the effect of that on the mind, and I submit as 
a rule that course should only be resorted to in a case like that stated 
by Mr. Hill. And I submit that where we have gentlemen engaged who 
have the time and such eminent skill as Judge Shellabarger and Mr. 
Merrick, in a matter of this kind we can depend on them not to occupy 
too much time. 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. I think we can dispose of that other mat¬ 
ter first. I would propose to bring the telegraph matter before the com¬ 
mittee first; I think we can dispose of it. I am willing to act on the 
suggestion of Senator Hoar. We will have to have some private con¬ 
sultation over it, probably. Make your motion. Senator Hoar. 

Senator Hoar. 1 do not know how much time will be taken up by it. 
I suppose it will be the receiving of some telegrams only ? 

The Chairman. I have a letter here explaining that they are not here 
and cannot be produced at this time. The question will come up as to 
what the committee will do about it? I have the communication here. 

Senator Kernan. It is not in a condition, then, to dispose of it? 

The CHAIRMA.N. No, sir. 

Senator Hoar. Then I make no motion. 

Senator Logan. Let us go on wiih the matter before us. 

Senator Cameron, of Wisconsin. I agree in the main with the sug¬ 
gestions of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Hoar). I felt the em¬ 
barrassment in New Orleans of appearing as counsel in the case. Mr. 
Walker, counsel for Spofford, was there and suggested what he wanted 
from the witnesses. 

Senator Kernan. If you desire it, you can so move. I withdraw my 
motion. 

Senator Logan. Let us go on the same way that has been usual with 
the committee. 

Senator Hill, of Georgia. I desire, as Senator Cameron does, to get 
rid of the difficulty of appearing as counsel in the case. Of course Sen¬ 
ator Cameron and I were there in New Orleans, and when a witness was 
put on the stand we brought out the facts as best we could. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shellabarger, will you call a witness ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, sir; Mr. John A. Walsh. 

Mr. Merrick. I stated when on my feet before, Mr. Chairman, that 
Mr. Spofford was very sick, and that I am not ready to go on with the 
cross-examination of witnesses at this time. I make the suggestion in 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1017 

order that I may not be precipitated into a cross-examination of a wit¬ 
ness this morning. 

The Chairman. I make the suggestion that the sub committee in 
New Orleans are familiar with all the testimony, and 1 make no doubt, 
it there is any testimony taken this morning referring to testimony 
taken in New Orleans, the members of the sub-corninittee will remember 
It. Your cross-examination will be supplemented by theirs. 

Mr. Merrick. My suggestion was not directed wholly to the testi¬ 
mony taken in New Orleans. You know and are well aware that there 
are man}^ questions to be asked of a witness by one who knows his life 
and character that will test the accuracy of his testimony. Mr. Walker 
I expect here- 

Senator Cameron. Would you like the case postponed until Mr. 
Walker arrives f 

Mr. Merrick. I do not like to ask that, but I do not desire to be 
precipitated into a cross examination of a witness without preparation. 

Senator Hill. Senator Kellogg stated that there was a witness who 
desired to leave the city 1 

Senator Kellogg. This is the gentleman (referring to Mr. John A. 
Walsh, the witness tendered). 

Senator Hill. I would suggest that we examine him and let him go. 

Senator Vance. We have other witnesses here from Kansas whom 
we can examine. 

Senator Hill. I think we might examine him (Walsh) and then post¬ 
pose this case until Mr. Walker’s arrival. 

Mr. Merrick. It is so important, ^Ir. Chairman, in a cross-examina¬ 
tion that counsel should know the witness, his previous history and 
character, that in criminal courts it is often required that his name 
shall be furnished in advance; and I suppose the course in this case— 

Senator Kellogg. I gave the names of these witnesses a month ago. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 did not object on that point. 1 found the names 
with the marshal. I did not complain on that point; I merely object 
to being precipitated into this cross-examination without adequate pre- 
j)aration. 

The Chairman. Let the witness be qualified. 


TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. AVALSH. 

John A. Walsh, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn. 

Air. Shallahager. Mr. Chairman, I understood the witness to say 
that he did not believe in that manner of taking an oath. 

The Witness. I believe more in afiSrmation than that, but I might be 
induced to tell the truth on my word simply. 

The Chairman. You can be affirmed, if you prefer. 

Air. Shellabarger. You have already taken the oath ? 

The Witness. Yes, sir; 1 supiiose 1 have. 

By Air. Shellabarger : 

Question. Where do you reside, Air. Walsh Answer. In AVashing- 
ton. 

Q. Where did you reside last June ?—A. In Washington. 

Q. AA^here was your former place of residence ?—A. New Orleans. 

Q, How long had you been a resident of New Orleans ?—A. I resided 
in New Orleans for about thirty-two years. 




1018 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were ;s’oa born in Louisiana?—A. I am a native of Louisiana. 

Q. State, if you please, to the committee where you resided about 
the 4tli of last June. Where, I mean—well, from the 1st of June and 
then to the 4th. Your place of immediate residence in this city.— 
A. The 1st ot June on Tenth street, No. 1123, I think. 

Q. Did you move ?—A. I moved to Willard’s Hotel on the 4th. 

Q. How do you know that you moved on the 4th ? —A. I examined 
the register. I learned that 1 had been subp'oenaed, and 1 desired to re¬ 
fresh my memory as to my taking up quarters at the hotel. 

Q. You know that you went on the 4th !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you registered ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whose name did you find next below yours afterwards ? Well, I 
want to get at the matter whether you found Mr. Cavanac’s name there. 
—A. I think his name was there; 1 do not know positively. 

Q. The same day ?—A. Yes, sir; but I did not go to look for his name. 

Q. That is only important as fixing the date. l)o you know xMr. Oav- 
anac?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. State what rooms you took at Willard’s Hotel.—A. 1 think the 
numbers of the rooms are Nos. 72 and 73. 

Q. Where are they with reference to Senator Kellogg’s rooms?—A. 
They are adjoining rooms. My parlor openetl into his. T.iey are ad¬ 
joining suites. 

Q. Do you know, Mr. Walsh, the day the witnesses arrived here who 
came with Mr. Oavanac from New cirleans in attendance u[)Ou the 
subpoena of this committee?—A. Do I know the date? 

Q. The day of the month.—A. Well, in refreshing my memory at 
Willard’s, 1 did it with a view to fixing the date of the arrival of those 
witnesses, and they arrived here the same day I svent, there. That was 
the first night I slei)t in my rooms at the hotel. 

Q. Did you see any of those persons at the time of their arrival in 
the depot ?—A. I was at the depot at the thne of the arrival of the 
Southern train. I expected the arrival of a friend from the South, and 
I saw Mr. Oavanac get off. He talked with nie and said he had those 
witnesses with him. 

Q. That was the day you registered at the hotel and the first day you 
had your lodgings there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State if you were in Senator Kellogg’s room that night, and after 
midnight?—A. I was in Kellogg’s i)arlor casually once or twice during 
the first i)art of the night. I was unpacking my trunks—I had two 
there; and I think about 12 o’clock, or somewhere in that neighborhood, 
I came'in for the night and remained. 

Q. Yes. Did you go into Senator Kellogg’s room after that time?— 
A. Y^s, sir. I remained in Senator Kellogg’s i)arlor, the doors being 
oi)en most of the time, and I was most of the time in his parlor. He was 
doing his waiting in there. 

Q. Y^ou mean his private jiarlor that he controls and uses as his own ? 
A. Precisely ; one of the suite of roojiis. 

Q. Could you tell about what time it was the morning of the 5th— 
that is, after midnight—you ceased to be with Senator Kellogg or know 
of his whereabouts ?—A. jMy recollection is we sat up very late that 
night. I do not retire very early usually, and we remained up. He 
seemed'concerned about this case, and I remained talking with him until 
nearly 2 o’clock. He suggested to go to bed. I can’t say really as to 
tlie time, but it was quite late. 

Q- Ho you know a man who is called in the list of witnesses, and 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1019 

whose testimony was taken, as Barney Williams?—A. I jnst saw such 
a person ; 1 have been told he was Williams. 

By Mr. ]\Ierrick : 

Q. Who was that ?—A. I say I just saw such a man and was told 
that his name was Williams. 

By :\rr. ShellABARGER : 

Q. Was there that nij^ht a compan^^ of persons coming in, of whom 
four or live were negro men, and this man Barney Williams one of the 
company, and during which time there was money paid to these people 
by Kellogg ?—A. As I said, I was through the room two or three times 
before I came in there for the night, and I think a good many i)eople 
were passing about j I think General Sypher and some newspaper men 
were there, but late at night after the time I came in there was certainly 
no such man as Mr. Williams in that room. You spoke of colored men. 

Q. The substance of Mr. Williams’s statement is this : It was that ho 
came in with five colored men, whom he brought in by the back way— 
the F-street door—to Senator Kellogg’s room ; that there was a good 
deal of talking, drinking cognac, and smoking; that that continued a 
long time, beginning after twelve o’clock ; and towards the close of that 
transaction Mr. Kellogg took $2,500 out of a large envelope, in new 
bank-bills, unbroken, and paid $500 apiece to the five witnesses, and 
that was done while you were there and Sypher, &c. Now, tell the 
committee, if you please- 

Senator Hill. The witness never said that Mr. Walsh was there. 

Senator Kellogg. No, sirj .he did not say that. 

INIr. SiiELLABARGER. I correct that then ; just leave that out. 

Mr. Merrick. No ; let it go in as corrected. 

Senator Cameron. He stated that Sypher was there and Conquest 
Clarke and these witnesses. 

The Witness. Is your question, “ Did I see it P 

By Mr. Siiellabarger. Yes, sir; and could you have seen it if it 
had been done?—A. I would say that such a thing as disbursing $2,500 
could not possibly have gone on without my seeing it. There wtis no 
such man as Williams, as I am told he is, and no colored men, I am (piite 
clear, there that night. My only recollection about any person being in 
there was Mr. Bandall. I specially remember him, as I wanted him to 
go, and he thought he was a good talker, and he was talking of Cava- 
nac and the Nicaragua expedition, and he*spoke at some length, nar¬ 
rating his experience in it. I am satisfied there was nobody in the room 
after he left. The lime he left I cannot say, but it was (piite late. From 
that time until we retired there was nobody in the room. 

Q. Can you state when Kellogg retired and his room became silent ?— 
A. He retired about the same time 1 did, I fancy. He may not have 
gone to sleep at the same time. Maybe, having his contest on his hands, 
he did not go to sleep right away. 

]Mr. Siiellabarger. Governor Kidlogg wishes to ask the witness a 
few questions. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. In what part of the hotel are my rooms ?—Corner of Fourteenth 
and Pennsylvania avenue. 

Q. Whi(*h floor above the oflice ?—A. The second. 

(J. Are they near the landing of the main stairway?—A. Yes, sir; 
but a few feet removed from t!ie main stairway. 

Serator Hoar. Do you mean the second floor of the hotel ? 



1020 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hoar. Not counting the office-floor ? 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir; in the third story. (To the witness). 
Are they close to the head of the lauding ?—A. 1 should say 12 feet, 
X^robably. | 

Q. Twelve feet?—A. I should say so. , 

Q. I would like to inquire about the location of those rooms, and please i 
state to the committee if the hall leading to and connecting with Nos. j 

70, 71, 72, and 73-just explain that to the committee.—A. The doors 

of the four rooms, 70, 71, 72, and 73, all open on rather a narrow hall, ; 
and not a very long one. There are no other rooms opening on that hall 1 
but those four, and the doors are all close together, very close together, 
and all in a group. 

Q. The point I want to make is that the four doors are close together, 
so that a man could stand in the middle and reach the knobs of those 
four doors.—A. Probably, except possibly No. 70 ; but they are so close 
together that a rap on one door is mistaken for a rap on your own door; 
for instance, when a visitor came to Kellogg’s and rapped, I usually told 
him to come in. 

Q. Did your’s connect with mine ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that door habitually open during the month of June?—A. 
Yes, sir, on account of the weather; and we desired to hold a confer- 
^jnce with each other. 

Q. My wife was not there at the time?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And yours was not?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You sent yours to Fortress Monroe?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVere not people coming constantly to my room ? Were there not 
])eople there nearly all the time?—A. 1 will state that 1 was in the 
habit of staying out late and you of sitting up late, and the door might 
be put down as really open always. 

Q. I will ask you if my parlor is not one of the largest and that suite 
one of the largest in the hotel ?—A. I do not know that. 

Q. Was it not public?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. W^as not my parlor door open constantly ?—A. I think the string 
was on the outer side. 

Q. Now, a witness by the name of Barney, alias Bernard Williams, 
testified, in addition to what Judge Shellabarger stated, that I had 
champagne in my room ; there was a desk and a basket of champagne 
in the corner. Will you tell the committee whether there is any desk 
in my room or no?—A. No, sir; I have never seen in your room a desk. 

I know the turniture and recollect it so clearly that there is no hesita¬ 
tion on my part in swearing to that. There is a center-table under the 
gas-jet, and all the writing you did I saw done there. There is cer¬ 
tainly no desk. 

Q. I will ask you if that night, or at any time, you saw a basket of 
champagne in my room ?—A. No, sir ; never. 

Q. Am I in the habit of keeping liquor in my room ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you continue to room there near by my room ?—A. I did, up 
to the 22d July ; until I went west to Arizona. 

Q. Are you acquainted with De Lacy ?—A. I simply know De Lacy. 

Q. Did you see him at the depot?—A. I guess i saw him. They 
were grouped together, and I recollect distinctly seeing Murray. I 
knew him better than any of the others. I guess De Lacy was along, 
as Mr. Cavanac told me they were the witnesses, but whether or not 
I noticed De Lacy specially at the depot, I do not know. 

Q. You speak of the depot now ?—A. Yes, sir. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1021 


Q. Do you know Sweazie ?—A. I know him as Sweazie ; that is all. 

Q. Do you know him by sight ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Johnson, one of the witnesses ?—A. Yes, sir: the 
same as 1 know the balance. 

Q. Do you know Jones ?—A. The same as the balance ? 

Q. Did you see those men coming off the train with Cavanac ?—A. 1 
simply saw the witness Murray, and I specially noticed him, and I 
think Johnson. They were all huddled up together, and I did not no¬ 
tice them specially. 

Q. Did Cavanac come with you to the hotel?—A. No, sir; he 
stopped and talked to me, and 1 was asking him about friends in New 
Orleans. 

Q. You know him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Intimately or not ?—A. Not intimately, sir. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with him at the hotel ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. That same night ?—A. A'es, sir. 

Q. You know what room he occupied ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. State if either of those men, De Lacy, Murray, Sweazie, Johnson, 
and Seveignes were in my room that night. Do you know Seveignes ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were either of them in my room while you were there ?—A. No, 
sir ; not while I was there. 

Q. I have a bath-room in my room ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you in the habit of getting up and coming in there and using 
it ?—A. Yes, sir; I think that was the arrangement. 

Q. This was the first night that you were there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The next morning you got up and came into my room ?—A. I 
think I did. I take a bath everj^ morning. 

Q. Did you see any evidences of dissipation, of champagne, cognac, 
and baskets or cigars?—A. I can’t say that I did. Indeed, I rather re¬ 
gretted that. The absence of champagne has been one little peculiarity 
of yours I did not like. 

Q. I understand you that the door was habitually left open at night, 
as it was warm weather ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State to the committee if, after 2 o’clock a troop of six or seven 
men could have come there and caroused with me without your know¬ 
ing it from the close proximity of your room ?—A. I should not think 
that could occur; I should not think so at all. 

The Chairman. Do you, Mr. Merrick, propose to cross-examine the 
witness ? 

Mr. Merrick. I should like to do so after the examination is closed 
in chief. 

Senator Kellogg. I think that is all. We will recall him if it is nec¬ 
essary. 

Mr. Merrick. I have not Mr. Williams’s testimony. 

The Chairman. You can ask some of the gentlemen who were in New 
Orleans as to Mr. Williams’s testimony. 

Mr. Merrick. Then, I will ask the witness one or two questions and 
ask the gentlemen who were in New Orleans to go on with the examina¬ 
tion. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) When did you first come to Washington to 
reside ?—A. Three years ago. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. Banker. 

Q. Whereat?—A. No. 91GF street. 



1022 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Wbat biisiuess were you in before you came here?—A. You mean 
what in New Orleans ? 

Q. That will make the question more complete. What business were 
you in there and what did you enter upon when you came here?—A. 
My business in New Orleans at the time I left) was a general brokerage 
and discount business on my own account, and a member of the board 
of brokers of New Orleans. 

Q. Had you ever had any pecuniary transactions with Governor Kel¬ 
logg?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Officially or personally?—A. No, sir; I never had any transactions 
with Mr. Kellogg officially at all, and pecuniarily none at all,, except such 
as may have come in the matter of discounts but, I do not recollect it. 

Q. That is what I asked, in the matter of discounts ? I ask you if, in 
business in New Orleans, you were ever brought into contact with Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg, officially or as an individual ?—A. You will have to 
define what you mean by “ officially.” I have asked him to appoint 
friends of mine to position, which would imply that I had something to 
do with him officially. Pecuniarily, I did not. 

Q. Your friends were appointed ?—A. Generally they w^ere not, he 
not having a very retentive memory on that point, it appears. 

Q. Were they sometimes appointed?—A. I think they were, and he 
said they were appointed for me, but I had always a suspicion that it 
was for some active politician. 

Q. You were not an active politician ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You never held any position in politics?—A. I think, in 1S69, 
Governor Warmoth appointed me to the city council. 

Q. You were occupying a house, I understood you, on Tenth street ?— 
A. Yes, sir. My lease expired on the fourth of June. 

Q. What number was that ?—A. No. 1123. 

Q. Your family were living there with you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. After your lease expired your family left?—A. Went to Fortress 
Monroe. 

Q. Went there to spend the summer, I suppose?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you went to Willard’s Hotel ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hid you select the rooms yourself?—A. I think 1 asked for eligible 
rooms, and ISenator Kellogg remarked that that corner was the coolest 
in the house. 

Q. How did he come to be at the counter when you were there, at 
that time ?—A. I don’t think I said so—that he was. I asked Mr. Cook 
further about it, examined into it further, and he said it was so. 

Q. Where did he make this suggestion, and when ?—A. I do not know. 
I had desired, when my lease expired, to go somewhere else. I would 
have gone to Welcker’s, but Mr. Felter said he would close up soon and 
go to Sharon Springs, I believe, and then I spoke to Kellogg. 

Q. Hid you frequently ?—A. I think I did. 

Q. And he suggested Willard’s ?—A. He did, and said it was a most 
excellent hotel. He thinks so. 

Q. And he suggested to you to come there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you said you wanted those rooms?—A. No, sir; I think I 
talked with him, Mr. Cook, about them. 

Q. Is he one of the proprietors ?—A. Yes, sir. 1 talked with him as 
to the price. 

Q. That was a necessary element in the contract!—A. 1 wanted a 
room with a bath, and he would have probably charged me more for it. 
Senator Kellogg suggested if I took those rooms that I could use his 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1023 

bath-room. He probably didn’t believe in baths as much as I do. On 
account of his physique, he thinks he does not require it. 

Q. How many rooms did you take ?—A. A suite. 

Q. How many were in the suite ?—A. Two ; a parlor and bed room. 

Q. How many rooms had Governor Kellogg?—A. A suite of two room; 
a parlor and bed-room, and, in addition, this bath-room. 

Q. Then between you you had two parlors, two bed-rooms, and one 
bath-room.—A. Yes, sir; the bath-room being in his bed-room. 

Q. You stated to the committee that in selecting these rooms, and the 
use of the bath-room, the extra charge was a consideration?—A. Kot 
so much as to cause me to dwell long on it. 

Q. Did you dwell at all ?—A. If I did, it was very casually. Mr. 
Cook might have made an extra charge for a bath-room. 

Q. Did it enter into the calculation at all?—A. I should say it did 
not. 

Q. I thought so n)yself; but you said a while ago that it did.—A. 
Well, sir, you can readily imagine how it would. 

Q. How long did you occupy them?—4. Up to the 23d or 24th of 
July, when 1 went to Arizona. 

Q. Did you take any particular interest in the case of Governor Kel¬ 
logg’s that was then in progress?—A. Well, except as a friendly interest 
and as member of the same party, I cannot say that I took any. 

Q. You sat up until two o’clock talking to him ?—A. Well, that I 
will do, Mr. Merrick, on the slightest provocation, with anybody, that 
being a weakness of mine. 

Q. Whether he keeps champagne or not?—A. Well, he did not. It 
was a matter of economy with him, I suppose. But I will sit up 
longer with the man who has the champagne. 

Q. You will ?—A. Yes, sir; if it is there I will sit up much later. 

Q. You hre engaged here in the banking business?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick (to Mr. Shellabarger). You stated that this gentle¬ 
man wants to leave the city. 

Mr. Shellabarger. 1 stated something of the kind, that it had 
been intimated to me. 

Senator Kellogg. I said so to the committee last week, when Mr. 
Walsh mentioned it to me. 

Mr. Merrick. You have no intention of going from the city?—A. I 
was intending to go to New Orleans. 

Q. Not before Monday or Tuesday?—A. I think not. If I will be 
needed I will promise that I will remain. 

The Chairman. Does any gentleman of the committee desire to ask 
the witness a question ? 

Senator Cameron. I do not. 

Senator Hoar (to Mr. Merrick). How soon will Mr. Walker be here, 
judge? 

Mr. Merrick. I think to-night. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I do not think it necessary to ask this witness any questions, but 
I will ask him one or two; perhaps it will not be important. |To the 
witness.] I understand you. to say that you are a i)retty good sleeper ?-— 
A. Y"es, sir; I think I do sleep pretty sound. 

Q. Pretty good sleeper ?—A. Yes, sir; pretty good. 

Q. And when you retired, it being late, you went to sleep pretty 
quick?—A. Yes, sir; I think I did. 

Q. Did I understand you to say or mean to say or intimate that Barney 
Williams and five negroes and Sypher and Conquest Clarke were not 


1024 


SPOFFOliD VS. KELLOGG. 


present at Kellogg^s room at all that night after 12 o’clock. Did j ou 
say they were not there?—A. Do you mean Williams ? 

Q. Yes; Williams testified that he, Williams, and five colored men, 
not all of them witnesses, but five colored men were at Kellogg’s room 
that night between 12 o’clock and daylight. 

Senator Cameron. That they went there after 12 o’clock. 

Senator Hill. Yes, that they went there after 12 o’clock; were there 
from that time until daylight. He showed from the paper that two 
other parties were there, one by the name of Sypher and the other Con¬ 
quest Clarke. Now, what I understood you to say was that they were 
not there that night? 

The Witness. I will state that Barney Williams and a company of 
colored men, five in number, were certainly not in Governor Kellogg’s 
room between 12 o’clock.and half-past one. 

Q. You do not say they were not there after 12 o’clock and up to day¬ 
light?—A. You go past my time. 

Q. Do you say or do you not say that they were there between 12 
o’clock and daylight?—A. I would say they were not there up to the 
time of my retiring. 

Q. Answer my question. I have heard that statement twice now.— 
A. I can say that they could not be there and drink champagne and 
hold high carnival without my being awakened. 

Q. Answer my question; and I repeat it so you can understand it. 
Do you say that these men were not there between twelv^e o’clock and 
daylight? I want none of your opinions; you can say “yes” or “no.” 
—A. After two o’clock I would not know whether they were there or 
not. 

Q. Did you see Mr. Kellogg’s clerk there that night?—A. I was in 
and out of the room two or three times during the evening. He may 
have been there. 

Q. You know him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is him there right now, by Senator Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he there that night?—A. I have no recollection of it. He 
may have been. There were a great many people there, and I noticed 
them, coming in and out while I was in my room. 

Q. Was Jim Lewis there that night? You know him?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is in the custom-house in New Orleans?—A. No, sir; I do not 
recollect seeing him in there. I recollect him at the depot. 

Q. You were there frequently during the time of the examination of 
the witnesses? Weren’t you there nearly all the time?—A. Yes, sir; I 
think I was. 

Q. Did you see any of those witnesses there at any time? You said 
you knew Johnson, Seveignes De Lacy, and the other witnesses, Swea- 
zie and Jim Lewis. Were they at Governor Kellogg’s room during this 
examination?—A. They might have been, atid I not seen them. 

Q. I am not asking you what you did not see.—A. 1 thought you 
wanted me to be specific. 

Q. Well, no, sir.—A. I think I saw De Lacy. 

Q. You think you saw De Lacy?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you not see any of the rest?—A. I do not recollect. 

Q. Y^ou do not recollect seeing any of the others at all ?—A. I do not 
recollect. 

Q. You certainly did not see them there frequently ?—A. No, sir; and 
I have been often in the room. 

Q. Gould you not give it as your opinion that they could not have 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1025 

been there frequently?—A. No, sir; I could not say that, as I was ab¬ 
sent a ffood deal from my room. 

Q. You were absent a good deal?—A. All day until dinner, and I 
was not much in the room at night, as it was warm weather. 

Q. Did you not see Sypher that night ?—A. Yes, sir; I think he was 
there the early part of the evening. 

Q. Did you see Barney Williams there at all during any time?—A. I 
saw him in the lobby. 

Q. Which lobby?—A. Of the hotel. 

Q. Did you ever see him at Kellogg’s room ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, in the lobby leading to Kellogg’s room ?—A. No, .sir. 

Q. Did you ever see Seveignes there?—A. No, sir. 

By Senator Hoar : 

Q. What do you mean by the lobby?—A. The ground floor surround¬ 
ing the desk of the clerk. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did you see Sweazie there at all preceding the 4th or after the 4th ? 
You say you know the colored man Sweazie?—A. Yes, sir; I saw him 
there. My attention was called to him on account of his height and 
general air. 

Q. Did you see him there frequently?—A. I can’t say. 

Q. How many times?—A. I can’t say. 

Q. Well, three or four or five?—A. He might have been there five or 
a dozen times; I can’t say. 

Senator Logan. Where is that ? 

Senator Hill. At Kellogg’s room. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Were you at Kellogg’s room before you moved to the hotel ?—A. 
Yes, sir; quite often. 

Q. Did you see him there before that?—A. No, sir; I think he came 
about that time. 

Q. Was Sweazie at the depot that night the witnesses arrived?—A. I 
do not know, sir. 

Q. Can you not say if you saw him there?—A. I may; I do not 
know. 

Q. Did you see Barney Williams there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not see either of them ?—A. No, sir; I do not think I .saw 
them. These men make no note on me, sir. 

Q. Was this man Kandall there?—A. Yes, sir; I think I saw him; I 
noticed him as I passed through. 

Q. You are positive about that?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Did you see a man who had a split nose—no.se or lip?—A. Well, 
that is rather vague. 

Q. Did you not see any man with a split nose ? What is his name ? 
Molair.—A. Yes, sir; I know him. 

Q. Did you see him at the depot?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever see him about Kellogg’s room frequently ?—A. I do 
not think 1 .saw him there. I am so accustomed to see him about Wil- 
lard’s door that I locate him there. 

Q. Y^ou saw him around the door?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Is he there pretty frequently?—A. Y>s, sir. 

Senator Hill. 1 have no further questions. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

(^. State to the committee where your bed is located; whether it is 

65 s K 


1026 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


near to the door?—A. It is close to the door in 73; close to the door 
of 73. 

Q. That is your bed room ?—A. Yes, sir; as I recollect the number. 

Q. That bed room opened to a little hall ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. How long was that hall ?—A. Fifteen feet, I should judge. 

Q. How wide ?—A. Four or five feet. 

Q. Your bed-room and parlor door and my parlor door were all there 
in a cluster ?—A. Your parlor is close to my parlor and bed-room door; 
your bed-room door, I think, is farther off. 

Mr. Merrick. Would not the diagram be more satisfactory ? 

Senator Kellogg. 1>s, sir; I have the night clerk here, and can 
have it; but I wish the opinion of this witness. (To the witness.) If a 
person were to come into my room, how near would they come to your 
room ? 

A. I think probably 2 feet. 

Q. How near to your bed ?—A. I should say 3J or 4 feet. 

Q. Would there be anything but the partition and door between you 
and them?—A. Nothing at all. 

Q. If you stand at my door, how far is it from the head of your bed ; 
that is, my parlor door ?—A. I should judge 7 or 8 feet, as near as my 
memory goes. 

Q. I understood you to say, that from twelve to two it was impossi¬ 
ble for those men to be there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you if five or six men could come trooping into that hall, 
and into my room, without your knowing it, after 12 o’clock?—A. I do 
not know; coming past my room door, I should say they could, as the 
hall is heavily carpeted. They might come quietly, and do it; but I do 
not think they could get into your parlor, and have a conversation with 
you, without awakening me. 

Q. When you spoke of seeing persons there, you said you thought you 
saw He Lacy there ?—A. W here ? 

Q. At my room ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. When was it; some days after their arrival there ?—A. I thiuk it 
was subsequently. 1 think it was about the time they w^ere getting 
through this investigation up here. 

Q. State to the committee how long we have beeu acquainted ?—A. 
Ten or twelve years. 

Q. Pretty good friends?—A. Yes, sir; very good. 

Q. Were you in the Confederate army ?—A. Yes, sir; my recollection 
is pretty distinct as to that, 

Q. What rank did you hold ?—A. First lieutenant in the regular 
army. 

Q. Subsequently, what rank ?—A. On account of my size, they called 
me colonel, but 1 never had that rank ; now I am general, here. 

Q. Were you personally pretty well acquainted with me? Did you 
ever hold any position under me?—A. Never. 

Q. Y^ou were often in my room, I understood you in your re^dy to Mr. 
Hill, before the 4th of June?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And w'hen your family went off', I suggested to you to come and 
take the rooms near mine ?—A. Yes, sir. I was discussing w here to go. 
I did not want to go to Willard’s, I will be frank with you, but I would 
have preferred Welcker’s, but for the fact of Mr. Felter’s closing up. 

Q. Did I not say as your wife is gone I would like for you to come 
there, that I would like for some gentleman I know to take the rooms! 
—A. You may have said so, but it did not weigh with me. 

Q. You were looking for good rooms?—A. Y"es, sir; cool rooms. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1027 


Q. ell, 1 tiucl out that I have to cover all sorts of points, and I want 
to ask you another question. Vou notified me the other day that you 
would have to leave the city ?—A. Yes, sir; I might have to leave be¬ 
fore I can accommodate Mr. Merrick, but I am going to make great efforts 
to accommodate him. 

Mr. Merrick. I will state to you that if you have to go we would 
be glad for you to give us notice of that fact^u advance. 

The Witness. I will tell you, sir. 

Senator Hill. 1 took the lead this morning.in having him examined 
on the ground that he was going away to-night, but he has testified that 
be is not, and I hope, Mr. Witness, you won’t go away. 

The Witness. 1 ought to go, sir. 

Senator Hill. But it is not indispensable ? 

The Witness. I ought to go. 1 do not know that 1 shall go, but if I 
do I will notify you, gentlemen. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. I understand you to say Kandall was there late that night !—A. 
Yes, sir; my recollection is very positive about that. 

Q. And we were talking about his serving with Cavanac in Nica¬ 
ragua?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was some of the press there? You stated that I was receiving a 
good many visitors. You remember that some of the press came in 
and inquired about this case ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was the first night that you were there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Keli.ogg. That is all, especially, as I understand that Major 
Walsh is likely to be called again. 

Senator Hill. Are you through ? 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. 1 omitted to ask you several (piestioiis. You said you 
went to the depot to meet a friend ; who was it ? 

A. 1 think that is rather leading, Senator. It was a lady. 

Q. I do not see anything objectionable in having a lady friend.—A. 
I object to answer that. There are circumstances in which a gentleman 
does not desire to answer a question of that sort. 

Q. The question is a very proper one; but if you object to it I will 
not i>ress it.—A. 1 will thank you very much ; 1 would prefer that you 
would not. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg know that you were there at the depot that 
flight?—A. No, sir; 1 did not tell him of my movements. 

Q. Did you know that Kandall was going to be there ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you know that that split-nose man was going to be there ?— 
A. No, sir ; 1 liad no knowledge of those persons. 

Q. Whom did you go with ?—A. By myself. 

The Chairman. Are you done with the witness, gentlemen ? 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Did you know any of those witnesses were coming before you saw 
them there that night?—A. I think I knew they were coming by rail¬ 
road, but I did not know which depot, and I think Kellogg said so. 

Q. Did you have any design in going there to meet them ?—A. No, 
sir; none whatever. 

Q. Did 3 'ou speak to any of them about this case!—A. None of them. 
There were none of them I would have spoken to on any subject except 
Mr. Cavanac. 


1028 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By the Chairman : 

Q. This is your first day, is it ?—A. My first day ? 

Q. I want to <?et at your attendance, to have it noted.—A. Yes, sir; 
this is my first day. 

The Chairman. Do you need this witness any further ? 

Mr. Merrick. We probably will. 

Senator Hill. 1 will state that while at New Orleans Mr. Walker told 
me something about this witness, but I did not think it was my business 
to remember it, and I did not. 1 do not remember what it was he told 
me. 

The Witness. Mr. Walker would know a great deal about me, and I 
would be pleased to see Mr. Walker. 

The Chairman. I think he should be kept here until Mr. Walker ar¬ 
rives. 

The Witness. I will state that if the committee tells me to stay, that 
will constitute a very good reason why I should not go to New Orleans. 

Senator Hill. You had better stay here until he arrives. 

Mr. Merrick. I think Mr. Walker will be here by Monday. I sug¬ 
gest that he remain, as there is no peremptory necessity for his going 
to New Orleans, and if he is not discharged here I take it he must re¬ 
main. 

The Chairman. That is the understanding. The witness and others 
will also understand that we have a meeting on Monday morning, at 10 
o’clock a. m. 

The committee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of further 
business pending before it, not apart of this case. 


Washington, Monday^ January 12, 1880—10 o’clock a. m. 

Present, a quorum of the committee. Also Judge Shellabarger, coun¬ 
sel for the sitting member, Senator William Pitt Kellogg, and the sitting 
member in ])erson. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I believe Mr. Merrick is notin. 

The Chairman. No, sir; but it is the duty of Mr. Merrick to be in. I 
do not propose to wait for the counsel of parties. They must be present 
at the sittings of the committee, and we cannot be subjected to delay on 
their account. Mr. Hill, will you gentlemen who were in New Orleans 
look after this examination ! 

Mr. Shellabarger. We will call General Syi)her. 

Senator Hill. Have we a quorum of the committee? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. Just exactly. 

J. Hale Sypher, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn. 

After the witness was qualified, the committee, after some discussion, 
agreed to a delay to permit counsel to be present. 

At 10.30 o’clock, counsel for the memorialist. Judge Merrick, not hav¬ 
ing arrived, the Chairman requested Senator Hill to take charge of 
the examination of the witness in the absence of such counsel. 

By Mr. Shellabarger: 

Q. General Sypher, please state your name and place of residence.— 
A. J. H. Sypher; I reside in Louisiana when I am at home; I am re¬ 
siding in Washington City now. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1029 


Q. Do you know a person whose testimony was alluded to here at the 
last meetinj^ of the committee as Barney Williams? Do you know him ? 
—A. 1 know him by sight. I have no special acquaintance with him. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. 1 have no recollection of 
ever seeing him prior to last June. 

Q. Do you know Senator Kellogg?—A, Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. Fifteen years. 

Q. Do you know where his rooms were last June at Willard’s Hotel ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the day upon which the witnesses who were 
alluded to in Mr. Williams’s testimony first arrived at the Sixth 
street depot? Do you know the day these witnesses arrived—the day 
of the month ?—A. I believe it was "the 4th of June. 

Q. Do you remember the fact of their arrival ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the time at which they came in, or do you know 
them ?—A. I do not know the hour of their arrival. 

(c>. Did you see any of those witnesses on that day ? [Addressing Sen¬ 
ator Kellogg.] Senator, give him the names of those live colored men. 

Senator Kellogg. Seveigne, De Lacy, Blackstone, Jones, and-- 

The Witness. Yes, sir. I saw some of the witnesses who came in. 
I saw Lewis, whom I remember, and Murray. Those two particularly. 
1 remember meeting them on the avenue at the time of their arrival. 

Q. At what time did you tirst see them ?—A. Between nine and ten 
o’clock. 

Q. Was it so early as that? Did the train come in before ten o’clock? 
— A. I tliink the train arrives about nine o’clock. I think that is the 
time ; I think between nine and ten I met them on the avenue# 

Q. Where did you see them first?—A. I met them walking on the 
avenue first—Pennsylvania avenue. 

Q. Kow state, if you ])lease, whether you are acquainted with the 
locality of Senator Kellogg’s rooms at the hotel ?—A. I am. 

Q. State whether you were at those rooms on the night of the 4th, or 
the morning of the otli of June last.—xV. Yes, I was at Senator Kellogg’s 
rooms in the evening at about 8 o’clock, and 1 was there some time 
later in the night, probably from eleven to twelve o’clock. 

Q. How do you fix the time, and state how distinctly you can fix it 
when .^ou left the rooms for the last time that evening ?—xV. The only 
way I have of fixing the time is this: 1 missed the last car, upon which 
I expected to ride home, and that leaves, 1 think, at twelve o’clock. It. 
leaves the station exactly at twelve o’clock. I missed the car and had 
to walk. I know it was after twelve o’clock from that circumstance. 

Q. Did you loiter on leaving Senator Kellogg’s rooms?—A. No, sir; 
1 went directly to take the car at the corner, and it must have been 
after 12 o’clock. 

Q. Where did you take your cars ?—A. xVt the corner of Pennsyl¬ 
vania avenue and New York avenue—the junction of the two avenues. 

Q. That would be a couple of squares only from the hotel ?— A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Now state whether any of those colored witnes.ses who have been 
named here as witnesses who were up in tlnit room and a great many 
others—state whether any of them were there that night that you 
^vere.—A. None of them were there while I was there. 

Q. How certain are you of that?—xV; Absolutely, sir. 

(,). Absolutely ?—xV." xVbsolutely certain. None of the.se witnesses 
were in Senator Kellogg's room while I was there. 

Q. State how well you know those five men.—A. I know them all by 
sight. 



1030 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


At this point Mr. Spofford, Judge Merrick, his counsel, and other at¬ 
tendants upon the hearing of the case entered the room. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Judge Shellaharger. 

Q. You knew them all by sight ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where was Mr. Clark while you were there, the gentleman sitting 
here, and who has been private secretary to Governor Kellogg? Wa.s 
he there that night while you were there?—A. I am not positive about 
that. 

Q. Was Barney Williams, the person who is spoken of as Barney^ 
there that night?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Have .you seen Barney since? You know his face pretty well and 
his personai appearance?—A. I have seen him several times since. 

Q. Was he in there ?—A. He was not in there. • 

Q. State the degree of certainty.—A. I am absolutely certain he was 
not in Senator Kellogg’s room that night while 1 was there. 

Q. That witness describes a scene of conviviality while he was there, 
drinking champagne and cognac, &c.; what do you know about that'? 
—A. There was nothing of the kind while I was there. 

Q. Was there any liquor of any kind drank there?—A. None. 

Q. State whether any money was paid by Senator Kellogg in bank 
bills to those witnesses or any other person while you were there.—A. 
There was no such transaction whatever. 

Q. Describe the room while you were there, as to how it was thronged 
and how orderly it was, and what opportunities you bad of seeing any* 
thing that occurred while you were there.—A. 1 am quite familiar with 
the location of the room, having been in it frequently during the even¬ 
ing. Nol: many persons were there while I was there. Some gentle¬ 
men of the press came in and made some inquiries and passed out again. 
There was nothing unusual in the room while 1 was there. 

Q. Could anything of the kind described by that witness have oc¬ 
curred ? You heard the statement here on Saturday as to what occurred 
in regard to conviviality and the payment of money, did you not ? You 
heard that statement; you heard it, and what Barney Williams’s testi¬ 
mony was on that point ?—A. 1 heard the statement; I could repeat iB 

Q. I would rather you would.—A. It was that those live persons 
whom Senator Kellogg has named came in there, and along with fhem 
a number of other persons; that there were segars brought, a basket of 
champagne and some cognac was there, and they had a merry time 
drinking, and so forth; and during that evening, I think he places it 
towards the close of the interviews, there were paid $2,500 in all—that 
is, $500 to each of the live persons name<l, all I believe colored men, the 
ones named to you this morning; that that money was in new bank 
bills, each bill a hundred dollar bill. 

Q. That you amongst others were mentioned as having been there^ 
Now, my question is, whether any such transaction could have occui redy 
such a scene have transpired as the <lrinking, and so forth, without your 
knowing it ?—A. There could not. In the tirst place, uo witnesses were 
in there drinking. There was no drinking done, and uo money there 
that I saw while 1 was in Senator Kellogg’s room that night. 

Q. Did Barney Williams, this same witness, come to your office while 
there, and, if so, what for ?—A. Y^es, sir; he came to my office several 
times, three or four times. He came in relation to his pension. He first 
introduced himself to me as Barney Williams, and brought me some 
papers here-relating to his pension case. Here are some papers from 
the Interior Department, dated April 13, 1870, No. 130,370, in the name 
of Bernard Williams. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1031 


Q. Flow is it spelled ?—A. Bernard B i-l-l-i-a-ui s, not Williams. Oa 
inrpiirinfr of him particularly in regard to the spelling of his name, he 
said that the recruiting otlicer made the mistake in spelling his name, 
and it had been carried in that mistaken way on the rolls ever since. 
1 here is also here another ])aper from the Pension Bureau with the 
siH'lling the same, “ Billiams,” and the remark, “ or Williams’"; “ Barney 
Billiams or Williams.” 

Mr. Shellabakger. That is all the questions I have to ask now. 
Senator Ivellogg desires to ask some questions of the witness. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. General Sypher, did you take the case or attend to Barney Wil- 
liams’s ])ension case ?—A. 1 agreed to give his case some attention. I 
have nothing to do with i)ension cases generally, but I promised to look 
after his case and see that it was taken up and considered if he furnished 
the proper proofs. 

(^. Do you know who recommended him to you ?—A. He tirst intro¬ 
duced himself to me, and said that some person in New Orleans had 
sent him to me. I had no particular acquaintance with the man myself. 

Q, In his examination before the sub-committee in Xew Orleans this 
occurred : 

Senator Camki 50 N. I do want the truth, and I do not want anj- more of your gabbling 
about it. 

(The witness produced a paper, and stated “ There it is down there.”) 

Senator Camehon read, “ J. Hale Sypher.” 

Senator Hill. Lot ns see that pa])er. 

Senator Cameron. It is not in. I thought at the time that it was iu the record, but 
I .see that it is not. 

Can you tell anything about that ?—A. ^ly recollection is that it 
it related only to the pension matter. One of the lirst questions I asked 
this man when he came to me was in what service he had been, and he 
said that he belonged to General Banks’s body-guard. 

Senator Hill. The reference made to that letter was not to its con¬ 
tents, but simply because the witness could not read himself, and could 
not remember the name, and he said the name was on that letter. 

Senator Vance. It was printed on the back of it, I think. 

Senator Hill. The witness could not read himself, and it was printed 
on the letter, and the object was to get at the name. 

Senator Kellogg. iMy object here, I will state, is not to leave it to be 
inferred that General Sypher had any communication with this witness. 
The witness took the trouble to withdraw the letter and carry it away 
with him, and I simply wanted to know the character of the communi¬ 
cation. 

Mr. iMEKRiCK. I object to an}’ evidence being stated here as to what 
was in the letter. 

Senator Vance. It was produced in Ke.w Orleans for the purpose 
stated, and none other. 

Senator Hoar. Mr. Chairman, will you plea.se inform me on what 
juincijile of evideFice was the testimony of a man introduced who could 
not read that a certain name was on that letter ! 

Senator Hill. I do not know, Senator; it is.a question of casuistry 
which I do not care to answer now. He sai<l that he did not know the 
name, and we all know that a man may know a good deal about figures 
and numbers who cannot read writing. I think that Senator Cameron 
must introduce that testimony. 

Senator Vance. It was a printed form, such as is used by lawyers—a 
heading on a letter-sheet. 

Senator Cameron. Yes; it was a sheet like attorneys generally use. 


1032 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg, The committee will please understand that the 
witness saj^s that Sypher was there at the time of this transaction, and 
produced a letter to show that he had been corresponding with him, and 
was on intimate relations with him. Kowthe man he says was present, 
and whose letter he produced, is here, and I want to know what that 
letter was about. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not so understand it. Of course, I am imperfectly 
informed as to what transpired in New Orleans, but I understand the 
witness said somebody was present at the time, and that the name of 
that somebody was on the back of that letter j the letter was produced 5 
the name was found to be that of Sypher. 

Mr. ShellABARGER. You do not claim, then, that the letter referred 
to this matter of the interview at Willard’s Hotel. 

Mr. Merrick. I cannot state now exactly what I do claim. I am not 
in a position to claim anything in regard to it. I referred simply to an 
abstract principle of law that the letter was introduced and showed 
w’hat was on the back of it under the statement made by the witness 
that somebody, whose name was not given, .was present at that inter¬ 
view ; that the name was on the letter, and when the letter w^as pro¬ 
duced the name wms found there. 

Senator Kellogg. The signer of the letter is the thing- 

Senator Kernan (interrupting). No, I think you are mistaken. I 
understand that the man said there was a letter tliere with the man’s 
name on it who was present at the time he referred to, and the letter 
shows that Sypher was the man. 

Senator Kellogg. I hope the Senator will understand me. It was a 
letter written by Sypher to the witness. 

Senator Kernan. 1 understand the witness produced a letter and 
presented it to Senator Cameron, stating that the name would be found 
on it, and Senator Cameron read “ J. Hale Sypher.” 

Senator Kellogg. That was the signer of the letter. 

Senator Vance. No, it was the printed heading to the letter. 

Senator Cameron. I think it w^as the printed heading. I do not 
think any of us read the letter. 

Senator Kernan. I understand it, then, that you did not know who 
the letter was from. 

Mr. Shellabarger. There being an understanding, then, that there 
is nothing in the record with reference to the letter further than that, 
we won’t ask any more questions concerning it. 

Mr. Kernan. Counsel says that if there is nothing in the record about 
it, he waives the question. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kellogg. I think it would be proper to ask the witness 
if he wrote to Williams. 

Mr. Shellabarger. No, no. I think that is all we want to ask. 

Mr. Merrick. I have not been able to see the proof of the New Or¬ 
leans testimony as yet. 

Mr. Shellabarger. AVait one moment; there is a question we forgot. 
I understand that some witness stated that General Sypher was at the 
depot when these witnesses arrived. I want to ask the general how 
that was. 

Senator Hill. AA'hat is the question ? 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) Were you at the Sixth-street depot on 
the night of the arrival, on the 4th of June last, of these witnesses, at 
the time of their arrival !~A. I was not. 

Mr. Merrick. I have not been able to get a copy’ of the testimony as 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1033 


yet, Mr. Chairman, that was taken in New Orleans, and I would be very 
"lad indeed if the committee could do anything to hurry up the printing 
of it. 

The t'liAiRMAN. I do not know of anytliing more that we can do. 
The testimony was placed in the hands oi‘ the printer in December, and 
1 do not see that we can control it any further. 

I On further inquiry it was stated to the committee that the testimony 
was being printed and would be presented probably on Wednesday 
morning.] 

The Chairman. The difficulty with you, Mr. Merrick, is that you were 
not in New Orleans. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not ask, Mr. Chairman, to have any inference 
drawn from my statement on the subject. 1 beg the committee to ex¬ 
cuse me from cross-examining this witness, but to let me as soou as pos¬ 
sible finish the cross-examination of Mr. Walsh. 

The Chairman. This gentleman is on the stand and the members of 
the sub committee that was in New Orleans are here. Senator Ifill, I 
believe, conducted that examination, and he is fully able to cross-exatii- 
ine the witness and bring out all that is necessary to be known, I sui)- 
pose. 

Senator Hill. I want to ask Mr. Sypher some things for m\' own in¬ 
formation. 1 cannot go into anything like a general cross-examination 
except as to Barney Williams and what has been stated here this morn¬ 
ing. If there is any other substantive testimony that you want from 

Mr. Sy})her you must examine him yourself-(addressing the latter 

I)art ot the statement to Mr. Merrick.) 

The Chairman. I deem it proper to say now, in order to exi)edite 
this investigation, that when counsel examine the witnesses if any per¬ 
son of the parties in the case want a (jnestion asked they should pro¬ 
pound it through their counsel. Of course the members of the commit¬ 
tee are at liberty at all times, to a>k questions but we think it improper 
to have the same witness subjected to exaniinafioii and cross-exami¬ 
nation by several parties. I think it better for the counsel to conduct 
the examination and propound any questions that the parties desire, 
after he has exhausted the resr>urces of his examination himself. 

►Senator Kellogg. J suppose that statement or rule does not exclude 
the parties in the situation where the testimony is on a subject-matter 
that.he is more familiar with than his counsel and would know better 
how to j)ropound the questions ? 

The Chairman. 1 mean to convey this idea: If there are any ques¬ 
tions that can be asked by Judge iShellabarger or Mr. Merrick the con¬ 
testants may indicate them to those gentlemen and let them do so. • 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Are you an attorney-at law ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Practicing in this city ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Were you counsel for Mr. Kellogg in the matter of the contest for 
this seat ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. AVereyou attending here pretty regularly during the examination 
of the witnesses last June?—A. I was here sometimes. 

Q. Were you giving some advice and assistance to Governor Kellogg? 
—A. Not particularly so. 

(,). Were you generally ?—A. Sometimes I made a suggestion to him. 

(,). You are i)retty friendly with Kellogg, then, personally and politi- 
oally ?—A. I am frididly with Governor Kellogg; I am his per.sonaland 
political friend. 1 have not agreed with him in some of his alfairs in 
past years; but we are fast friends. 



1034 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you at his rooms frequently —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he take your opinion pretty regularly ?—A. I do not know 
that he took it in any case. 

Q. 1 understand that j’ou were there that night at the depot.—A. I 
was not. 

Q. You say you saw the witnesses walking on the avenue. At whafc 
time was that!—A. I may have seen them walking there between nine 
and ten o’clock. 

Q. Had they been to the hotel, and were they walking out 'I —A. I do 
not know that. 

Q. Where were they walking?—A. They were walking on the ave¬ 
nue. I was walking down and they were walking up. They were going 
west and I east. 

Q. They were going towards Willard’s Hotal and you from it f—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Was Barney Williams with them ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How often were you at Governor Kellogg’s room from the 4th of 
June to the loth of June, say ?—A. Pretty frequently. I could not an¬ 
swer the number of times; but 1 was there occasionally. • 

Q. Were you there daily ?—A. I think not. 

Q. Were you there at night as well as during the day ?—A. Some¬ 
times I called in the evening when 1 was not there in the day-time. 

Q. Was not the general topic of discussion there this case?—A. It 
was pretty generally discussed in the newspapers and different other 
ways. 

Q. Well, by you and Governor Kellogg? What do you say?—A. 
Well, when we met we sometimes talked about it. 

Q. During that time did you see any of these witnesses at his room ? 
—A. No, sir; I think not. During the entire time I do not think I saw 
any of them there. 

Q. Do you know Jim Lewis ?—A. 1 think I met him there once or 
twice. 

Q. Did you meet Sweazie ?—A. No, sir ; I think not. 

Q. ^Did you at any time ever see Barney Williams there ?—A. Not to 
my recollection. 

Q. You do not remember whether you did or not?—A. I think I 
never saw him there. 

Q. Did you see Barney Williams with the witnesses at any time ?— 
A. I saw him in this room and saw him going away with them. 

Q. You did ? You saw him here with them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And saw him go away with them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see him at any time on the streets with them ?—A. I do 
not recollect. I was in the habit of going from here to my office on the 
car, and they went another way, and I was not likely to see them. 

Q. During that time was there any discussion, were you a party to any, 
or did you hear any discussion as to whether the witnesses were indict¬ 
able for going back on their affidavits that they made in New Orleans I? 
—A. I think I heard it discussed more or less. I heard some references 
made to it. 

Q. Did you hear it in Kellogg’s room ?—A. No, sir. My recollection 
is that what occurred was between Judge Shellabarge.r aiid myself. 1 
expressed some opinion on it. 

Q. What was the opinion you expressed ?—A. Ido not recollect that 
any opinion really was expressed. 

Q. Did you not express the opinion that the witnesses were not in¬ 
dictable ?—A. I might have said so; I do not recollect that I did. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1035 

Q. Well, what is your opinion ?—A. It is a question I have never ex* 
amined into. 

Q. Did you give an opinion ?—A. I did not. I would have examined 
the question before I did. 

Q. Did you not examine the Revised Statutes in regard to it ?—A. I 
was never hired to do that, and never examined them. 

Q. That conversation, you say, was with Judge Shellabarger ?—A. It 
was simply incidental. We made some reference to it, but did not dis¬ 
cuss it. 

Q. Tell us what you saw at Kellogg’s room that night, the 4th of 
June! Who was there!—A. Well, there are only two individuals tliat 
I recollect distinctly and positively seeing there that night. 

Q. AVho were they?—A. One was Mr. John A. AValsh, and the other 
was Mr. Randall. Those two besides Kellogg were the only two that I 
recollect distinctly. I think Clark w^as there, but I do not recollect about 
it. 

Q. Did you see William L. Randall ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was he not quite active for Kellogg?—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Did ycti not know that he was acting for Kellogg in this matter f 
—A. I do not. 

Q. Did he not seem to be ?—A. lie seemed to be friendly to Kellogg* 

Q. Do you not know’ that he went to the depot that night to meet the 
witnesses ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Did you not hear it spoken of ?—A. [ did not. 

Q. Did you see a man named—a split-nose man—Molliere ?—A. I met 
Molliere on the avenue that night. 

Q. You met him on the avenue ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. With whom ?—A. He w’as not in company with anybody. He 
passed me on the avenue as I was walking down. 

Q. Did you see him at Governor Kellogg’s room at any time during 
the time of this investigation ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. At any time during the examination ?—A. I might have seen him 
there during the time. 

Q. I mean the whole period?—A. I might, sir; I think it likely I 
did. 

Q. Did you see Randall there frequently ?—A. I did. 

Q. Was the split-nose man here in the room. Did you see him here? 
—A. I think I did. 

Q. Did he seem to be taking an interest, too, in behalf of Governor 
Kellogg ?—A. He is a friend of Governor Kellogg’s. 

Q. What is his employment, do you know?—A. He has been employed 
in the Treasury for a number of years. 

Q. Employed in the Treasury ?—A. He is a watchman, I think, in the 

Treasury. ® , r 

Q. Did you see him with the witnesses up here in the room 1 —A. I 
saw him here with other spectators a number of times. 

Q. Did you see him come and go with the witnesses ?—A. I am not 
particular as to his going with the witnesses, but I saw him passing in 
and out of the door with the crowd. 

Q. You think you left Governor Kellogg’s room that night after 12 
o’clock ?—A. It must have been about IL* or within a half hour of that 
time—from 12 to half past 12. I know’ I missed the car, and it always 
goes exactly at 12 o’clock. 

Q. It was some time after 12, then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you in New Orleans at the time of the sitting of this so- 
called Packard legislature ?—A. I was there a part of the time. I was 


1036 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


not there continuously. I resided in the country at that time on my 
plantation, aud I would come to the city probably once a week aud stay 
several days. 

Q. Were you up there at that body to see its sittings ?—A. No, sir, 
I never saw its sittings. 

Q. Do you know the witness J. J. Johnson, of De Soto, they call him I— 
A. I only know him by sight. I have no recollection of seeing him un¬ 
til I saw him here in this room as a witness. 

Q. And you say nothing passed between you and those witnesses on 
the subject of their testimony f—A. Do you mean here in Washington ? 

Q. Yes.—A. I think it likely we did have some conversation, but I 
cannot remember the words. 

Q. Cau you not recollect anything of it ?—A. It was more casual than 
otherwise, with reference to no particular end. 

Q. Did they ask you in reference to their indictment in case they 
went back on their afli lavits 'I —A. No, sir. 

Q. None of them asked yon that f—A. No, sir. 

Q. Had this man Williams’s pension been granted to him ?—A. No, 
sir. His application had been filed, but he had furnished no evidence. 

Q. Has it been granted since?—A. No, sir; he has failed to furnish 
evidence required by the bureau. 

Q. Did he tell you anythiug about registering here under a false 
name ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Anything about his registering at the hotel as M. Davis or L. 
Davis ?—xV. No, sir; 

Senator Hill. I do not know that I have anything further to ask 
this witness. 

Mr. Merrick. I have no further questions. 

The Chairman. Are you through with this witness on both sides. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Wait one moment (to the witness). Some ques¬ 
tions were asked you as to whether Barney Williams had the witnesses 
in charge and as to his leaving this room in company with them. 
What do you say as to that, as to his apparently having them in charge ? 
—A. I mean to say that I saw him in this room a number of times dur¬ 
ing this examination, and he went out with everybody else. He did not 
seem to have them in charge particularly. 

Senator Hoar. He said he did not go with the witnesses particularly, 
I think. I think those were Mr. Sypliers’ words. 

Senator Hill. I will ask the witness another question or two. 

Mr. Shellabarger. There is another question. Senator, that I want 
to ask him. Yours may possibly come in better afterwards. 

Q. (By Senator Hill.) You say that you were there at Kellogg’s 
room at 8 o’clock aud at 12 o’clock. Did you know before 8 o’clock that 
the witnesses were to arrive that night ?—A. I think I did. 

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg say they were to come ?—A. I heard it from 
somebody else. I heard that the witnesses were expected that night. 

Q. Did you hear that in his room ?—A. No, sir ; I think I heard of 
it several times before. I think Mr. Eandall informed me. He came to 
my office frequently, and 1 think he told me. 

Q. Y^ou think Randall told 5 ^ 0 u ?—A. I am pretty positive he did. 

Q. Did you hear him say anything about receiving telegrams to that 
-eftect ?—A. 1 do not know on what he based his information. I heard 
from him that they were expected that night. 

Q. Did he say he was going to meet them ?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill. That is all. 


SPOFFORD VS. KEi.LOGG. 


1037 


By Mr. Shellabarger ; 

Q. Do yon remember that it was published in the Star that the wit¬ 
nesses had left New Orleans before they actually arrived here ?—A. I 
do not recollect particularly about the Star, but I take the New Or¬ 
leans papers, and they keep me posted. I think it was stated that the 
witnesses had been subpcenaed, jjiving their names, and when they would 
leave, and all that. I think I found it in the New Orleans papers. 

Q. Auother cpiestion I omitted to ask relates to the statement of a 
witness that Kellogg kept him supplied with money while here. 1 want 
to know whether Barney Williams came to you and comi)lained of a 
want of money, and what he said ?—A. Barney was evidently very im¬ 
pecunious, and came and tried to borrow money from me, which he did 
not do. 

Q. You say he was impecunious. How impecunious ?—A. He said he 
was out of money and desired a loan. He desired to borrow money 
from me. * " 

Q. Was that the day of the examination of witnesses ?—A. 1 think 
it was afterwards, after June and in July, about the time he left New 
Orleans. 

Q. Did you ever know Barney as a Republican in Louisiana ?—A. No, 
sir: 1 did not know him at all in Louisiana. 

Q. Do you know whether he was from the district that you used to 
represent in Congress?—A. I see that he gi>’es his residence Bienville 
street, No. 211), I think. If that is his residence, that is in the district 
I formerly represented in Congress. 

Q. Did you ever hear of him as identified with the Republican party 
there ?—A. I did not. 

By Senator Hill : . 

Q. You did not know him at all, you say, in New Orleans?—A. I 
did not. 

Q. Then you could not tell to what party he belonged ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You say he complained of a want of money in July ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he want to borrow any in June?—A. He did not apply to me 
in June. 

Q. Did he say anything about being promised money when he came 
here ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Or of any disappointments about getting money?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He staid here, then, until July?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q; Do you know how long before the 4th of June he arrived here?— 
A. I do not. 

Q. Do you remember whether you had seen him before the 4th of 
June?—A. I think 1 did not, sir. 

Q. You think you did not?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill. I have no further question. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. A\)u said you never heard of him as a Republican. If he had been 
active as a Republican in your district, would you be likely to have 
heard of it ?—A. I should undoubtedly have been acquainted with him 
if he had been ; for there are very few of that kind that I did not 
know. 

Are there any white Republicans in your district, white men whom 
you do not know, who were Republicans ? I mean any active white 
men who were acting with your party ?—A. O, there were a great many 
white men acting with our party. There were a great many white Re¬ 
publicans in that district. 


1038 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. I say white men whom you did uot know?—A. Scarcely any that 
1 did not know. 

The Chairman. Are you through with this witness ? 

Mr. Shellabarger."Y es, sir; we are through. 

The Chairman. You say, Mr. Merrick, that you will cross-examine 
Mr. Walsh now? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir; I have a few questions for him. 


CKOSS EXAMINATION OF JOHN A. WALSH. 

John A. Walsh, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
recalled to the stand. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. When were you last in New Orleans?—Answer. About three 
or four weeks ago. 

Q. Were you in New Orleans at the time the sub committee were in 
attendance there?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Were you summoned before that committee ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you attend ?—A. Well, not in the sense of reporting every 
day. I asked Senator Kellogg to send for me in case I was needed. 

Q. Were you examined ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Why were you not examined?—A. I cannot say, sir. 

Q. Who summoned you? I mean in whose behalf; on which side of 
these contestants were you summoned?—A. I suppose on the side of 
Oovernor Kellogg. 

Q. Did he communicate with you before the service of the summons ? 
—A. No, sir; I do not think he did. 

Q. Who served the summons on you?— A. If my recollection serves 
me it was a gentleman by the name of Murphy, Joe Murphy. I think 
it was Murphy, but I will uot be positive. 

Mr. Merrick (to Senator Hill). Was he one of your deputies ? 

Senator Cameron. He was one of the assistant sergeant at-arms. 
General Wilcox was the sergeant-at-arms and he was an assistant, I 
think. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) How did Kellogg know you were in New Or¬ 
leans?—A. 1 think I called on him. 

Q. At the time you called on him or at any time before the service of 
this summons, was there any com nunication between you and him as to 
what you were to testify ?—A. No, sir ; except casually. 

Q. What was the extent of the casually?—A. Only to refresh my rec¬ 
ollection as to days and dates. 

Q. Did you then go over it and discuss your testimony ?—A. I had 
no occasion to do that, sir. 

Q. That is not an answer to my question.—^^A. No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. Did you not discuss the date when you took rooms at Willard’s 
Hotel ?—A. At that time in New Orleans ? 

Q. In New Orleans.—A. I do uot think I did. 

Q. Then what else was said except a general reference to the subject 
about the matters that you were going to testify ?—A. I really cannot 
«ay that there was anything important that I can recollect. 

Q. When, on that occasion, did you arrive in New Orleans ?—A. I 
think about the 10 th or lith of November. It is very difficult for me to 
state the exact date. 


I 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1039 


Q. What was the object of that visit to New Orleans !—A. It was in 
respouvse to a suit that 1 have there. 

Q. hat kind ot suit?—A. A suit of the United States against me 
for defrauding the government. 

Q. In what court is it pending?—A. The United States court. 

Q. District court ?—A. Yes, sir ; the circuit court, I guess it is. 

Q. P'or the district of Louisiana?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How much are you charged with having defrauded the govern¬ 
ment out of ?—A. There was a civil suit of the United States against 
me for $23,000, and in that suit I defeated the government. 

Q. That is not the suit, then, that called you thereat the time J speak 
of?—A. No, it was another one. 

Q. Do you know the amount of dollars that you were charged with 
defrauding the government out of ?—A. I have" not defrauded the gov¬ 
ernment out of any amount. 

Q. Idid not say so; but how much is allege! in that suit?—A. I 
thought you intimated it. 

Q. Well, there is another suit ?—A. Yes, sir; and on which I am still 
ready to go to trial at any time. 

Q. How many suits were there?—A. Three, I think. 

Q. Three ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Each one for defrauding the Government of the United States ?— 
A. No, sir; not all of them. 

Q. There is one in which you were charged with defrauding the gov¬ 
ernment and on which you were acquitted ?—A. No, sir; that was the 
civil suit, and a suit to force me to t)roduce the books. That was the 
suit in which the government was defeated. 

Q. In the civil suit the government sued you for $23,000?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And the government was defeated ?—A. I'es, sir. 

Q. And that, you say, was for a refusal to produce certain books ?— 
A. No, sir; that was the civil suit which I defeated ; and then there 
was a criminal suit for refusing to produce the books ; and on that I 
defeated the government too. 1 refer you to the record for these suits. 

Q. Well, 1 am waiting for a reply ? 

{Senator Hoar. I understood the witness to make himself plain. 

The Chairman. I understood the witness to say that he was there to 
attend a suit against him by the Government of the United States, and 
then Mr. Merrick i)roceeded to question him upon the character of those 
suits. 

Senator Hoar. I thirik Mr. Merrick will not insist upon demanding a 
reply to his question. I leave that to Mr. Merrick hiuiself. 

JNIr. Merrick. The witness volunteered it. I did not question him 
on that, but he volunteered the statement himself. 

Senator Hill. That was the civil suit that he spoke of? 

Mr. Merrick. Y"es, sir; and on which he was acquitted. 

Senator Logan. I think that w’as proper enough. 

Senator Hoar. I think you went on to ask him in effect whether he 
committed the offense. 

Mr. Merrick. No, sir; I beg pardon ; I say if he produced the books 
he did all that was demanded of him. (To the witness.) Well, you refer 
me to the record for an answer to my question. In that case for the non- 
production of the books you were acquitted ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I do not know how much further my brother 
proposes to pursue this investigation, but if it is to go to the extent of 
the production of records, I shall have to ask that the same rule be 


1040 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


applied to him that he insists upon having applied against me in regard 
to an absent letter. 

Mr. Merrick. I yielded promptly at the time upon the suggestion of 
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoarl and the Senator Irom Illi¬ 
nois [Mr. Logan], and I am not asking the contents of the record, but 
whether the record exists. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I will say if you go on, I think you are not 
bound strictly in this investigation by the rules that obtain in thecourtSy 
but at the same time I think it right to have the same rule apply to 
both sides. 

The (chairman. The committee have permitted counsel here to repre¬ 
sent both sides, and the rule of the committee as adopted in Kansas was 
that when a question is asked, unless objection is made by counsel, the 
committee do not feel like interfering. In that case, as in this, the in¬ 
vestigation was conducted by counsel fully conversant with the rules for 
the proper inquiry into all the facts of the case. The same rule will be 
adopted here; and when an objection is made the committee will pass 
upon it. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Then I shall object to the testimony that is 
sought by the question propounded by Mr. Merrick. 

Mr. Merrick. Please state what tlie objection is. 

Mr. Shellabarger. The objection is to inquire into the contents of 
those records. If it is made too soon I will withdraw it and hold it for 
the proper time to arrive. 

Mr. Merrkik. That objection is made too soon. (To the witness.) I 
understand there were two suits. Now, the second one, what was that? 
—A. That was on a charge of defrauding the government. 

Q. That was the second ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that has never been tried ?—A. Never. 

Q. In what court is it pending f—A. The circuit court. 

Q. That is the case that you went there to attend to ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why was it not tried !—A. I would refer you to the acting district 
attorney, Mr. Eay, down there, who said he was not ready, I believe. 

Q. That answers my question. Now, there is the third criminal case ^ 
in what court is that pending'?—A. The same court; the circuit court. 

Q. Now, what is that case? 

Mr. Shellabarger. That is matter within the rule, I think. 

The OHAiRjvrAN. I think it is inquiring into the character of the case. 
He says there were three indictments, and when the inquiry goes be¬ 
yond that, and the demand is for him to tell what the case is, I think it 
isd)eyond the rule. 

Senator Vance. I think not, if he just asks what the case is for. 

The Witness. I will state that there may be ten or a dozen cases 
down there. In the wisdom of that district attorney down there, he 
has mixed them up, and duplicated and renewed them, and all that, 
that J do not know how many there aie down there. Sometimes he 
gave an opinion that one was defective, and he got another. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You say he had three that you know of ?—A. I know the three cases 
are all, in fact, that there are, but sometimes his zeal led him to get up 
another duplicate, and led him to try and cure a defect in another one 
by getting still another. 

Q. They were not all found at the same time?—A. No, sir. 

Q. But at different times ?—A. Yes, sir; but they were in fact the 
same matter. He is a very zealous district attorney. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1041 

Q. Do you know how iiian^’ times he did that ?—A. I should say once 
or twice. 1 should Judge he did it that many times. 

Q. When was the first one found?—A. The first indictment—all were 
found about the same time in 1876 ; we were indicted in common. 

Q. Who?—A. About fifteen white-leaguers and myself. I was the 
only one of my strii)e of politics, and the first indictments were set 
aside by the court, the defendants pleading the defectiveness of the 
grand jury, all of them except myself, on account of the fact that there 
were ex-(?onfederates on that ffrand Jury. I accepted the Jury and 
asked to be tried. 1 made no objection to the competency of the Jury. 

Q. l>ut you were not tried ?—A. I was refused it. 

Q. The court set aside the Jury against your ac(;eptance of it, you 
stating that it was a valid Jury?—A. 1 made no objections, but "the 
others did ; all of them were re indicted. 

Q. Did you make any objection to the court setting aside the panel ? 
—A. Xo, sir ; I did not say so. 

Q. You asked to be tried by it?—A. No, sir; I did not ask to be tried 
by a grand Jury. 

Q. Oh, it was a grand Jury?—A. Yes, sir; it was a plea in abatement. 

Q. A"ou put in no plea in abatement ?—A. No, sir ; but when 1 left, 
the district attorney discovered that he was very anxious to try that 
case. I have been there six times ready to be tried, ft is not my fault 
that I have not been. 

Q. You are under bail ?—A. Yes, sir ; some 850,060 or 860,000, I be¬ 
lieve. 

Q. How many government contracts hav^e you had in recent years? 
—A. 1 thiidv only two in the last year or eighteen months. 

Q. What for ?—A. For mail service. 

Q. Is there anybody participating in the profits with you ?—A. There 
are no profits to participate in ; the difliculty is to find somebody to par¬ 
ticipate in losses. 

Q. But there has been some to divide ?—A. Oh, yes ; there has been 
some money, but I call that percentage. 

Q. If there were any profits would there be anybody to participate 
in them ?—A. Nobody, sir. 1 have no partners. 

Q. Were you engaged in tiie whisky business in New Orleans?—A. I 
w^as at one time, sir, when it was not contrary to the statutes. Mr. 
Bristow regulated that, and it is contrary to make whisky now. 

Q. Do you think so?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And when he made the regulation you quit ?—A. I (piit before 
Mr. Bristow defined it. 1 quit on high moral ground. [Laughter.] 

Q. When you were making it did anybody participate in the profits? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg have any interest in any of your business traiis^- 
actions ?—A. Well, I do not know, Mr. Merrick, whether you are^ in 
earnest or not. 

Q. 1 am in as dead earnest as ever a'man was in the world.—A. Cer¬ 
tainly not, sir. 

(^. I am not ac(piainted on these subjects and I did not know butt 
what I should ask you the (luestion.—A. I do not think his service's 
would be'^worth much. 

I do not, as to tliat. Did he assist you getting your government 
contracts ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you apply to him to assist you ?—A. No, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. I presume, sir, that I should subject myself to criti- 

66 S K 


1042 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


cism if I were to ask you as to the conteuts of those records. I am 
done. 

The Chairman. Are you done with this witness on both sides'? 

Mr. Merrick. One moment. You stated in reply to one of the ques¬ 
tions put in the beginning of this examination that you had no conver¬ 
sation with Kellogg, except incidentally, as to wbat you would be ex¬ 
pected to testify under your subpoena. Did you have any with anybody 
else representing Kellogg*? 

The Witness. T did not. Indeed I know that I have not conversed 
with anybody on the subject. If you knew how tiresome this thing 
is- 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Well, Mr. Witness, men may have a good reason for doing a bad 
thing, or a bad reason for doing a good act. I simply want to inquire 
in order to get at the facts, if alter you received the subpceua did you 
have any conversation with him or anybody else about your testimony ? 
—A. None, sir, except so far as the date was concerned. 

Q. Did he tell you why he did not examine you in New Orleans ?—A. 
In truth, sir, it was a desire on my own part not to appear and testify 
in the matter. I had no'hing to do with it j it was in appreciation of 
my desire, I sup[)ose. 

Q. How was it that your desire in New Orleans prevented you from 
occupying the position that your desire will not prevent you from occu¬ 
pying here?—A. I would have testified there if he had said so, but I 
was engaged in my own affairs, and I preferred not to. 

Q. How olten were you before the committee there?—A. Not at all, 
sir. 

Q. At no time ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. I thought you stated that you were there?—A. I said I was sub¬ 
poenaed, but I did not attend ; I was not in the committee-room. 

Q. Were you in the hotel where it was sitting?—A. Probably two or 
three times. 

Senator Hill. I will state that the habit was in New Orleans that we 
would have one witness before the committee at a timej the other wit¬ 
ness in the mean time remained in the lobby of the hotel, and Governor 
Kellogg when he wanted a witness went out for him. 

Senator Kellogg. I will state that I wanted Mr. Walsh examined. 
I sent for him two or three times and he was not there. I sent to the 
court for him, and he could not leave the court; on the very day that 
the committee left there I tried to get him before it. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 ask you a question, Mr. Witness, and I would be glad 
if you would limit yourself to the question. Were you not frequently 
in the hotel while the committee was sitting there?—A. No, sir; I think 
1 got there generally at night, and I do not think they sat at night. 
They may have done so, but I do not think they did. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) How long were you in New Orleans during 
that visit?—A. I cannot say as to time, the dates, but over four weeks. 

Q. The object of your visit was to get a trial on that indictment ?— 
A. Precisely ; indeed my case was fixed for trial at that time. 

Q. And that was what you had to do ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was your business there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your financial and ordinary business affairs had been transferred 
to Washington ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You left no other estate there ?—I left some estate there for 
the Democracy to administer upon ; some real estate that I cannot sell. 

Q. Did you constitute them your administrators on your estate?—A. 


SPOBFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1043 


They have constituted themselves. I tried to sell that property at the 
same time, but could not do it, and it will be a long time before 1 can. 

Q. Then you were there to get a trial or to administer ou your estate ? 
T—A. No, sir; 1 have no estate in that shape. 

Q. Then you have no estate there?—A. Yes, sir; I have some real- 
estate, but I caiiuot get rid of it. 

Q. Now, is that all you went there for ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, were you not there everyday about that hotel?—A. Oh, no, 
sir ; I do not thiuk I was there over three times, aud that was purely 
socially. 

Q. During the four weeks ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many times were you at Kellogg’s room ?—A. I never went 
to the hotel, I thiuk, that I did not go to his room. 

Q. Did not you meet him more than that ?—A.. He took meals at the 
same restaurant that I didj but I had no object in meeting him. 

Q. Didn’t you have a seat in the collector’s desk in the custom-house 
in New Orleans at one time V—A. 1 don’t know what you are referring 
to. 

Q. Were you not allowed a seat at the desk of the collector at the 
time of the trial at which you were acquitted?—A. No, sir; I had no 
occasion to take a seat there. 

Q. Didn’t you do it? Didn’t you come in and take a seat there?— 
A. No, sir; I called on Badger usually the same as on other persons. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. As I understand you, you were in New Orleans during the whole 
time of the sitting of this sub committee ?—A. Yes, sir ; and afterwards. 
I remained a week or ten days afterward. 

Q. After we had adjourned ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. INIerrick : 

Q. You stated, I believe, that you did not desire to be examined any¬ 
where?—A. Oh, you can readily understand that. 

Q. I cannot.—A. Time is very valuable. 

Q. Not to a man trying to get a trial of his case.—A. Time is money. 

Q. Not always.—A. Well, I try to make it so. 

Q. I understood that you were averse to being examined?—A. Well, 
sir, I have had enough litigation in my life. 

Q. Didn’t you express a desire not to be examined?—A. Yes, sir; I 
had a general distaste for it. 

Q. In New Orleans or here ?—A. In New Orleans or here. My request 
was not intended to be a disobeyal of the summons of the committee. 

Q. Oh, of course not. You wore not so bad a citizen as that. But 
you did not want to be examined before that committee, or any other, 
if you could avoid it ?—A. Yes, sir ; before that or any other. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : % 

Q. Did you make any specific objection to testify in this case to Kel¬ 
logg or any ot^er person ?—A. No, sir; not except as I stated on ac¬ 
count of the loss ol time. 

Q. Did you say to anybody that there was anything in this case dis¬ 
agreeable‘for you to tell ?—A. No, sir; I do not know anything that is 
disagreeable to me. 

Q. Did that objection on vour part go to anything disagreeable that 
you did not want to tell ?—A. Certainly not, but I did not see where I 
came in at all. 

Q. Tell us whether your business while there occupied your entire 


1044 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


time and attention ?—A. Yes, sir; I went there on my own business or 
I would not have been there. 

Q. Did it occupy your whole time and thoughts and attention ?—A. 
Yes, sir; one can readily see how it would. 

Q. And you satid a week or ten days after the meeting of the com¬ 
mittee f—A. Yes, sir; after its adjournment. 

Q. Did your staying there have any reference to that committee f—A. 
Nothing at all. I am going to New Orleans again in a few days. A 
zealous officer there demands it, and this is the reform administration, 
and I have to attend at any time that they require. 

At this point, the committee, after informal discussion, adjourned to 
meet at half past two o’clock p. m., and proceed with the examination 
of witnesses. 

2.45 p. M. The committee reassembled and proceeded with the exam¬ 
ination of witnesses in the case. Mr. Wilson, partner of Mr. Shellabar- 
ger, appeared in his place. 

Senator Kellogg was absent at the reassembling of the committee^ 
and the Chairman requested Senator Cameron to conduct the examina¬ 
tion of the witness. 


TESTIMONY OF JOHN E. BKOWN. 

John E. Brown, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member^ 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Brown ?—Answer, I reside at 
Willard’s Hotel. 

Q. What position, if any, do you hold in Willard’s Hotel?—A. 1 am 
night clerk. 

Q. How long have you had that position !—A. Since the house opened 
on the 24th of last November. 

By Senator Hill ; 

Q. What position is it?—A. Night clerk. 

Q. How long have you held it?—A. Since the 24th of last Novem¬ 
ber. 

Q. November ?—A. A year ago. 

Q. A year ago ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Were you the night clerk at Willard’s Hotel on the 4th and 5th of 
June last?—A. I was, sir. 

Q. It has been stated by a witness before this committee, that on the . 
morning of the 5th of June last, between 12 and 1 o’clock on that morn¬ 
ing, these witnesses whose names have been given wentfwith Williams 
to Willard’s Hotel; that he had VTith him live colored men who were 
witnesses in this case, and that he with these colored men went up to 
Senator Kellogg’s room in the hotel, and remained there until near day¬ 
light, I think, and that there was a good deal of drinking and consid¬ 
erable carousing in the room in the mean time. Now, as you swear that 
you were night clerk at that time, state whether or not in your opinion 
it would be possible for such a company of men to go up to a room at 
the time named, and remain there engaged in drinking and carousing 



SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


1045 


without .vour kiiowingf it?—A. About that time there were a good many 
men going to Senator Kellogg’s room, and staying quite late; but there 
was no drinking or carousing in any of the rooms. I have a watchman 
and a bell boy, and if they had seen it they would have reported it, and 
it would have been sent and attended to. 

Q. Where were Senator Kellogg’s rooms in the hotel at that time?— 
A. In the southeast corner of what we call the third floor. 

Q. How many rooms did he occupy ?—A. Two. 

Q. Do you know John A Walsh ?—A. I do. 

Q. State whether he was a boarder there at that time ?—A. John A. 
Walsh came there on the 4th of June. y 

Q. What rooms did he occupy?—A. The rooms right adjoining and 
communicating with Senator Kellogg’s rooms. 

Q. What was the custom of the hotel at the time as to the closing of 
the outer doors of the hotel at any time during the night ?—A. Along 
about or after the 31st of May, the man who had the F street door was 
discharged, and that door was not used after that by any one, but was 
kept closed. The key was kept in the office at the room clerk’s desk. 
Then about the first of June we commenced to close the Fourteenth 
street entrance, the ladies’ entrance, quite early, before 9 o’clock, and 
always before 12 it was locked and barred with an iron bar across it, 
and if any of the guests, the ladies, came after that, they rang the bell, 
and the bell-boy or watchman let them in. 

Q What other outer doors were there at that time ?—A. There were 
none excepting the doors at the main entrance right at the office. 

Senator Cameron. Senator Kellogg has in his mind exactly what he 
wants to ask this witness, and 1 would like to have him ask the ques¬ 
tions of this witness. 

B.v Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Are you the night clerk? 

Senator'CAMERON. He has gone over that. 

Senator Logan. To the point of closing the doors and the hours of 
closing them ? 

Senator Cameron repeated to Senator Kellogg what the witness 
had testified previous to his arrival in the room. 

The Witness. All the doors were certainly closed by 12 o’clock— 
generally a short time before that; but Mr. Cook returned and said he 
wanted the Fourteenth street door kept open later, and then it was kept 
open until after 11 o’clock, but not later. 

By Mr. Kellogg : 

Q. Was Mr. Walsh registered there on that day ?—A. He did. 

Q. Did Mr. Cavanac register that day ?—A. 1 saw his name about 
four names below Mr. Walsh’s. 

Q. To what room was he assigned?—A. No. 130. 

Q. Where is 130?—A. On the 4th floor—the same hall as yours, and 
on the opposite side. 

Q. The next floor above mine?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Would it be necessary in going to his rooms to go by mine?—A. 
Y'es, sir ; they are both at the head of the main landing. Yours is right 
at the head, and 130 is one door beyond, 1 think. 

Q. A witness, by the name of Williams, testified that on the night of 
June 4th last he took four men from a certain place in this city near Third 
street on Pennsylvania avenue up Seventh street, down F street to 
Willard’s Hotel, and took them up the back way into my room. Would 


1046 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


that have been possible?—A. No, sir; he could not have come up the 
back way through the F street entrance, for I had the key after the 31st 
of May, and the door was bolted, and an excellent lock on it, and that 
was locked, and the key in the room clerk^s desk. 

Q. Were you in the habit of having those doors open, except on re¬ 
ception days?—A. Those doors were not open during the summer. 

Q. How about the entrance on Fourteenth street—the old entrance ? 
—A. That is never used at all; but later in the summer the house¬ 
keeper got the key to it as it was more convenient to her, and she used 
to sit there, and, 1 suppose, went out and in several times. 

Q. Further down Fourteenth street, is there a boy stationed at that 
door ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Constantly ?—A. Yes, sir; unless the door is locked and barred. 

Q. At all times when persons come in, have they to ring the bell ?— 
A. They do. 

Q. I asked if one or five persons could have come in that door at or 
after 12 o’clock without ringing the bell and procuring the key at your 
office?—A. It would be necessary to procure the key. They would 
have had to ring the bell, and I would send a man to unlock and un¬ 
bar the door. 

Q. That is, after 12 o’clock ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you in the habit of being cautious to see who comes in at 
that door ?—A. That is part of my business. 

Q. Can you command from your office a view of who comes in there ? 
—A. I can look and command it from the office without going out ot 
the office. 

Q. And you make it a point to see to that ?—A, Yes, sir. 

Q. Is there any other mode of ingress or egress after that hour?—A. 
That is all, sir, unless they ring the bell. 

Q. Now, as to the morning. This witness said they staid until near 
daylight, and went out the back way. Would it have been possible to 
have gone out that way without attracting your attention ?—A. They 
could not get out the back way until after six o’clock, as the gate is 
locked and the fence spiked. I would have seen a party going out at 
that hour. 

Q. In June, when the days are long, the sun would be pretty well up 
then ?—A. Yes, sir ; and that is what I am there for, to see who goes 
out and in. I generally stay until 7 o’clock. 

Q. I ask you—and if it be a proper question that will be all, and the 
committee will decide whether it is—would it have been possible for five 
men to come in the month of June, at the time we speak of, and have 
gone up to my room, staying all night, and come down and gone out 
even at the front entrance without your knowing it?—A. I do not think 
it possible. 

Q. If they had been five colored men especially, how would it have 
been ?—A. I would be very sure to have noticed it. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Did they come there in point of fact ?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Cameron. That is all. 

Senator Hill. I do not wish to ask him any questions at all. 

Senator Cameron. That is all, then. 


SPOFFORU VS. KELLOGG 
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM L. liANDALL. 


1047 


ILLTAM L. Kandall, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, having? been sworn during the investigation by the committee in 
June last, was recalled to the stand. 

By Senator Kellogo : 

Question. Where do you reside f—Answer. In Washington. 

i). How long?—A. 1 have lived here 18 months—about 18 months. 

(>>. Were you here the 1st of June last!—A. Yes, sir; 1 was. 

Q. Were you in my room on that day or evening!—A. Yes, sir; I 
was. 

Q. The evening of the 4th!—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. How late were you in my room!—A. To half past twelve. 

Q. How far do you reside from my room !—A. Three squares. 

Q. Who with?—A. With my aunt. 

Q. Did you go from my room to your home?—A. I did. 

Q. About what time did you arrive there!—A. Ten minutes to one. 

Q. Who was in my room when you were there as late as 12 o’clock?— 
A. General Sypher, and he went away, and after that Major Walsh 
came in. 

Q. Was there any one else present but Mr. Walsh after 12 o’clock ?— 
A. Y"es, sir; yourself. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Cavanac!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see him that night?—A. Yes, sir; I saw him that night. 

Q. What were you conversing with us about!—A. About Mr. Oav- 
anac, and iny old acquaintance with him in Central America. 

Q. Did you speak of him !—A. Yes, sir ; of his coming with the wit¬ 
nesses, for I saw him downstairs. I spoke of Nicaragua; the history 
of the country, the climate, the battles there, and the geography of the 
country. 

Q. Did you give a hivStory of your acquaintance with him on that ex- 
pedition ?—A. Yea, sir. 

Q. How long was it?—A. I suppose about an hour. 

Q. I will ask you if, while you were there after 12 o’clock, either 
George Sweazie, if you know him- A. I know him. 

Q. De Lacy, Johnson, Jones, Blackstone, or Seveignes, if you know 
them-A. I know them all. 

Q. Caine into my room!—A. No, sir; not while I was there. 

Q. Do you know Barney Williams !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see him in there that night!—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Were either of these persons I have mentioned at any time during 
that evening in m 3 ’ room when 3 ’ou were there!—A. No, sir; they w’ere 
not. 

Q. 1 understand 3011 to say your aunt resides two blocks- 

The Witness (interrupting). Three blocks, corner of Twelfth and D, 
northwest. 

Q. Did 1 understand you to say 3 ’ou went there direct from my room! 
—A. No, sir; I stojipeii at the corner of Thirteenth and Pennsylvania 
avenue, by the lieiiublican Ollice, and conversed with an acquaintance 
of mine. 

Q. How long did you converse with him!—A. About five minutes. 

(^. Then did you go right home!—A. Y^es, sir. 

By Mr. Wilson: 

i}. And got there ten minutes of one!—A. Y"es, sir; the clock is 
right at my bed and 1 noticed it. 




1048 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. How long was it from the time you left my room until you reached 
your aunt’s house?—A. Well, between ten minutes. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What time did you state you left Kellogg’s room that night?—A. 
Half past twelve. 

Q. You did not return after that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not know, who was there after that hour?—A. Ko, sir; 
except Major Walsh was reclining on the sofa with his coat off in the 
middle of the room. I left him there. 

Q. Hid you meet the witnesses that night at the depot?—A. I did, 
sir; I stated in my former testimony why I went there. I went there 
to see one man. 

Q. Who was that?—A. Toni Murray 

Q. Did you know he was coming?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who told you?—A. A gentleman named Oatliu, W. S. Oatliu. 

Q. Who is Mr. Gatlin?—A. He is at present, I think, vice-consul at 
some port in Mexico. 

Q. How did he know they were coming?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg tell you they were coming?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Were you there at his house early in the evening?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you not acting in the interest of Kellogg?—A. No, sir; I 
do nob know that I was. 

Q. Did you see the witnesses when they came ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you converse with them ?—A. Slightly, only. 

Q. Did yon see them the next day?—A. Yes, sir; up here, when I 
came up here to the committee. 

Q. Were you here every day?—A. 1 was subpoenaed here. 

Q. Answer the question. Did you come up here evwy day?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Did you talk to the witnesses about their testimony ?—A. I talked 
to Tom Murray. 

Q. What for?—A. I wanted to know the true inwardness of this 
movement. I will tell you why I did it. I wrote up the journal of that 
legislature, and the integrity of it was attacked on the ground of a 
quorum not being present, and I knew that there was a quorum of the 
gentlemen assembled, and I wanted to know what this movement was, 
and I knew that he would tell me; but he told me that on the night of 
the 5th and not of the 4th. 

Q. And you talked to him to see what the true inwardness of this 
movement was?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And you thought the integrity of your journal was going to be 
attacked ?—A. No, sir; but I wanted to know what the movement was. 

Q. Did you know what those witnesses were coming for?—A. I wanted 
to find out. 

Q. Y^ou wanted to know from Tom Murray?—A. I knew he would 
tell me. 

Q. Y"our name is William L. Randall?—A. It is. 

Q. You are a citizen of Louisiana ?—A. 1 was, sir. 

Q. How long?—A. Since 1844, with the exception of the time I was 
in Central America, my home was there until about the middle of July, 
1878. 

Q. You had a suit with your wife down there, did you not?—A. Yes, 
sir; I did. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1049 

Q. Did witnesses testify in that suit that they would not believe you 
on oath in a court of justice ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. No witnesses testitied that?--A. No, sir. 

Q. Not one ?—A. No, sir; not one. 

Q. Your testimony has never been impeached in court?—A. Never, 
on my knowledge, never. 

Q. And you say nobody there testified they would not believe you on 
oath in a court of justice in that case?—A. Never to my recollection. 

Q. Did you not say positively they did not ?—A. I did not remember 
that anybody testified to any such thing as that. 

Q. Do you know Miss Cecile Beauvois ?—A. Yes, sir; she is my wife’s 
sister. 

Q. Did she not testify in that suit that she would not believe you on 
oath in a court of justice?—A. No, sir. 

Q. She did not ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mrs. Killian?—A. I do, sir. 

Q. Did she not swear that she would not believe you on oath in a 
court of justice ?—A. No, sir; I never heard her say so in evidence. 

Q. Did you hear any witness testify that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you present all the time during the trial?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You heard tliem all testify?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear Miss Beauvois?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear Mrs. Killian?—A. I did. 

Q. And they never swore that?—A. Not to my recollection. 

Q. They never swore to your character as a man of truth and veracity ? 
—A. 1 do not remember it. 

Q. Did they not testify that you were a drinking man?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Logan. That has nothing to do with his character for truth 
and veracity. 

Senator Hill. It tests the accuracy of his memory as to what trans¬ 
pired on this trial. 

The Witness. You had better send for the papers in that case. 

Senator Hill. Some of them are here now. 

The Witness. You have not got half of them. There are 1,800 pages 
of testimony in that case. I was administrator for my father, and there 
was some feeling in the family. 

By Senator Hill. 

Q. Did they testify to that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you i)ostmaster in New Orleans?—A. New Orleans ? 

Q. Well, somewhere near there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Never in your life?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you a clerk in the post-oftice ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you not charged with being a defaulter?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you not charged with defrauding the government out of 
$830?—A. No, sir; but it is a fact that 1 was short in my cash one day, 
but I made it up. 

Q. Did you not resign and pay up to avoid prosecution?—A. No, sir; 
I resigned in order not to take the responsibility of losing so much money. 
I was the money-order clerk for four years, and had during that time as 
much as six million dollars to pass through my hands, and I was short 
that day, and 1 resigned on that account, to keep from losing money 
that way. 

Q. How much did you lose?—A. About the amount you stated, $830. 

Q. Were you not threatened with prosecution if you did not resign 
and pay up ?—A. No, sir. 


1050 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you know a man of the name of Isabelle?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You seem to hesitate?—A. No, sir, I was thinking. There are two 
or three of them. 

Q. One of them was a pension agent of the government ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you sign his bond ?—A. Sign what? 

Q. His bond as an agent for the government?—A. 1 did. 

Q. Did you swear that you were worth $15,000 in property in the par¬ 
ish of Avoyelles?—A. No, sir, I never did. 

Q. You never did swear that?—A. I never did. 

Q. Did they not require you to make oath as to what you were worth ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. -And you never did at all?—A. No, sir, 

Q. Who were the securities on that bond with you?—A. I do not 
know. 

Q. Were you not, or any of the others, indicted for making it ?—A. 
The grand jury of the United States court investigated it, and in my 
case returned “no true bill.” 

Q. Did you not turn State’s evidence?—A. I did not. 

Q. What was the indictment for ?—A. Forgery and perjury. 

Q. Forgery and perjury ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the forgery for?—A. Signing my own name. 

Q. They indicted you for signing your own name to the bond ?—A. I 
was not indicted ; 1 said there was a char^^e of that. 

Q. What was the perjury ?—A. For swearing to it. 

Q. That you were worth $15,000?—A. I did not, and it was proven. 

By Senator Logan : 

Q. How was it proven ?—A. Before the grand jury. 

By Mr. Hill : 

Q. You were represented in it as worth $15,000?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you state it yourself?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was there any requirement of that sort ?—A. No, sir; I was just 
asked to sign the bond. 

Q. AYhy did they get up the indictment against the securities for 
making a false bond ?—A. I do not know ; I suppose that was gotten 
up afterwards. 

Q. Did they find a true bill against the others?—A. They did on some 
of them. 

Q, You say you did not turn State’s evidence against the others on 
the ground that they would let you off?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you swear that positively ?—A. I do. 

Q. And you did not make an affidavit that you were worth $15,000? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor any statement about it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And when the parties were indicted in the United States court for 
making a false and fraudulent bond, and swearing they were worth so 
much when they were worth nothing, you did not turn State’s evidence ? 
—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you testify in the case?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Milton 0. Randall ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is he a brother of yours ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he not testify against you in that divorce case?—A. He did. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Richards ? I do not see his given name here. 
Do you know him ?—A. Well, which Richards ? 

Q. Do you know any Mr. Richards? Was he the postmaster in New 
Orleans ?—A. No, sir; he was registry clerk to the post office. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1051 

Q. Did he not charge you witli turning traitor to him and getting up 
testimony against him to betray him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not tell your brother that he, Richards, drew a revolver 
on you in the post-office, and he said that you had turned against the 
best friend you had, and was making out a false list of employes against 
him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did not your brother testify that? 
nator Cameron. In what case is that? 

Senator Hill. It seems to be the case of Randall against Randall, 
No.-, lourth district court. 

The Witness. When Mr. Lowell was postmaster there was trouble 
between him and the government, and he was arrested. Joseph 0. 
Hayes was the special agent of the Post-Office Department, and I was 
the money order clerk, and heOiad a conversation with me about the 
affairs in the post-office, things of which I knew nothing. Richards was 
the registry clerk, and was a quick tempered, excitable man, and he saw 
it, and he imagined I was saying something against Lowell, and he 
asked me if 1 v;as saving anything against Lowell. I said no. I for¬ 
get his words, but he threatened me in that way, but the next day he 
took back the remarks and we have been friends ever since. Mr. 
Richards, I will state, was a member of the grand jury who sat in that 
case you spoke about. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. In this case that I have before me is the testimony of your brother, 
Milton 0. Randall. That is his name, is it not?—A. That is his name. 

Q. Did he not testify that “ he (meaningyou) did not stay in the post- 
office at all, because he was forced to give in his resignation. He was 
threatened with prosecution if he did not resign ”?—A. I never heard 
of any testimony of that sort. I will state that during that trial my 
brother was very much irritated against me, and was very excitable, and 
used a great many expressions against me. 

Q. I am not talking about that. You say you were not threatened. 
On the cross-examination he was asked, “ How do you know that ? 
Answer: From him j and he said if the amount was not forthcoming 
by twelve o’clock that day he would be prosecuted ; that they would 
make no compromise with him; and after he paid it they told him to go 
now and resign.’' Is that true ?—A. I never heard him say that. 

Q. Did y^ou not tell him that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nothing of the kind ?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill (reading). “Have you heard him say that” [that is 
you]? “Yes, sir; I got it from the defendant himselt” [that is you], 
“ and it was corroborated by a great many persons in the post-office at 
the time and since.” Y’^ou say none of that is true?—A. No, sir. 

Q. None of it true?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you say under oath your resignation was not forced, but was 
voluntary ?—A. No, sir. Mr. Petherbridge and the special agent in 
his room suggested to me that the best way for me to avoid any more 
short cash was to withdraw from the service. That was the l’3d or the 
24th of January; but he said he wanted me to stay in charge of that 
money until the last of the month, and I did take his advice. I do not 
want to say any more about it, and bring in any more persons, but there 
was a large defalcation in the cashier’s department at that time of 
$18,000. That short cash of mine I cannot account for, as two days be¬ 
fore that I was over $22, and my clerk, who was there at the time, 
knoNvs it. 



1052 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you know Mrs. O. C. Eandall ?—A. That is the name of my 
wife. 

Q. She is your wife; well, then, I will not ask you anything about 
her. Do you know Mr. Megram Smedley ?—A. I know a man named 
Hiram Smedley. 

Q. O, yes, so it is “ Hiram.” I see the “ i ” is not dotted.—A. Yes, 
sir; I know him. 

Q. I will ask you if Mr. Smedley did not testify substantially as fol¬ 
lows about you : “ Last fall Mr. William Randall was arrested in regard 
to the Isabelle bond case. I went to the parish prison to see Mr. Ran - 
dall, and had him called out. I spoke to him about it, and asked him 
if he had signed the bond. Said I, ^ Billy, I am your friend’; and he 
said, • I am perfectly satisfied of that’; and I asked him if he had signed 
it; and he told me he had; and 1 said,* ‘ Billy, I will strive to get you 
out.’ He told me he had signed ; and I asked him if I would bring Mr. 
Wilde would he tell him the same thing, if that government officer asked 
him, to get him out of the difficulty.” Now is that true ?—A. No, sir ; 
I do not remember anything about that. 

Q. You do not?—A. No, sir; not about his giving that evidence. 

Q. Did not Smedley go to see you in prison ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he have that conversation with you ?—A. He did not. 

Q. About trying to get you out?—A. The only thing he did he went 
to my brother to send a bondsman to me. 

Q. I have read you substantially what Mr. Smedley testified of a con¬ 
versation he had with you wheu he went to see you at the prison. Is 
that true or false ?—A. I told him I signed the bond just as I tell you. 

Q. Was his object to get you out by making terms for you ?—A. No; 
he heard I was under arrest, and he came to see me, and then went up 
to get a bond signed for me. That is all he had to do with it. 

Q. Did j^ou make an affidavit before Mr. Sprague?—A. Yes, sir; I 
did ; the same as before the grand jury. 

Q. Smedley goes on and says, “ He made an affidavit before Mr. 
Sprague, and swore to it before Mr. Sprague, the special agent of the 
department, and he said he signed the name. Mr. Sprague told him to 
sign the name of William L. Randall as nearly as possible as he had 
signed it on the bond.’*—A. That is not true. 

Q. He says you did it as near as you could.—A. No, sir; I never told 
Smedley that; he was not present. 

Q. “ Question. How did you know of his turning in favor of the United 
States?” Against your co-securities I suppose. His answer is, “The 
government officer sent for me and asked me to have him do so. I saw 
him make the affidavit. Question. That was for you to see him to get 
him to turn ? Ansicer. Yes, sir.” Now, is any of that true ? ^'‘Answer. 
I w^as sent for by Mr. Wilde for the purpose of getting him out of ar¬ 
rest. I told him that nothing would do it except his safety as security. 
Question. That is to dismiss the case? Answer. Yes, sir; I wanted 
nothing to do with it without that. The government officer pledged 
himself to that, and afterwards tried to go back on that.” Is that true ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you made that affidavit before Sprague, did he pledge you 
that you would be safe and not prosecuted ?—A. He did not. 

Q. He did not ?—A. He did not, sir. 

Q. You did not make any affidavit at all ? I thought you said you 
did ?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. What was the inducement to make it ?—A. There was none what¬ 
ever. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. * 1053 

Q. Was not Mr. Sinedley acting as your friend in that matter?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Was he not getting you secured from prosecution ?—A. No, sir; 

1 went to the office of Mr. Wilde and 1 told him what I had done. He 
is an agent of the department; and I told him what I wanted to do to 
explain things, and he told me that Mr. Sprague was in the city, and 
he would introduce me to him. 

Q. Now, sir, I understand you to say that all of this, that the state¬ 
ment by Mr. Smedley that he was seeking to get you released from 
prosecution on the condition of your making this affidavit in relation to 
that bond, and that you made the affidavit on a pledge from the United 
States officer that you should not be prosecuted, is all false f—A. There 
was no such contract as that. 

Q. And no such pledge?—A. .No, sir. 

Q. Nothing of the kind sakl ?—A. No, sir. I did it because it was my 
duty to do it. It was a very foolish thing in me to sign that empty 
bond. It was the first time I ever did such a thing, and I wanted to 
explain it. 

Q. How much was it for?—A. There was no figure stated in it. I 
signed it in blank. 

Q. l)o you know how much it was for?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was it a hundred thousand dollars?—A. I think not. 

Q. Hid you know at the time it was a false and fraudulent bond being 
made up on the United States?—A. Well, no; I do not think that I 
did, sir. I was a l.ttle full that day when I did it, and I did not actually 
know. 

Q. Did you not know that pension agent could not give a good bond, 
and he made up that false bond in order to get the appointment ?—A. 
Well, sir ; I did not reflect on that at all. 

Q. Hid you not understand it at the time to be that way ? 

Witness (hesitating). I was told it was a temporary bond, and 
never to be used. 

Q. Didn’t you know Mr. Isabelle was unable to give a good bond ?— 
A. I understood he was awaiting the arrival of some gentleman who 
w^as absent. 

Q. Now, Mr. Kandall, I will read to you from what purports to be 
the testimony in that case in New Orleans. I do not want to mislead 
you or entrap you. This is the testimony, or purports to be the testi¬ 
mony of Miss Cecile Beauvois : 

Q. Will you please state whether Wm. L. Randalfs reputation for truth aud ve¬ 
racity is good or bad ?—A. It is bad. 

Q. Knowing him as well as you do, and knowing his reputation, would you believe 
him on oath i —A. No, I would not. 

Q. Would you believe him any otherwise?—A. No. 

Q. Is he not known to be a very notorious liar ?—A. Yes. 

Hid she give that testimony ?—A. Yes, sir; I think she gave that. 
But read on further; if you go on further- 

Q That is the whole of the examination-in-chief.—A. You will find 
on the cross-examination she is asked, “Who told you that?” and she 
states two dead men, who died .some time before. 

Q. You say she did swear that way ?—A. Yes, sir ; she is liable to 
swear any tiling. 

Q. You said a while ago that she did not.—A. Yes, sir; but I remem¬ 
bered when you called my attention to it that she did. 

Q. Well, you asked for the cross-examination. Here it is. Yon were 
there and heard it, I see, and remember that she did swear it now. 



1054 


SPOFFORO VS. KELLOGG 


Q. Who told you that they would not believe him on oath ?—A. Many persons. 

Q. Jnst tell me who they were.—A. Mr. Ham, who was in the post-office, told me SO. 

Q. Told you what ?—A. That Mr. Randall could not be believed on oath. 

Q. Where was that? [When was that, I suppose it is.]—A. In 1871 or 1872. 

The Witness. That is true; she said that, but Mr. Ham - 

Senator Hill. That is all true ? 

The Witness. The whole you have got there is true, but Mr. Ham 
could not have said that to her iu 1872, because he was dead. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Was he alive in 1871 ?—A. I think he died in 1870, and he was 
my personal friend. He was chief of the letter-carrier department in 
the post office, and I could not have held a position in the post-office 
with such a reputation as that. 

Q. You said a while ago that she did not testify that ?—A. Since you 
call my attention to it, I remember it. 

Q. Do you remember Mrs. Killian swearing the same thing?—A. No; 
I do not remember that she did. 

Q, Well, let us read from what she says.—A. She is an irritable 
woman like the other girl. 

Q. Well, this was only the 13th of April, 1878, not long ago, and you 
certainly ought to remember it. [Reads :] 

Q. Are you acquainted with the reputation of Mr. William L. Randall ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State whether it is good or bad.—A. It is bad. 

Q. From what you know of W. L. Randall and what you have heard of him, would 
you believe him under oath ?—A. No, sir. 

Now, did Mrs. Killian swear that way ?—A. I do not remember about 
her. I remember the other. 

Senator Logan. Is that a deposition ? 

Senator Hill. It purports to be one, or the copy of one. 

The Witness. Do you find anything in there, where my brother said 
anything to that effect? 

Senator Hill. I do not see anything of it from your brother. I do 
not suppose he was asked that question. I would not ask a brother 
that sort of a question, but he said you were a pretty bad sort of a fel¬ 
low.—A. He says that I did not support my family, and he swore a good 
many things that were not true in that case. 

By Senator Hill. 

Q. Didn’t he swear that you would not support your family ?—A. He 
swore a good many things; swore that I didn’t pay the rent for my 
house, when I produced receipts where I had paid the rent for two years. 

Senator Cameron. Yes ; let’s go on now and try his brother, since 
we have got through trying him. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Your brother appears from this to be a gentleman of character.— 
A. He stands well down there, but I say he did that. 

Senator Logan. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, the object of these 
subjects, is to impeach this witness’s testimony ? 

Senator Hill. Well, sir? 

Senator Logan. I do not know what the rule will be in this committee, 
but I do not think that iu any court of law, a record would be allowed 
to be made up in tiiat way. 

Senator Hill. I will state that I did not ask the question for the pur¬ 
pose of producing or introducing the record. That was not my in ten- 


SPOFFOKI) VS, KELLOGG. 


1055 


tion. I asked the witness if his testimony had been impeaehed in the 
case ot Randall vs. Randall., and he said no se.veral times, very emphat¬ 
ically. I called the attention of the witness, and he said they did not 
swear that way. 1 read from the testimony, not literally, to refresh his 
recollection, and he remembered that they did fjive it in that way. 
Now, he admits that Miss Heauvois did swear she would not believe him 
on oath. The answer is not to derive any strength from the record, 
but shows that it is his own admission which will go on the record as 
the answer of the witness himself. 

Senator Logan. 1 d») not mean that. I see that all the conversations 
here are taken down, and go into the record, 1 iiresume. 1 mean to say 
this, and it is the point of my objection, that if what these witnesses 
swore to is to go down as iiart of the question, 1 think he has a right 
to say they are not true. 

Senator Hill. That is all right, 1 have no objection to that, and he 
swears that it is not true. 

Senator Logan. 1 say that in that way you can put in the whole rec¬ 
ord of a court. 

Senator Hill. Certainly, if it is to test the witness’s consistency, ve¬ 
racity, or memory. If you ask the question and he denies it, then of 
course you cannot introduce the record to impeach him. 

Mr. Wilson. If I may be permitted, I will state that I think 1 have 
been a little remiss. 

Senator Hill. I do not think so. 

Mr. Wilson. I think I have been a little remiss in my duty at this 
{loint. I am not familiar with the rides of this investigation, or the 
facts in the case. I do not know whether the committee adheres to the 
rules of law touching the admissibility of testimony which obtain in the 
courts of the country that allow counsel to make objections to testimony 
that is offered. With all that I am not familiar; but I venture to say 
there is none of this examination touching that record that could he ad¬ 
mitted in a court. If this were a proceeding pending before a court, I 
should certainly object, at the outset, to its being heard. Now, what 
is the question asked here? It is asked of the witness, and obviously 
for the purpose of impeaching him, did somebody swear in a certain 
case that they would not believe you on oath in a court of justice ? That 
is the question. 

Senator Hill. That is the first question. 

Mr. Wilson. That is the first question, and the foundation for all 
these other questions and testimony. I take it that a court would not 
allow a question of that sort to be asked of a witness for the purpose of 
impeaching his testimony, because, if that may be done, what follows! 
Suppose he says no; then you may proceed to ask if Mrs. So-and-so was 
not examined in that case, and was not this ciuestion put and this 
answer received ; and by that means there is introduced into the record 
of this committee the statements of what transpired in another tribunal, 
and for the purpose—for it cannot subserve any other—of affecting the 
character and standing of this witness. If that is the object which is 
sought in this examination of this witness, there is a proper and legal 
way to get at it. If this man should not be believed on oath, if his rep¬ 
utation is such that he is not worthy to be believed, there are well-recog¬ 
nized lilies by which he can be impeached; that is, to call somebody 
who knows something of his character and standing in the community 
where he resides, and then inquire what their knowledge of him has 
been, and then as to whether his statements are to be believed, and 
what they will or will not do in that regard. There is an oiiportunity 


105G 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 

then to cross-examine and sift these witnesses, and ascertain if this 
opinion they give is worthy to have confidence, so far as this committee 
is concerned. I respectfully say and submit to the committee that this 
is a violation of the plainest principles of law, and if I had felt free to 
do so, I would have objected at the very moment it commenced. If I 
was trying this case before a court, I should have attempted to arrest it 
at the very outset. It is a violation of the plainest principles and rules- 
of law governing the impeachment of witnesses. It does not allow the 
witness an opportunity to be informed and meet things which he is not 
prepared to meet at the time. Now, having these views, I submit to 
the committee a motion to strike all that part of this examination from 
the record. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not know as it is necessary for me to say any¬ 
thing in ret>ly to counsefs suggestion, but it may be as well to sug¬ 
gest that this is hardly the appropriate point in the examination of the 
witness to move that the record be modified after counsel see that 
it does not suit them. There may be some objection to the mode of ex¬ 
amination, but the law in its broad principles operates to relieve all ob¬ 
jections of the kind I am about to indicate. 

You have the right, as counsel suggests, to prove by his neighbors 
what this wdtuess’ character is for truth and veracity, and by the wit¬ 
ness himself. He is a man and knows as well as anybody what his 
character is, and sometimes accidentally may stumble on the truth and 
say he would not believe himself, especially on a strong inducement 
being held out to him not to do so. 

'The witness was asked generally in the first instance, partly and pre¬ 
paratory, I suppose, “Was your character ever impeached Now, he 
is a competent witness to answer that question, if jmu are attempting to 
impeach him. Suppose the answer was, “No.” That answer is perfectly 
sufficient, and was accepted by counsel on the other side. Now, the ex¬ 
amining counsel, or member, rather, tries to test his recollection upon 
that point. If he had said that he was impeached, and that he remem¬ 
bered it, then the question would be somewhat in this form : “Did not 
A.B., or Jones, whoever it might be, publicly swear in count openly that 
your character was bad, and that he would not believe you on oath 
Now, that is a substantive fact before the committee for ft to determine 
how far that fact gives him the character of being unworthy of belief. 
Then he is asked about C. D., and whether they did not swear to the same 
thing. He answers “Yes, he did;” but read farther and see who told 
them so. And the examining counsel then gives it to him in the manner 
in which they testified it, and he admits that they did. Now, the witness 
is giving original testimony; he puts in the testimony as substantial 
and valid original evidence. 

In the second place, here was a record the honorable member of the 
committee had in his hand. He asks the witness, “Has your testimony 
ever been impeached ?” He answers, “ No.” Then to see whether the 
witness told the truth in that answer or not he goes and refreshes him 
from the testimony until the point is so plain that he sees he is about 
to be trapped and caught, and he finally admits that he was mistaken 
and that the testimony was given in tlie fuanner and to the effect that 
he had just previously denied, and says, “Yes, t was impeached.” Now, 
that seems to me to accord with all the recognized rules of law; the 
witness being on the stand we have a right to go on and prove that the 
witness is not to be believed on his own testimony. Now, as to the rule 
which I think Brother Wilson had in his mind, and probably the honor- 
ble Senator from Illinois (Mr. Logan), which is that when you ask the 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1057 

witness a question which you cannot legally ask, you are bound to take 
his answer- 

Senator VA^X’E. Collaterally. 

Mr. .AIerrick. Collaterally’, yes, sir. But this is a question going to 
a inaterial. issue in the case, tlie truth and veracity of this witness- 

Senator Logan. You mistake what was on iny mind, certainly. 

IMr. \\ ILSON. My really learned friend has confessed that the point I 
have taken was well taken. 

Now, the very proposition he starts out with shows that. He says 
what you have a right to do is to prove, having the person on the stand, 
that he is not worthy to be believed. How? By going off to something 
wholly irrelevant to this case, outside of the testimony, having no rela¬ 
tion to his testimony ? 

Mr. Merrick. Prove his general character. 

Mr. Wilson. Have you asked him anything about his general char¬ 
acter? Y^ou are bringing in what somebody else has said about his 
general character, and not asking him about it, but you have attempted 
to i)rove specific acts, or in tliis collateral way you get in something 
that somebody’ else said at another time and place. He was asked, 
“ Was your character ever impeached ?” And to make this more spe¬ 
cific, “ Was it imiieached in some litigation in New Orleans?” That is 
the question: “Was your character impeached in that case?” I say 
that is not the way to inq)each a witness, and if you say that out of his own 
mouth you can irnpeacli his character, I insist that you cannot do it in 
any other way than to ask him such questions as you would he permit¬ 
ted to ask others called on to testify about his character. You must 
ask him, if you choose to question him about it, just the same ques¬ 
tions that you would ask another witness upon the same issue. 

Mr. IMerrick. Suppose you call somebody else, would not they’ have 
to tell what they ha(l heard ? 

Mr. AVilson. Certainly. 

Senator Kellogg. And wouldn’t that somebody’ else have to be 
cross-examined and tell, probably’, who Smedley was—that he was the 
most notorious scoundrel in the ciry’ of New Orleans ? 

Mr. Wilson. Y^es, sir; y’ou do that which the counsel has stated, 
but you must put him (the witness) in the same position as that occu- 
l)ied by other witnesses examined upon the like issue. No court in 
Christendom would allow such a question to be asked, and if y’ou at¬ 
tempt to sever him from his relationship to himself—that is, to separate 
him as an imi)eaching witness from himself as the party to be im¬ 
peached so as to examine him upon that point—it must be done as 
every other person who would testify to that point. You have called 
upon him to testify to certain facts which appear to be material. 

Now, you can impeach a witness in two ways: by showing that facts 
stated are not true, or by attacking his general character too. How 1 
By asking of him if somebody else in some remote—in some other liti¬ 
gation— has sworn they would not believe him. No, sir; not by such 
means can you impeach him; by no such process; but by the same 
questions as you would ask of other witnesses. I say that this testi¬ 
mony is wholly collateral, and that you cannot im[)each a witness in 
this way. 

Senator A^ance. Isn’t it competent. Air. AA^ilson, to ask this or any 
other witness if he has not been charged with some siiecific crime 1 

Mr. Wilson. I conceded that. 

Senator Vance. Can you ask any other witness, on general character, 
that question ? 

07 S K 



1058 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Wilson. No, sir. 

Senator Vance. Then I think that concedes the whole case. 

Mr. Wilson. 1 do not think it concludes it at all. 

Senator Vance. You say you canot ask the same question of another 
witness which you can of him? ^ 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Vance. That is the v-ery point. 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, but that is not the point I make. That question 
has been asked him, and that is not the object which is sought to be ac¬ 
complished here, as the learned counsel apprehend. The object here is 
to ask him if somebody in another case did not swear they would not 
believe him on oath. I make my objection to the proving it in that re¬ 
mote way, and I submit that it cannot be done. 

The Chairman. I understand that the examination is not for the pur¬ 
pose of introducing the record. He asked the question of the witness 
if he had been impeached, and he said no. He then asked him if, in a 
particular case, he had been impeached, and he said no. Then the ques¬ 
tion was put, and his attention was directed to the testimony given, all 
of which I understand is intended to prove that the testimony of the 
witness now is not verity itself, and to attract his attention to it in or¬ 
der that he may see to his own error. 1 do not think myself that the 
record can go in. 

Mr. Wilson. The error begins with the very first question. That 
error is in asking him if he has ever been impeached. That is where 
the error was committed and the difficulty is first seen. 

Senator Hill. You say that we cannot ask that question ? 

Mr. Wilson. I say you cannot ask it. Questions are asked, and it is 
so stated, for the purpose of testing the character and impairing the 
testimony of the witnesses. The question asked is, “ Was your testi¬ 
mony ever impeached “ Was it ever impeached in a certain specific 
litigation P and he says not, and then the examination proceeds. “ Did 
not A. B. and C. D. swear that you were a person of bad character, and 
not to be believed on oath,” and that is where the vice of the whole 
business lies, in lugging into this testimony to impair this witness’s tes- 
character and testimony, what others testified in another court touch¬ 
ing his character for truth and veracity. I submit that such testimony 
should be stricken. 

Senator Hill. As I asked these questions, I think it proper for me 
to say that I am unable to see how testimony could be more legitimate 
than this. It gives the witness every advantage. The first question 
was this; “ Has your testimony ever been impeached in a court of jus¬ 
tice?” It is a fact if his testimony has been impeached, but that fact 
that it has been impeached cannot be introduced here in this way. 

Senator Logan. When I made the suggestion that I did at the time, 
I did not believe at that time that it was proper testimony; but the 
point I would have suggested was this—that you did not ask him if he 
was a witness in that case, and point out the time and place, or whether 
he was a witness at that time, and in a place or position to be impeached. 

Senator Vance. He was a party to the suit. 

Senator Logan. It makes no difference. If his attitude in the case 
was not such as to make it necessary to impeach him, this testimony is 
certainly not competent. He may understand that impeachment to be 
that his oath was invalidated before the court so that he could not be 
believed at all. You produce a record here of what other witnesses have 
testified on that subject. 

Senator Hill. Senator, I hope you will understand my position. My 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1059 


first questiou to the witness was a very general one : Has your char¬ 
acter ever been impeached in a court of justice?” The witness answers, 

“ No, it never has been.” It was a very general question, and I trusted 
to the witness to make it more specific. If objection had been made to 
it that it was too general in its character, I would have listened to the 
objection. I asked, “ Were you a party to the suit of Eandall against 
llandall, in Louisiana?” He says, “ I was.” I then asked him, “ Was 
not your character as a man of truth impeached in that case?” He 
asked “ What do you mean by that ? ” The witness asked that ques¬ 
tion, and I said to him, “your character for truth and veracity.” 

Senator IIoAR. That does not answer the word “ impeach.” 

Senator Hill. I was going on to say that the question was asked 
w’hether his character was impeached in the case, and he answered very 
emphatically that it was not. I then asked him, and called the names 
of two witnesses. Miss Beauvois and Mrs. Killian, whether he knew 
them. He answered yes. I asked him if he was present and heard 
that testimony. He said he was. Therefore whatever was said to him 
was said in his presence. I asked, “Did they not testify that they 
would not believe you under oath ? ” That is certainly a fact if it oc¬ 
curred. It took place in his presence and hearing. This is a fact that 
the witness said took place in his presence and hearing. Now, if the 
witness had said that he was not present and did not know what had oc¬ 
curred on that trial, I do not think you could admit the record. Now, 
he admitted that they did swear to these facts. Now you can impeacl 
either his character or his memory by asking him what occurred at tha‘ 
trial. I asked him if certain witnesses on that trial, dropping the word 
“ impeach,” did not swear they would not believe him on oath. He de¬ 
nied very emphatically that they did and now he admits it, and I think 
that fact makes the testimony admissible. 

Senator Hoar. You think it proper for the witness to state what 
others testified ? 

Senator Hill. I am going on with my statement. I am testing the 
witness, and it was admissible for two purposes, yes—for three. It is 
admissible to test his memory, and in the second ])lace to show the 
character of some of the witnesses, but certainly in the third place for 
laying the foundation for contradicting the witness. There is no law¬ 
yer here or elsewhere who will deny that when it is a material fact in the 
issue that the witness can testify to it. 

Senator Logan. It cannot be a material fact in this case whether they 
swore that there or not. 

Senator Hill. Well, I won’t discuss that now. A p.yty can show a 
re ord for the purpose of contradicting the witness; for instance, that he 
swore certain things did not occur which did occur while he was pres¬ 
ent, and which in the very nature of themselves the jury would say he 
should remember. That may be shown, and hence it is admissible to 
prove it here and discredit him. It was proven in parol, and therefore 
you can prove it b^’ any other person who heard it. Suppose the wit¬ 
ness had gone out of the room with that unqualified statement that his 
testimony was not impeached standing on the record; that witnesses 
did not sVear that they would not believe him on his oath, and some 
person outside had said to him, “ Mr. Randall, you have made a mistake 
in your testimony; a witness did swear, as you should remember, he 
would not believe you under oath”; why, he would have the right him¬ 
self to come back and say that he has been refreshed in his recollection, 
and he would be permitted to correct his testimony. Hence, it is not 
for the purpose of putting the record in that I asked the questions that 


1060 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


are objected to. I might have read the record outside had I felt so dis¬ 
posed aud come iu here and asked him the questions from memory, and 
asked of him what occurred on that trial the same as I would an^^ other 
witness. 

‘‘Now, Mr. Randall,” I said, “ I do not want to take any advantage of 
you, and I will read what they (the witnesses) say,” and when it was 
read to him he admitted that that testimony was given. Now, do you 
say that if the witness admits himself that the testimony was given— 
that the fact did occur—it is not admissible testimony, when it occurred 
iu his presence ? But now the point is made that it does not appear 
that the man was a witness in the case at all. That would be a good 
objection down there, but I must presume that as the court admitted it 
it was admissible testimony. 

Senator Logan. I do not think a presumption will lie against a man 
who is nil the stand. 

Senator Hill. I think it is admissible testimony under the circum¬ 
stances. 

Senator Logan. I do not see how you can draw into this case a for¬ 
eign issue in a foreign suit that has no relation to this case, and make 
it a part of this record. That I cannot understand. If the witness is to 
be impeached here, that is something with which I have nothing to do ; 
but whether they swore in that suit they would not believe him on oath 
cannot cut any figure in this case at all, and cannot possibly be mate¬ 
rial. What those witnesses swore on another occasion, I do not see 
how it can be made or can become material here. If you ask the wit¬ 
ness if he was sworn iu a certain case, and if he stated certain things 
which were not true and he denies it, then you can show that he is not 
worthy of belief aud that the fact was different. But how the testi¬ 
mony of other witnesses upon that occasion can be material here I can¬ 
not see. 

The Chairman. I will state to Mr. Wilson that where parties or their 
counsel were examining witnesses the committee would not interfere un¬ 
less an objection was interposed. Judge Shellabarger was present when 
that was announced. Having admitted counsel learned in the law to 
conduct the case, as one member of the committee I do not feel like in¬ 
terposing unless counsel object to the testimony. 

Senator Hill. Counsel make the objection in this instance. 

Tlie Chairman It is not, as I understand it, an objection, but a mo¬ 
tion to correct the record. 

Senator Hill. This question was up several times in New Orleans, 
and if you will examine the printed record you will find it madein there 
several times by the other side. Now, we had one man, Garrett, on the 
stand, aud we did hold that if they wanted to prove by him that he was 
guilty of horse-stealing, they could do so by producing the record from 
the State of Missouri or elsewhere; but we also held that the committee, 
or the chairman, or counsel could ask him if he was charged with it and 
if he was arrested for it, and the witness said the charge was made and 
he was arrested. 

Senator Vance. And put in jail. 

Senator Hill. Aud put in jail for it; and he went on to give the fncts 
about it. But we held, all three of us, I believe, that while he could be 
asked those questions, if you desired to prove his conviction for it then 
you must produce the record of the conviction. 

Senator Vance. That was the way of it. 

Senator Hill. Senator Cameron asked him if he was not arrested at 
Shreveport- 


SFOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1061 


Senator Cameron. No •, be volunteered that statement. 

Senator Hill. And about bis being arrested at Jackson as a spj’ or 
something of tbe sort. 

Senator Logan. Now, if you ask bim if be was arrested for horse¬ 
stealing be can say whether he was or not, but you cannot prove bis 
conviction except by tbe record outside of bis own admission. 

Mr. Wilson. I simply want to say that I have not been familiar with 
this case at all or with tbe mode of procedure before tbe committee, or 
what tbe privileges of counsel were. Tbe acting chairman of tbe com¬ 
mittee (Senator Hill) was asking these questions, and I felt a good deal 
of delicacy about interposing an objection to questions which were 
seemingly being put by tbe court until I made an inquiry and found 
that it was permissible for counsel to make an objection. T then inter¬ 
posed tbe only one I could, under tbe circumstances, which was a motion 
to strike out tbe testimony. 

Senator Kellogg. I want to say in reference to tbe testimony of 
Barney Williams in New Orleans that I think the distinction made there 
was this : we asked bim if be bad ever been impeached- 

Senator Vance. All of which Barney duly and fully denied. 

Senator Kellogg. All of which be denied; and we then went on to 
show by recorders and ex-recorders, and others, that be bad been im¬ 
peached over and over; but if we bad brought in a record and asked 
him this question, “ if So-and-so bad ever sworn be wouldn’t believe 
bim on oath, ” it would have been this case precisely. 

Senator Hill. The admission of tbe first question carried tbe others 
with it. He was asked if they did swear that they would not believe 
bim and be could have answered “yes” or “ no.” 

Senator Kellogg. I am assuming now that he did- 

Senator Hill. Tbe witness is tbe best man to answer to tbe fact, as it 
gives bim an opportunity to explain it. 

Senator Logan. Tbe objection I make is against tbe record in this 
case below being incorporated into this record here. 

Senator Hill. It will not be incorporated. Senator. 

Senator Logan. It will go into tbe record, for it has all been taken 
down. 

Senator Vance. It is contained in tbe questions. 

Senator Logan.* I want to be understood. I say you have no right to 
put the evidence into a question that was sworn to by other witnesses 
at another time and place. 

Senator Hill. I i)ut that in, not as a record, but as a statement ot 
what was alleged to have occurred to refresh bis mind as to tbe facts, 
and I think it did that. Tbe question is whether tbe motion of Mr. 
Wilson shall be granted. 

Senator Hoar. I cannot see, according to all tbe principles of my 
legal training, bow any testimony could be more illegal than this. Tbe 
question, as I understand it, is whether somebody else somewhere else 
did not swear be would not believe bim (tbe witness on tbe stand) on 
oath. It is wholly immaterial to this issue, and being immaterial, the 
person asking tbe question is bound by bis answer. He cannot put in 
anything more to explain tbe answer. 

Senator Vance. That is an answer to tbe whole objection. 

Senator Hoar. I will go on and will state my position. Mr. Wilson 
was in here and allowed that examination to go on without objection, 
and that while tbe witness was answering “ no” to tbe questions. That 
you can now turn around and say it shall be stricken, no matter bow it 
got in, I do not believe; I say I think you cannot strike it out when it 


1062 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


turns out differently from what you expected. I think, however, the 
testimony should be stricken, if at all, commencing at the point where 
Senator Logan put in his objection. 

Senator Hill. There has been none, I think, since that. 

Senator Logan. I beg your pardon, but yes, there has been. 

Senator Hoar. What I understood is that this is not a record, but it 
is what some lawyer said to the court was stated by the witnesses, and 
upon that counsel framed the questions ? 

Mr. Merrick. The questions were not framed by counsel, but were 
framed from the record. 

Senator Logan. It is something made up from the record, I assume 5 
I do not know really what it is. 

Senator Cameron. Is that authenticated so as to be admissible as a 
record ? 

Mr. Merrick. No, sir; I think it is not. 

Senator Hoar. I shall vote to strike out the testimony from the point 
of Senator Logan’s objection. 

Senator Logan. I will state that when the chairman picked up this 
record and began to refresh the recollection of the witness from it, then 
it was I objected, or rather made a suggestion about it. 

Senator Hill. I do not think any testimony was taken after the ob¬ 
jection wms heard. 

Senator Logan. I did not make any objection. I was not counsel to 
rise and make an objection. 

Senator Hill. I do not think there was any other testimony taken 
after that. 

Senator Logan. O, yes ; it is all in here. 

Senator Hill. I did not intend to press it after the objection was 
made. 

Senator Hoar. As Senator Hill says he would not have pressed the 
examination after the objection was made, I therefore move to strike 
out all testimony that was given after the interposition of Senator Lo¬ 
gan’s suggestion. 

Senator Logan. That would be the point where the record was taken 
up by the chairman. 

Senator Yance. I think we will have to have a survey made now to 
find the corner-stone of this building. 

Senator^HoAR. The record will show the point where the striking out 
should begin. 

Senator Yance. I think myself that every word of it is legal testi¬ 
mony. 

Senator Hill. I do. 

Senator Logan. I must differ from you ; I do not. 

Senator Hill. Let us take a vote on it. 

Senator Cameron. I suggest to the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Hoar] to withdraw his amendment, and let the committee vote on the 
original motion, and then if that be voted down he can move his amend¬ 
ment afterwards. 

The question was put by the chairman upon the motion made by Mrs. 
Wilson, to strike out from the record the testimony indicated, which 
motion was negatived. 

Senator Logan. I make the motion now to strike out from the record 
all testimony given from the point where the chairman read from the 
evidence taken in the .court in Louisiana. He read from this paper [in¬ 
dicating the alleged Louisiana record.] I do not know what it is, but 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1063 

it was the evidence of the witnesses there against this man. That, I 
move, shall not go into the record. 

Senator Hill. I read the testimony of Miss Beauveis and that of Mrs. 
Killian. I will put the motion, though I think it is an injustice to the 
witness, for that is where he corrected his recollection. 

The Chairman. I think, myself, that we should wait before disposing 
of this motion until we have the testimony before us, and see what it is 
that is to be striken out. 

Senator Logan. When I was on this committee before, I remember 
that we always tried to confine ourselves to the rules of evidence in in¬ 
vestigations of this character, and I do not think that this testimony 
would come within that purview. I do not know whether the rules of 
evidence and procedure of the committee are different now from what 
they were then, and I am satisfied that this is not proper evidence. 

Senator Hill, acting chairman. Is it the pleasure of the cominitte to 
consider this motion made and action on it reserved ? That is the course 
I understand Senator Saulsbury to suggest. 

It was agreed that the notion should be considered as made and ac¬ 
tion ui)ou the same reserved. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. How long, Mr. Randall, have you been living in Washington 
City f—A. Since, I think, the 21st of July, 1878. 

Q. The 21st of July, 1878?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q, What has your employment been here?—A. Well, I have beeu 
living quietly, without working, until about the first of last November. 

Q. Y^ou have beeu without work since the first of last November ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you doing anything at all from Julj', 1878, to November, 
1879 ?—A. Very little, if anything. 

Q. Did you make any money at all ?—A. I did, by writing occasion¬ 
ally. 

Q. Just taking jobs ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where are you employed now ?—A. In the Treasury Department. 

Q. When did you go in there ?—A. The 1st of November. 

Q. What is your salary?—A. Niue hundred dollars per annum. 

Q. Who recommended you to be employed in the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment? 

Senator Cameron. One moment. Was that recommendation in writ¬ 
ing or not ? 

A. I made application- 

Q. What is the fact?—A. Yes, sir; it was in writing. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I will change the question, then. Who helped you to get your 
place?—A. Well, about the latter part of July I made as many as five 
applications- 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg help you ?—A. He was one of them. 

Q. He recommended you, did he ?—He recommended me last July. 

Q. He helped you to get the appointment in the Treasury?—A. Yes, 
sir ; 1 suppose he did. 

Q. And you are there now ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you at Governor Kellogg’s room very frequently in June? 
As you did not have much to do, were you there very frequently 1 —A. 
I suppose, on two or three evenings in the week I would droj) in for a 
moment. 



1064 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you there before the 4th of June, the time of the arrival 
of the witnesses ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see Sweazie ? Do you know him ?—A. Yes, sir ; I know 
him. 

Q. George Washington Andrew Jackson Sweazie, I think, he called 
himself A. I saw him in the rotunda. I do not think I saw him up¬ 
stairs. 

Q. Did you not see him in Governor Kellogg’s room at all ?—A. I 
do not think I did. 

Q. After the witnesses arrived, did you see Jim Lewis?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In Kellogg’s room ?—A. Once, sir. 

Q. Did you see any of the witnesses there ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. You did not see any of them at all ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Were you helping Governor Kellogg then?—A. Not particu¬ 
larly. 

Q. Were you not helping him to induce the witnesses to change their 
testimony in New Orleans ?—A. I never spoke to them at all about it. 

Q. You never spoke to them on the subject ?—A. No, sir. I went to 
the depot to meet Tom Murray, as I have told yon. 

Q. Did you see Barney Williams ?—A. I saw Barney Williams the 
day the witness arrived. He came up to me and asked me if I was a 
Louisianian. I did not know him before that. 

Q. Did you see him at the depot that night ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see him that night at all?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see him with Governor Kellogg ?—A. Once only. 

Q. Where at ?—A. In Governor Kellogg’s room ; it was the day be¬ 
fore the witnesses arrived. 

Q. The day before?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you not see him the day before that ?—A. No, sir. He was 
up there that day, and he went down first. I came down, and he came 
up to me and asked me my name. He told me his name and said he 
came here on some pension business and seemed to be surprised that 
I did not know him in New Orleans. He said he had been upstairs to 
see Governor Kellogg to help him, and pulled out some papers and said 
they were his pension papers. I had never seen him before. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did I indorse you, with others, for your appointment?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Was I in the city when you were appointed ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How long before you were appoiuted did I indorse you?—A. 
About three months before I was appoiuted, I received the notification 
from the department at my residence to report for duty, as they needed 
assistance. 

Q. How long had you been trying for an appointment?—A. Avery 
long time before thatj when I put in an application, I asked a friend to 
go to the department and get them to consider it. 

Q. Do you know of Barney Williams having a letter to me from New 
Orleans to go with him and see the Commissioner of Pensions ?—A. He 
said that he came to see you to get you to help him. 

Q. When was it that you saw him ?—A. It was the day previous to 
the coming of the witnesses—the day before the 4th of June. 

Q. Did he say he came to see me about his pension ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
he went out first, and then I did, and he came up and asked me my 
name and if I was from Louisiana. 

Q. Senator Hill brought out a statement from you as to your going 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1065 

s 

to the depot, and you stated that you went to see Tom Murray !—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And if you had any conversation with him ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State any conversation you had with Tom Murray. 

Senator Uill. Mr. Merrick desires to make an objection, and he re¬ 
quested me to do it; but I prefer that he should. 

Mr. Merrick. I requested Senator Hill to make the objection because 
1 was sitting just at his side. Murray is not here, ^Ir. Chairman, and 
in respect to possible limitations under which I may be placed as to the 
number of witnesses I will be allowed to summon, I may not want to 
re-examine any of those who have been previously sworn in the case, 
especially one whom I have so fully examined as Murray. Now, as 
Murray was not questioned here about this conversation, I must object 
to it being given in by this witnesss. 

Senator Kellogg. I propose to prove by this witness that Tom 
Murray said- 

Mr. Merrick. I object to Senator Kellogg stating anything of what 
he proposes to prove. 

Senator Kellogg. I only wanted to see whether the strict rule of law 
was to be drawn upon us in this instance. It will be only another indi¬ 
cation all through the record of the manner in which this investigation 
has been conducted. 

Mr. Merrick. I object. I objected to the conversation being testi¬ 
fied to, and he now rises to say what he proi)Oses to prove, and I object 
to that. I believe I am in order, and if 1 am not, I will submit quietly 
and passively. 

Senator Cameron. Senator Hill asked the witness if he tried to get 
any of these witnesses in town to go back on their affidavits. Now, 
Murray was one of those witnesses, and he did not go back on his affi¬ 
davit, and 1 submit jthat that question was wide enough to admit the 
statement that Senator Kellogg tries to bring out. 

Senator Hill. I did not ask the witness anything about the conver¬ 
sation, or about the nature of what he said, as I knew it was illegal. 
He said that he wanted to find out the true inwardness of this move¬ 
ment; but what that true inwardness was, or what the conversation 
was about it, 1 did not ask. 

Senator Hoar. Let us first settle the objection as to whether Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg can properly state what he expects to prove by this wit¬ 
ness. 

Mr. Merrick. I was about making a statement when I was inter¬ 
rupted by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Cameron]. 

Senator Cameron. 1 thought you had finished. 

Mr. Merrick. No, sir; I had not. 1 think the Senator from Mas¬ 
sachusetts [Mr. Hoar] will remember the rule of law and recognize its 
force. When the testimony goes to a specific statement—goes to 
the foundation for introducing any statement at all, and it does not 
depend upon the character of the statement, tlien the statement 
cannot be produced to the court. It is an adroit ])laii with some 
persons and in some tribunals, but in high tribunals jlike this com¬ 
mittee, but in others that go to make up our judicial and political 
system, to offer extravagant statements, knowing that they cannot 
be admitted, and hence the rule has been established with unvary¬ 
ing certaintv. The statement is objected to, not on account of its 
character, not because it is the statement of a party, Lut of a witness 
who has already been upon the stand, and who has not been interro¬ 
gated in reference to the subject-matter of the statement. What good 



1066 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


can be derived to the committee, or what enlightenment thrown upon 
the principle of law, by making the proposed statement to the commit¬ 
tee ? Have you not all that the law demands or reason asks for when 
you know the witness is about to be called to detail a conversation had 
with a witness who has been discharged from before this committee, and 
is now two thousand miles away, and in reference to which the dis* 
charged witness was not interrogated ? 

Senator Hoar. 1 understand that this question has been put to this 
witness by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Hill] to show that he has 
been busy in Governor Kellogg’s interest. “ Did you not go to meet these 
witnesses'? Did you not talk to Murray?” and he says he did, and I 
think it is competent for him to show that his talk was a very casual 
one now, without reference to Senator Kellogg’s interest in this case. 
I think it would be competent for him to show, if it were a hict, that Mur¬ 
ray said simply that this case was coming on to-morrow. I think it is 
competent for him just to go over the conversation—not to prove the 
facts that may appear in the conversation, but to show the nature of it. 
But if the witness Murray said something that was material, you can¬ 
not put it in without Murray was interrogated upon it, though there is 
a tribunal in Massachusetts where it would be admitted. 

Mr. Merrick. Is there such a tribunal there ? 

Senator Hoar. Yes, sir. 1 think myself that Senator Kellogg may 
state what it is he expects to prove concerning that conversation. 

Senator Hill. I did not ask this witness if he talked to Murray about 
going back on his affidavit, for Murray did not go back. The witness 
said he went there to see this man Murray. I asked him why he wanted 
to see him j and he said he wanted to understand the true inwardness of 
this case, and he knew Murray would tell him. Then I thought I might 
ask him what Murray said, but I knew it would be illegal, and I did not 
do it. If what Murray said is to be introduced to impeach Murray, 
then the familiar rule must be followed, to ask Murray first as to the 
time and place of this conversation, and whether or not he said what it 
is expected this witness will say he said ; and nobody can be bound by 
what Murray said at the time, because he was not under oath. If you 
will examine the record, you will find that I did not ask him a word as 
to what Murray said to him. Now Senator Kellogg proposes to state 
what he expects the man to prove Murray stated. If his statements 
are not evidence at all, it is unnecessary for Governor Kellogg to state 
what they are. The same ruling was made in New Orleans in other 
cases we had there. Senator Kellogg undertook to state what he ex¬ 
pected to prove, and we would not let him; but if anything that Murray 
said was legal testimony, you may state that, I think. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, you remember that Barney Will¬ 
iams was asked what the witness J. J. Johnson said to him in the ro¬ 
tunda of the hotel, and again to tell what Sweazie said to him on the 
street. Now, if I want to state that I expect to prove that Murray said 
he came here to prove there was no quorum in the legislature, and asked 
this gentleman, who was minute clerk, to go in with him- 

Senator Hill. I object, Mr. Chairman, to this indirect way of doing 
what the committee has decided should not be done. He is trying to 
state now, in the form of an argument, the very thing which we have 
been discussing. If such a question was asked of Williams in New Or¬ 
leans, it was because the foundation for it was previously laid. I never 
held there nor elsewhere that the statements of unsworn witnesses 
should go on the record. We ruled out all such things. 

Senator Cameron. I think it won’t do to be bound altogether by what 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1067 

we decided iu New Orleans. I think some of the lawyers of the com¬ 
mittee would laugh at us if we were to propose that. 

The Chairman. Shall he ask the question ? 

Senator Logan. No, Mr. Chairman, it is not that. It is, shall he state 
to the committee what he proposes to prove by this witness iu reference 
to the statements made to him by Murray ? 

The question being put iu this form to the committee, it was deter¬ 
mined in the negative. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Mr. Bandall, who are these women whose testimony has been re¬ 
ferred to by Senator Hill; what relations do they bear, if any, to either 
of the parties ?—A. They are sisters of my wife. 

Q. What was the action—an action for divorce?—A. The action was 
for a separation and divorce. 

Q. You stated, I believe, that you were acquainted with Mr. Cav¬ 
an ac ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been acquainted with him ?—A. Since the j’ear 
185G. 

Q. Where did you make his acquaintance?—A. In Nicaragua. 

Q. When did you first meet that gentleman iu New Orleans ?—A. I 
think it w^as in IS— , after we returned from that expedition ; I met him, 
I think, iu 1858. 

Q. If you desire to make any explanation iu regard to either of those 
suits with which your name is connected, you. may give such explana¬ 
tion.—A. Which suits do you refer to ? 

Q. The suits for divorce, and also the prosecution growing out of that 
pension bond.—A. The suit was instituted against me on the 11th of 
February, 1878, and the evidence was closed the 27th of June, 1878, 
and the judge of the court rendered his decision on the 13th of June, 
1879, refusing divorce, and granting the separation, as I understood, 
upon the ground of incompatibility of temperament. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. What is that ?—A. On the grounds of incompatibility of tempera¬ 
ment. I have not received any legal notice of it, but got it from my 
correspondents. 

Mr. Merrick. If the witness does not know it to be a fact, I move to 
strike the answer out of the record. It proposes to introduce the con¬ 
tents of a decree, and it is hearsay. 

The Chairman. There is a great deal in here on both sides that is 
hearsay. 

Senator Cameron. I am willing, and will agree to strike out all that 
is iu the record that is hearsay. 

Mr. Merrick. I think he states, or attempts to state, the contents of 
a decree, but I withdraw the objection, and will try and get the decree 
myself. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. Under what circumstances did you sign the bond which has been 
referred to ?—A. I was in liquor. 

Q. State whether or not the bond was filled up or iu blank at that 
time?—A. It was iu blank. 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. You were interrogated by Senator Hill in regard to what a Mr. 
Smedley-^if that is his name—said. Now, if Mr. Smedley made any 
promises iu regard to the matter of that prosecution, had you any 


1068 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


knowledge of it ? If he made any promises in regard to that prosecu¬ 
tion, or dismissal of it, on in reference to a failure to prosecute you, did 
you know” it ?—A. No, sir ; I never did. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Wasn’t that decree of separation granted on the ground of cruelty 
to your wife ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are positive of that?—A. I am. 

Q. There was no other ground, then, than simple incompatibility of 
temperament?—A. The remark that I understood the judge to make 
was, that he granted the separation simply because if the two parties 
could not live together they ought to be separated. 

Q. Have you ever got a copy of that decree ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you ever paid anything toward the support of your family 
since that decree?—A. I have letters in my pocket from my children. 
I correspond with them regularly, and send them money. 

On motion, the committee adjourned to 10 o’clock a. m., Tuesday, 
January 13,1880. 


Washington, Tuesday^ Jamiary 13, 1880—10 a. m. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

Present, a quorum of the members, and the parties by themselves 
and by counsel. 

TESTIMONY OF J. B. PKIOE.. 

J. B. Price, a witness called in behalf of the sitting member, sworn 
and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. What is your place of residence?—Answer. Willard’s 
Hotel. 

Q. How long have you resided there?—A. Four years. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. lam night detective of the house. 

Q. How long have you been with the present proprietors ?—A. Ever 
since they first taken the lease. 

Q. Were you there in the months of May and June last?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. State what are your duties there.—A. At that time I went on 
duty at 10 o’clock. I had charge of all the floors; to go over all of them 
every half hour to see that all was right; that the lights were lowered ; 
and that parties were not there who had no business there, and to keep 
things right generally. 

Q. What was the practice of the hotel in regard to closing the F 
street entrance in June last?—A. About the Jst or 2d of June last it 
was closed, and the key brought to the office. 

Q. What, was it closed entirely ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. During the months of May and June?—A. I think about the 1st 
of June. 

Q. Was it open after 12 o’clock at any time ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What was done with the key ?—A. It was brought to the office. 

Q. How was it as to the outer entrance on Fourteenth street ?—A. 
Which do you mean, the one nearest to the stairway that goes up to 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1069 


tliej)arlor? About the 1st of June that door was closed between 9 
and 10 at night; there was not much doing, and the boy was reliev’ed 
at 9 and 10; he got us up about 9, and then went off. 

Q. Your duties were to go every half hour over the hotel, and see 
that everything was examined and all right?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A witness in this case has stated that he, on the night of the 4th 
of June last, about midnight, took live colored men down F street and 
up the back way in Willard’s Ilotel to my room, and that they remained 
there drinking and smoking and conversing until daylight, or between 
daylight and sunrise. Now, 1 ask you to say to the committee if such 
a thing was possible without your knowing it?—A. They might come 
in the front way without my knowing it, but they could not have been 
in the house after midnight in the room without my knowing it. Any 
parties that have persons in their rooms I know it, and generally report 
it to^ie office. 

Q. Could one white man and five colored men have come into the 
hotel after 12 o’clock the back way ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Gould they have come in at the Fourteeuth street entrance ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Could they hav’e come in the front entrance without your seeing 
them?—A. Yes, sir; they might have come in the front without my 
seeing them. 

Q. Would the clerk have seen them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Could they have come in the front w'ay and stayed all night in my 
room, and left without your discovering it?—A. Being up all night! 
No, sir. 

Q. Were any such things done?—A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. If there had been you would have heard of it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is there any other back way than that I have mentioned ?—A. 
There is one particular stairway at F street, but I never saw it open. 

Q. You mean by “open,” unlocked?—A. It can be unlocked, but I 
never saw it, sir. 

By Mr. Suellaearger : 

Q. Is it kept unlocked, or is it habitually locked ?—A. It is habitually 
locked. Only once or twice this past summer it was opened by the 
housekeeper. 

Q. What w’ere your hours of duty ?—A. I went on in the evening, 
and stayed until six in the morning. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Merrick). Have you any questions to ask 
witness ? 

Mr. Merrick. No, sir. 


1070 


SPPOFFOD VS. KELLOGG. 


TESTIMONY OF EDWARD FLYNN. 

Edward Flynn, a wituess called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Flynn ?—A. No. 75 Felicity street^ 
New Orleans. 

Q. What is your occupation !—A. Telegraph operator. 

Q. Where?—A. In New Orleans. 

Q. Are you a private telegraph operator or a public?—A. I am em¬ 
ployed by "the city authorities in the fire-alarm and police telegraph de¬ 
partment. 

Q. In the city hall ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. By the present city administration there ?—A. Yes, sir. ^ 

Q. Were you employed in January, 1877 ?—A. I was employed by the 
board of metropolitan police commissioners at the 7th precinct station in 
New Orleans. 

Q. How far is that from the State-house?—A. From the State-house? 
About two miles and a half or thereabouts. 

Q. Were you in the State-house—or I will state it differently. A wit¬ 
ness by the name of Baugnon testified that in the month of January, 
1877, and while the legislature was in session, I had a transaction with 
Senator Twitchell. Do you know Senator Twitchell ?—A. Yes, sirj I 
know him. 

Q. He stated that a transaction occurred in the telegraph operator’s 
room, near the executive office, in the State-house, and that you were 
present ?—A. What time is that said to have occurred ? 

Q. January, 1877.—A. It could not have been me j I was not there ; 

I was relieved from duty there on the 26th of December, 1876, and I 
had not been there subsequently until Governor Nicholls was inaugu¬ 
rated and took control of the State-house. 

Q. How large a room is that operator’s room ?—A. It is a narrow 
one, more of a passage-way, 7 or 8 feet wide by 12 or 13 long. 

Q. How large do you say it is ?—A. About S by 12,1 should judge. 

Q. Is it the connecting room between the speaker’s room and my 
office?—A. It divides the speaker’s room from your ante chamber. 

Q. Are there two doors to it?—A. There is a door leading from one 
to the other. 

Q. Where was your instrument?—A. It was at one end. 

Q. Then it was a sort of a hall room ?—A. I believe it was partitioned 
off for an operator’s room when they were fixing up the hotel for a State- 
house. 

Q. Give the dimensions of the room.—A. The dimensions of this 
room I occupied were about 8 by 12 feet. I could give a rough sketch 
of it on paper. 

Q. Did you ever see any money transaction occur there between Sen¬ 
ator Twitchell and myself at any time ?—A. I never have. 

Q. How long were you operator at the State-house ?—A. From Octo¬ 
ber, 1873, to December, 1876. 

Q. Did you transmit all the executive messages?—A. I presume I 
did, when I was there. 

Q. Did you ever transmit any private messages from me to the re¬ 
turning board or to the supervisors, or any person connected with the 
election of 1876, about which I enjoined secresy?—A. I do not know,, 
because I was not in communication with the country supervisors. ^ 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 1071 

Q. I speak of the city.—A. I cannot call to- mind anything of the 
kind. 

Q. Did I ever, in any manner, enjoin on you secresy with regard to 
anything passing through your office concerning the election of 1876 ? 
AVhat I did, did I not do it openly?—A. There was very little done. 

Q. Did 1 ever give you instructions witbregard to the supervisors, or 
orders to send to the supervisors with regard to the election of 1876!— 
A. Not that I remember. 

Q. You were kept there as an expert, were not you!—A. As an 
operator. 

Q. On the ground that you were an expert ?—A. I snp])ose so. 

Q. Did you agree with the Republican party politically, or were you 
a Conservative 1 —A. 1 did not agree with them j thej- did not with me, 
rather. No, sir; I vote the Democratic ticket. 

Q. You were my operator there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And kept there on the ground that you were an expert ?—A. I 
was detailed by the board of metrop||fitau police to do duty there. You 
were not in the city at the time. 

Q. Coming back and finding you there, state what occurred. State 
that to the committee, and I believe that is all. Did I retain you ?—A. 
You did. You came in from the north and entered my office, and said, 
“ Hello; where is §tockhead, the operator?” who was there before me; 
and I said he was on leave of absence, and I told you.my name- 

Mr. Merrick. Wait, wait. 1 object to the statement of this conver¬ 
sation ; I do not see the relevancy of it, and the objection is made only 
to save time. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. I will ask you only one more question. I have not the notes here 
from the printing office, but I will state it as best I can. This witness 
stated that a man named Harrison was also present during the transac¬ 
tion ; do you know a man of that name ?—A. No, sir; T do not remem¬ 
ber any man of that name, except that I know Benjamin Harrison, but 
1 do not think he is the party. 

Q. Who is that ?—A. Ben. Harrison ; but, as I say, I don’t think it 
was him that was referred to. ' 

Q. This man was described as a long-whiskered man. Is Ben. Har¬ 
rison a long-whiskered man ?—A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Mr. Flynn, were you not detailed as telegraph operator at the 
State-house as a member of the metropolitan police force ?—A. I was 
detailed by the board of metropolitan police. 

Q. Well, as a member of that force ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have been questioned concerning your politics. Do not you 
know you were generally regarded as a Republican?—A. Yes, sir; 
I suppose so, by those who did not know me, but not by any of those 
who knew me. 

Q. Do not you know you could not have been on the metropolitan 
police force if 3 ’ou had not been so regarded ?—A. I do not know, sir, 
about that. 

Q. Do you know the day you were relieved from duty at the State- 
house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it not possible you might have visited there, and taken the place 
of the operator there, for a while subsequently ?—A. No, sir; I did not. 
I know I did not go into the building again until after Nicholls returned 
to the State-house. 


1072 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


Q. How long was that afterwards 1 —A. I think it was the day the 
procession went with him to inaugurate him. 

Q. That was in April ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. About the 26th ?—A. I cannot remember the date. 

Q. How long have you been a member of the metropolitan police 
force !—A. From the mouth ef May, 1873, I think, until the 8th or 9th 
of January, 1877, the day that the police stations were captured by the 
Nicholls police. 

Q. From what year was that V—A. May, 1873. 

Q. What had been your occupation previously to that!—A. Telegraph 
operator. 

Q. How long had you been on and where !—A. I was for six years in 
the city hall as assistant superintendent of the fire alarm and police tele¬ 
graph. I was elected there three times. 

Q. Under what administrations!—A. Under different administra¬ 
tions; under Democratic and Republican administrations alternately. 
I was elected at different times by (^e Democrats and the Republicans. 

Q. And you were not in the State-house at all after the 26th of De¬ 
cember?—A. No, sir; not until the Packard legislature left alto¬ 
gether. 

Q. Now, Mr. Flynn, give, if you can, some statement regarding the 
condition of affairs in the State-house when you left it.—A. They were 
pretty badly mixedaip ; preparing for a siege and barricading and fixing 
for a fight. 

Q. In other words, the State-house was converted into a fortress !— 
A. Yes, sir; it looked like it. , 

Q. Were the public allowed access to it!—A. Not generally. 

Q. Nobody who was not identified with the Republican party could 
get in, could they!—A. Well, I think parties might come in there who 
were known, but as a general thing there was not free ingress to every¬ 
body. 

Q. Not to the public at large !—A. No, sir; not at the time I left 
there. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Were you in New Orleans in the months of November and Decem¬ 
ber last!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. During the sittings!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Of this sub-committee there !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All the time !—A. All the time. 

Q. Were you subpoenaed to appear before the sub-committee there !— 
A. No, sir. 

•Q. Do you know why !—A. No, sir ; I cannot tell you. 

Q. You could have appeared !—A. Any day. 

Q. You would have come!—A. I suppose I would if ordered by the 
committee. 

Q. You did not conceal yourself anywhere!—A. No, sir; I was out 
every day. Everybody knew where I was, and that I was working in 
the city hall. 

Senator Kellogg. I will state that the books of the sub-committee 
will show that I subpoenaed these witnesses several days before the com¬ 
mittee left, and tried to get him. 1 had the subpoena issued for him. 
I tried to get the deputy sergeant-at-arms to find him. 

Senator Hill. 1 am not examining you now. Senator; there is a wit¬ 
ness on the stand. 

Senator Kellogg. I thought it proper to state that he was wanted 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 1073 

aiul II siibpfBfia issued for him. Aud it was uot the ouly case where 
tliat occurred. 

The Witness. I was on duty every day at the city hall, aud all 
knew where I was if they wanted to find me. 

Q. Did you see G-overnor Kellogg during: the time!—A. I did not see 
him while in New Orleans. 1 didn’t see him in fact from the day I left 
the State-house until i came to the Capitol here. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Don’t you know as a matter of public notoriety that the election 
of the Senator there in the State house was conducted aud obtained by 
purchase ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Wait. Let us understand it again, if it is to be 
understood at all, that public notoriety is to be resorted to as proof of 
bribery in the election of a Lnited States Senator. I make the objec¬ 
tion that it is not legal evidence. 

The objection was sustained. 

Senator Hill. The question was asked very frequently in New Or¬ 
leans, but its legality was never called in question, and therefore it was 
allowed; but as soon as Judge Shellabarger makes the objection I con¬ 
cede it was not legal testimony. 

Mr. Walker. The examination was made there principal!}", I think, 
upon that idea. 

Senator Hill. O, yes. you will see it asked all through the record. 

The Chairman. There has been a very wide latitude allowed here in 
the examination of witnesses But when the distinct point is made that 
the evidence is not admissible, the committee will have to pass upon it 
according to their views of it. As I have before stated, in matters of 
this sort we have not been confined usually to the strict rules of evi¬ 
dence. 

Senator Hoar. My own view and experience in mattersi of this 
kind are the parties under investigation before the Senate, but the 
House very often prefer not to insist upon the strict rules of evidence, 
and that what the chairman says about the wide latitude that generally 
prevails in this investigation committee comes to pass in that way; but 
I have never known any investigation that has not been governed in the 
main by the legal rules of evidence so far as they were substantial, and 
parties have uot insisted upon them. 

The Chairman. In the Oregon investigation I think we had the 
widest possible latitude, aud every imaginable question was allowed. I 
tried to stop it myself but I could not control it, aud we are asked for 
all kinds ot rumors, and street talk, aud repetitions. And in Kansas, 
this year, we had a very wide latitude allowed also. 

Senator Hoar. Did the parties object ? 

The Chairman. No, sir. 

By Mr. Walker (resumiug the examination): 

Q. Were you personally acquainted with any members of that house 
who sat there under Packard f—A. I was uot acquainted with many of 
them. 1 did uot wait for them to arrive. 1 left before they came, aud 
I didn’t know who was elected. 1 presume I would have known them 
if I Innl staid there; I guess I would. 

Q. Vou were personally acquainted with a good many men who were 
members of that body ?—A. Yes, sir ; I guess I were. 

Q. Have you had much conversation with any number of them since 
then ?—A. No ; 1 don’t recollect that I have had. I cannot call to mind 

G8 s K 


1074 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


any case where I had a conversation with any members of that legisla¬ 
ture. 

Q. Then you were never present at anj^ discussions at which the 
amount of money received by members, resi)ectively, it voting for Kel¬ 
logg was the subject of discussion?—A. No, sir; 1 was not present. I 
never came across them, but kept out of their way. In fact, I know no 
more than the rumors. 

By Senator Yance: 

Q. Who succeeded you as operator of the State-house ?—A. A young 
man employed at the custom-house; a young man named Kiviere, I think. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Mr. Walker asked you whether, if it had been known that you were 
not in full sympathy with the Bepublican party, you would not have been 
allowed to remain on the police force. State what you stated to me 
a while ago. 

The Witness. Is it admissible ? 

Mr. Merrick. What is the question ? 

Senator Kellogg. It is to state what he said to me when I came back 
from the North and found him there in the telegraph office. 

Mr. Merrick. I do not see what good that will do, and I object to it. 

Senator Kellogg. He was asked in regard to his politics. Mr. 
Walker asked if he could have remained on the police force if it had 
been known he was not in full sympathy with the Bepublican part^’. 

Senator Hoar. What did the witness reply ? 

Mr. Merrick. He said he did not know. 

Senator Kellogg. He said he did not know, I believe. 

The Chairman. Has this question any bearing direct or remote upon 
this subject? 

Senator Kellogg. I think so. 

Senatbr Hill. I think wffiere the question has reference to the motive 
of the party at a particular time, what his information was at a par¬ 
ticular time, before this investigaton wms thought of, and calculated to 
throw light upon his subsequent conduct is competent. Now, if Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg said to the witness, at the lime he was appointed to that 
office as telegraph operator in the State-house, anything that indicated 
he was willing to appoint him without regard to his politics, and that 
was at a time when this examination was not anticipated, and this ques¬ 
tion not raised, 1 think it would be competent evidence. 

The Chairman. The evidence of the witness shows in itself that Gov¬ 
ernor Kellogg had nothing to do with his ajipointment. 

Senator Vance. He says that Governor Kellogg came back from the 
North and found him there. 

Senator Kellogg. It depended upon me w hether he should remain 
or not, and as Mr. Walker asked him about his, politics, I thought I 
had a right to ask him some questions upon that subject myself. 

The WITNESS. I would like to amend my answer to Mr. Walker. He 
asked me, if it had been known that 1 was not in sympathy with tile 
Bepublican party, whether I could have remained on the police force. 
I will state that I told Mr. Kellogg at the time that I was a Democrat, 
and that I was not employed there except temporarily by the recom¬ 
mendation of General Baldy, vice-president of the board. I thought it 
was my duty to tell him so, and I said so to him in order that he might 
not give me his confidence. He said to me, ‘‘ O, never mind, Flynn ; I 
will make you a good Bepublican (for him) yet,” and I said, “ I do not 
think you willand he said it was all right. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1075 


By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. And I kept you there, didn’t I, notwithstanding the objections of a 
good many other people ?—A. Yes, sir ; you kept me over the objections 
of a good many Republicans. 

Senator Hoar. I think it is competent evidence. It goes to show 
whether this witness is on one side or the other of this controversy. 
The witness said at first that he didn’t know, and that was manifestly an 
incorrect answer, for Governor Kellogg goes on to ask him now “ Didn’t 
you tell me at the time that you was a Democrat ? ” which refreshes his 
recollection or recalls to his mind the fact, and now he corrects his evi¬ 
dence on that point. 

.Mr. Merrick. I think it is right enough that it should all come out. 

The Chairman. Are you done with the witness ? 

Mr. Walker. 1 would like to put one or two other questions. I do 
not attach much importance to the subject-matter of them, but the wit¬ 
ness wants to be put in a right attitude, I presume. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Don’t you know that being a member of the Metropolitan police, 
and that being understood as a radical Republican organization, that 
you were generally regarded as a Republican yourself ?—A. I suppose 
that was generally considered. 

Q. And you held yourself out as a Republican ?—A. No, sir; I do 
not know that I did, for I knew many Democrats on the force. 

Q. You do not mean to say that it was known to the public they were 
Democrats'?.—A. No, sir; I do not sui)pose they wanted it generally 
known, as they did not want to interfere with their tenure of oflice. 


TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. MOSS. 

George W. Moss, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answ’er. In Washington. 

C^. How^ long have you resided in Washington ?—A. 1 have resided 
here for nearly fourteen years. 

Q. What is your occupation 1 —A. 1 am agent of the Adams Express 
Company. 

Q. Were you agent of the Adams Express Company during the 
nionth of June last!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it the only express company in the city ?—A. No, sir; there is 
another one. 

Q. What is the other one ?—A. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad 
Company have an express of their own. 

Q. But yours is the only Southern company !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 1 have not notes at Laud, but 1 will state what a witness has tes¬ 
tified in substance. A witness has testified that five men received cer¬ 
tain amounts of money in this city in June last, and that they expressed 
it to New Orleans, or a part of it. 

Senator Hill. Now, let this question be correctly put. A witness 
said he supposed it was; that he thought it went to New Orleans. He 
did not say that it was expressed to New Orleans, but he thought it 
was. 



1076 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Cameron. He said, 1 think, that he saw them put it in ex¬ 
press envelopes. 

Senator Hill. I do not think he did. 

Senator Bailey. But wouldn’t it be competent to prove the fact that 
one of the ordinary and usual agencies for transmitting money between 
th^ points stated in this case was not used to transmit the money here 
spoken of? 

Senator Hill. You do not understand the question, Senator. This 
witness is introduced to rebut Barney Williams in an assumption of his 
that the money was sent by express. 

Senator Bailey. Did the witness say so ? 

Senator Hill. ISTo, sir, he did not say so; but that was his judgment 
or inference. It amounts to nothing more. 

Senator Cameron. I think it was more decided than that. 

Senator Hill. O, well; I only wanted to save time, and if we are to 
have a discussion over it, go on. 

Senator Kellogg. If I had the record here I could show it in a mo¬ 
ment. 

Senator Hoar. One of the members of the committee understands that 
he saw them put it in a bundle of some sort. 

Senator Hill. Ithiuk myself he said something about a bundle. 

The Chairman. As an independent fact in the case, do you want to 
prove that no money was sent to New Orleans in the month of June by 
these parties ? Go on. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Have you examined your money-books, including the account of 
transmission of money to New Orleans in June, to see if any money 
was sent by J. J, Jackson, Milton Jones, J. Blackstone, De Lacy—-I do 
not know his name ? 

Senator Cameron. W. John De Lacy. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Well, have you looked into that ?—A. I have examined the books, 
and I fail to find any money shipments made by or to any of those 
parties. 

Q. Or to their wives ?—A. Our books would show the consignor and 
consignee, and they fail to show either. 

Q. If there had been any sent your books would show it ?—A. Yes 
sir. ’ 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. How much time does that cover—that remark of vours ?—A. From 
the 1st of June, 1879, to the 31st of July. 

Q. If such a transaction occurred the record would be there ?_A. 

Yes, sir. 

Q. Does your record show when money is sent in contradistinction 
•from anytbiug else?—A. Yes, sir; they are indorsed as containing so 
imuch money, those packages are. We require shippers to seal their own 
valuable packages. 

-Q. It would be shown that it was money on your books ?_A. We 

'have a distinct method of keeping it, and it shows whether money or 
freight. 

Q. So there is an absence of all kind of shipments by these parties ? 
—A. I have only examined the money-books. 


SPOFFORb VS KELLOGG. 


1077 


By Mr. ^NfERRiCK: 

Q. M itliin tlie period sj)ecified by counsel on tbe other side, were there 
any packages at all of money sent from Washington to Xew Orleans!— 
A. ihere were a great many represented to be money packages. 

(ii. ould it put you to too much trouble to make out a list of them! 
— A They are quite numerous, sir. It is a daily thing to send two or 
three a day. 

Could you make it out!—A. It would be quite a list, sir. 

Do you know anything of money-packag^^s sent during those 
months by colored men!—A. I do not. 

Q. Do you receive the money-packages!—A. Xo, sir; I do not. We 
have clerks to do that. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Is Mr. Phelps one of them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Could we get you to furnish to the committee all of the consign- 
(M’S and consignees during the mouths of May and June, except govern¬ 
ment business between this point and New Orleans!—A. I would not 
care about doing it. Senator, unless it is ordered. 

Senator Kellogg. Since it has been called in question, I would like 
to have a full list of them myself. * 


TESTIMONY OF JOHN P. D. PHELPS. 

John P. D. Phelps, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined : 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. What is your business!—Answer. I am connecied with the 
Adams Express Company as clerk. 

Q. What is it your duty specially to do there ? What have you charge 
of in the matter of receiving and sending packages!—A. My duties are 
not confined to any particular branch of the business. I am some¬ 
times in one place and sometimes in another. 

Q. Were you qonnected with the office last June, from the first day on 
through June!—A. I was in the employ of the company all the time. 

Q Have you examined the books to see whether a package was sent 
by either of the persons named by Senator Kellogg to the last wit¬ 
ness ! You were in here and heard him call them !—A. Senator Kel¬ 
logg came into the office one day when Mr. Morse was at dinner, and he 
asked me if we bad sent any packages to certain parties in New Orleans 
and gave me their names; 1 have the names here. 

Q. Now, I will ask you a new (]uestion. State whether you requested 
to examine and see whether certain persons, whose names were given 
you by Senator Kellogg, sent any money by express to New Orleans 
during May and June; and, if so, state a list of the persons.—A. Sen¬ 
ator Kellogg came in there this day I speak of; Mr. Morse was at din¬ 
ner, and 1 was in his office for him, and the Senator wanted to know 
whether any money was sent to New Orleans between the first and 
fifteenth of June. And I got the impression book and looked over 
it and found nothing sent by those names. 

Q. Who were the parties!—A. He came in after that and gave me 
this list, ami wanted to know if any was sent by them during that time, 
the whole month of June. 



1078 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Who were they!—A. J. J. Johnson, W. J. DeLacy, Milton Jones, 
George Sweazie, J. Blackstone, and Leveigue. 

Senator Kellogg. [Pointing to the list held by the witness.] That 
is J. Blackstone. That is what I took for J. Blackstone. 

By Mr. ShellabaPcGER : 

Q. What was vsaid at the time?—A. I took the list and Mr. Morse, 
and we w ent over the list on the books from the first to the last of June 
and found the names of neither of those parties, either as consignor or 
consignee. 

Q. I am requested to ask you whether there was any considerable 
number of consignments of money to Kew Orleans in June last other 
than government moneys?—A. There w^ere private shipments. There 
were some government shipments, and some private shipments. 

Q. Do you remember any moneys being sent by colored people during 
the months of May and June last?—A. I cannot say that there was. I 
do not stay in the oftice all the time. # 

Q. You have no recollection of it affirmatively or otherwise. 

Senator lIoAR. The witness said he w^as furnished with a list and 
on reading the names, it was discovered that he has mistaken one of 
them, and the question is wdiether he looked for that name at the time 
or for w’hat he took the name to be. 

The Witness. I read that letter that Governor Kellogg says is an 
“S” as an “L.” 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Whom did you look for?—A. I looked for an “ L” for Leveigue. 

Q. Then you have not looked for Seveigue?—A. No, sirj I did not 
look for him, but I am satisfied there are no shipments from him. 

Q. If you find any from J. Seveigue, I wish you would let the com¬ 
mittee know. 

Senator Hoar. In order to have that correct, you had better have the 
witness engage to make a re-examination of the books, and if he finds 
that name there to come at once to the committee and inform them. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Wdlyou do that? 

The Witness. If I find it, yes, sir; I will, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF TBOS. B. STAMPS. 

Thomas B. Stamps, a witness called on behalf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. Where do you reside?—Answer. In the city of New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. IIow long have you resided in New Orleans?—A. About fifteen 
years. 

Q. What is your present occupation ?—A. I am engaged in the cot¬ 
ton-factory business. 

Q. Were you a member of the legislature of 1877?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many years did you represent your district in the legisla¬ 
ture?—A. I was a member of the house of representatives two years, 
in 1871-72, and a member of the State senate eight years from the dis¬ 
trict. 

Q. What Territory comprised your district? 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1079 


Mr. SiiellabarCtER. Senatorial—senatorial district. 

The M ITNESS. The twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, sixteeenth, and 
scventeentli wards of the parish of Orleans, the parishes of Jeft’erson, 
Saint dohn the Bai)tist, ainl Saint Charles. 

Q. Were you returned as elected senator from that district hy the 
returning board ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(ch ere you also admitted to have been elected by the opposite side!— 

A. iMy election was undisputed. 

Q. Did you i>articipate in the election of Senator in January, 1877 ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect the day on which the election took place ?—A. I 
think the 10th of January, but I am not positive about that. 

Q. The 10th of January, 1877 f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Stamps, when the subcommittee were at New Orleans a 
witness l)y the name of Albert W. Flannagan testiiied that yourself 
and Aristide De Joie were in Judge Dibble’s office on the day of the 
election. 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. Senatorial election ? 

Senator Kellogg. The day of the senatorial election, and that he 
witnessed a transaction between De Joie, yourself, ami a man by the 
name of Harris, who he says was once tax-collector of the secoml dis¬ 
trict of New Orleans. And he stated that there was some money divided 
between you, and some dispute between you in regard to the money, 
and that the money was shared between you and De Joie; and he heard 
you state in the course of your conversation—that is, yourself, De Joie 
and Harris—that it was }>aid to influence the matter of the election of 
United States Senator. Please state to the committee if tliat is true.— 
A. No such transaction could have taken place. Judge Dibble’s office 
w'as seven or eight squares from the State-house, and from the time the 
assembly met, in 1877, until Governor Packard was forced to evacuate, 
I never went up that high in the city, except at night, wdien 1 took a 
cab to go home. 

Q. Do you know Harris!—A. Hart Harris? Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know De Joie!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Albert AV. Flanegan ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know^ Judge Dibble?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know where he kept his office at that time ?—A. Judge 
Dibble’s office was at the corner of Common and Carondelet streets. 

Senator Kellogg. There seems to be a discrepancy. I find in the 
testimony of Mr. Flanagan the affidavit of Flanagan was admitted to 
refresh his memory, ami was made before P. J. Sullivan. 

i\Ir. Merrick. What affidavit is that? 

Senator Kellogg. The affidavitof Albert W. Flanagan. Thisaffidavit 
was put in his hands to refresh his memory ami corroborate his testi¬ 
mony. In it he says the money was paid to Stamps instead of De Joie. 
Previous to that he says that Harris was United States Senator from 
Louisiana, while Warmo h was governor. In his testimony he says it 
was H. H. Harris, former tax-collector of the second district of Orleans. 
1 see in his direct examination he makes that statement. 

Mr. Merrick. I only asked what it was. 

• P>y Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Now, do you know John S. Harris?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Was he insi)ector of beeves?—A. Yes, sir; I think he was. 

Q. Was he ever United States Senator ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kellogg. My object in this matter is to identify John S. 
Harris, who was spoken of here in the affidavit. 


1080 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Hill. You are right, Senator j go on. 

Senator Kellogg. I have asked him nothing about the afiQdavit. 

Senator Cameron. Nobody is objecting; go on. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I wish to suggest that these affidavits are not 
subject to rebutting evidence; a great many affidavits have been put iu 
it here for some purpose or other and when I was not present. I don’t 
know that the committee has ever taken a disposed question of the ad¬ 
missibility of these affidavits, but I wish to subject appearance so that 
in my opinion there is no just rule of law which should vary the admis¬ 
sibility of testimony in an investigation like this. Conceding that you 
are not bound by the technical rules for the admission of evidence—con¬ 
ceding that you are not, I still make the suggestion that these affidavits 
are not competent evidence. 

Mr. MERttiCK. Will you allow me to interrupt you just a moment? 

Mr. Shellabarger. I would prefer to complete my sentence. How¬ 
ever much the doors may be opened to relieve committees of Congress 
from the technical rules of the law, yet there can be no rule relating to 
matters of this sort which would be safe and which shall admit in a 
case where the integrity, thecharacter, the title ot Senators involved, and 
which becomes therefore iu a large degree a personal controversy, as 
distinguished from political struggle, as testimony such affidavits and 
papers as these. There is no safe rule that allows what people put 
down in ex-parte affidavits of this class to back the source or the reposi- 
tors or instrument of original evidence for the purpose of establishing 
the truth of their contents. Maybe that they can have relevancy for 
the purpose of imi)eachment, but certainly to establish the truth of 
their contents in a case like this and submit all such affidavits should 
be acted upon by the committee promptly, so that we may know iu time 
whether we are called ujjon to meet these affidavits as original testi¬ 
mony. 

Senator Hill. Judge Shellabarger’s point is exceedingly unnecessary 
at this time. These affidavits are not iu as origiunl testimony. They 
were ex parte statements. There was no chance of cross-examining the 
affiants. They were made voluntarily, and they were introduced to con¬ 
tradict the witnesses and to show their statements at another time. Of 
course, whether their statements were true at one time or at another 
would be determined by each member of the Senate f )r himself, and, I 
presume, according to the testimony before him. I will state to Judge 
Shellabarger that I did not, as chairman, and I do not suppose that 
Senator Yance or Cameron understand, or that either of them suppose,, 
that the affidavits were introduced as original evidence. 

Mr. Shellabarger. 1 am very glad to hear the statement which the 
Senator from Georgia has just made. My client had another idea of it. 
He thought that they were to be done as the admissions, so to speak, of 
CO conspirators; but if they are to be discarded for all other puriioses 
than that of showing contradictory statements, then I am satisfied. 

Senator Hill. O, no; I don’t mean that. 

Mr. Merrick. They are not to be discarded iu the manner indicated 
by my learned brother. I interrupted counsel because, so far as the formal 
objection is concerned, Governor Kellogg made that in writing himself,, 
and further made its necessary office to discuss these matters until we 
get the printed record from New Orleans. I am prepared to discuss 
that question which the gentleman has raised the very instant he can 
read the testimony and see how these affidavits came in, for I am confi¬ 
dent that neither Senator Elill, nor Vance, nor Oameron would have ad¬ 
mitted them unless for some good reason. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1081 


Senator Hill. I think this discussion is wholly unnecessary. Gov¬ 
ernor Kelloj;^ is calling the witness’s attention to the fact that some¬ 
body said inone^* was paid to him by Harris. I think that is a legiti¬ 
mate question, and he ought to go on. 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir; but I think I have a right to explain why 
I had that opinion, referred to by Judge Shellabarger. It was because 
four or five affidavits were introduced when a witness was on the stand 
to prove their execution, and after he had sworn to that they were left 
there on the record against me as true. 

Senator Hill. I want to object to this discussion. It is not true in 
the manner stated ; and it is unnecessary to discuss the subject here^ 
because the record will show how and for what purpose they were in¬ 
troduced. It is wholly unnecessary to give one recollection and another 
about it. Some of the w itnesses here iu Washington denied the execu¬ 
tion ot those affidavits, and it was perfectly proper to introduce the 
party who knew of their execution to testify to the execution of them. 
There is no necessity, therefore, for this ap})areut difference between us,, 
for it is only apparent. The objections to them were made at the time, 
and are noted on the record. I suggest that we go on and leave these 
matters to be settled and discussed hereafter. 

Senator Cameron. My recollections is that some of these affidavits- 
w^ere produced as original evidence, and I think I can satisfy the Senator 
from Georgia of that fact by referring him to the affidavit of Milon. Mi- 
Ion was a member of the house of representatives, but his affiadavit w’as 
introduced by somebod 3 ’ else, and there it stood on the record as origi¬ 
nal evidence, and because it stood there in that shape I objected to it. 

Senator Hill. I did not say that they were only introduced to con¬ 
tradict the wiiiiesses. 

Senator Vance. Were not some of them introduced as the declaration 
of co-conspirators 1 

Senator Hill. O, yes. 

Senator Cameron. I say it stood there as original evidence, and even 
if it w’as for the purpose of showing the declaration of a co-conspirator,, 
it was original evidence, and Governor Kellogg was compelled to call 
Milon to show that he never executed that affidavit at all. Now’ this affi¬ 
davit of Flanagan : Flanagan w as not a member of the legislature, and 
when he w as testifying his recollection w’as not very distinct as to facts, 
and the affidavit was put into his hands to refresh his recollection. Sen¬ 
ator Vance says it w’as one way; the Senator from Georgia says it was 
another wmy; but I say that this affidavit was luit into the w’itness’s 
hands to refresh his recollection. It was an exparte affidavit made by 
him. 

Senator Kellogg. And years before. 

Senator Cameron. Yes, and years before, and he w’as a w itness called 
by the memorialist, and that affidavit w’as given to him to refresh his 
recollection, and that affidavit went intothe record. 

Mr. Merrick. I would again ask the committee, in justice to Mr. 
Spoffbrd, to wait until we get the record before these questions are dis¬ 
cussed. As to the two affidavits that are mentioned by Senator Cam¬ 
eron the committee w’illhave to decide whether they are competent tes¬ 
timony or not. I think I can satisfy thecommittee that they are, when¬ 
ever tl»e subject is discussed. 

Mr. AValker. In New Orleans I think there was a distinction made 
between the affidavits—between those that were sworn to by members 
of the Packard legislature and those that were made by other parties. 

Senator Bailey. Is this matter material at this point I 


1082 SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 

Senator Hill. Not at all, and that is tbe only objection I have made. 

Senator Vance (acting Chairman). Governor Kellogg, please proceed^' 
with the examination of the witness. * ' ■ 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. I will read an extract from Mr. Flanagan’s testimony: 

By Mr. Hill. Questiou. Now, Mr. Flanagjan, tell ns the names of the two members 
'of the legislature who were there.—A. Well, sir, there were a great many persons in 
the office that day. 

Q. I mean members of the Packard legislature?—A. I know Stamps and D.3 Joie 
were there ; then there were a number of other parties 

He had before stated that it was in Judge Dibble’s office ?—A. It is 
iibsolutely false ; not a word of truth in it. 

Q. Now, Mr. Stamps, I will ask you to state to the committee if you 
were present and participated in the election of Senator on the 10th of 
January, 1877 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. VHio was elected ?—A. Governor William Pitt Kellogg was 
elected. 

Q. Were there any other candidates?—A. Two or three others were 
spoken of. 

Q. Were any others nominated ?—A. I think Governor Pinchback 
was nominated on one or two occasions. 

Q. Were there any others at the time 1 was elected ?—A. It has been 
some time, and I cannot remember. 

Q. W"as it unanimous !—A. It was; I believe it was. 

Q. Do you know anything of money being used to secure my election 
to the United States Senate ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Did you ever get any.money yourself or hear of anybody who did ? 
—A. Never a dollar, direct or indirect, nor do 1 know of any person who 
did get a dollar. 

Q. Do jmu know of any promises of office as reward or emolument 
tnade to anybody to vote for me for Senator ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Nor of the dividing of any money between yourself and anybody 
^dse ?—A. No, sir, I do not. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Mr. Stamps, in what office are you now ?—A. In no office, sir. 

Q. How long is it since you were relieved from official duty!—A. I 
was elected in 1876 to serve four years, but the last constitutional con¬ 
vention shortered that term a year. 

Q. Have you ever been in the custom-house ?—A. I never was in a 
Federal office in my life. 

Q. Did you never receive any compensation from it at all ?—A. No, 
-sir: never. 

Q. Any money from the custom-house incidentally in any way ?—A. 
Never. 

Q. How many members who were with you in the legislature voting 
for Kellogg are now in the custom-house ?—A. Ido not know, sir j I 
scarcely ever go there. 

Q. Do you know any who were there—A. Yes, sir; I believe Mr. 
Desjoie is employed there. 

Q. Do you know anybody else ?—A. I do not know much about it; I 
am employed now very little in politics. 

Q. Tell us a little you do know.—A. Mr. Desjoie is there. 

Q. Is he the only one?—A. I think Mr. Burch is there. 

Anybody else ?—A. I think a man named Lewis. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1083 

Q. Anybody else ?—A. Well, I find a "oo 1 many if I had a list 

of them here. I do not remember all their names. 

Q. ^ on think yop could find a ^jood many of them there ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator (Jameron. If the object of counsel is to find the fact how 
many are employed in the custom-house, it is already in the record. 

Mr. Merrick. It is to test the knowledge of the witness. 

I»y Senator Hill: 

Q. ere you in New Orleans when the sub committee were there !— 
A. No, sir; I was in Arkansas, operating for my business. 1 arrived in 
New Orleans the day your committee left. 

Q. When did you leave there ?—A. Last Wednesday. 

Q. I say when before the sub committeH got there ?—A. I left the 
ISth of July, I think, operating for my business. 1 was gone mostly up 
to the time your committee left. 

(^. \ou had not been therebetween those times?—A. I came about 
once in about four or six weeks, and remained a few days. 

Q. How far did you live from there ?—A. 1 lived right in New Or¬ 
leans. 


TESTIMONY OE HART H. HARRIS. 

Hart H. Harris, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Han is?—xVnswer. In Kansas 
City, Mo. 

Q. How long have you resided there ?—A. About eighteen months. 

Q. What is your occupation !—A. I am in tlie real estate business. 

Q. Were you at any time in the past ten years a resident of New Or¬ 
leans?—A. Yes, sir! 

Q. When did you reside in New Orleans ?—A. I resided in New Or¬ 
leans in 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875,1 think, and a jiart of 1876. 

Q. How many years did you reside in the State of Louisiana ?—A. I 
went to the State of Louisiana in the winter of 1864, and left tliere in 
1876. 

Q. Did you hold any ofiice during that time?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. What position ?—A. I was State assessor and State collector. 

Q. Wheie were you collector ?—A. Of the second district of Orleans 
Ibirish. 

Q. During what years ?—A. 1 will have to think that up now. I think 
in 1874 and 18y5. 

Q. Mr. Harris, a wirne.ss by the name of Albert W. Flanagan testified 
before the sub-committee in New Orleans in sul)stance that on the <lay 
a Senator wa> elected, or about the day a Senator was chosen, in Janu¬ 
ary, 1877,111 Judge Dibble’s office, he witnes.sed a transaction between 
yourself, Desjoie, and T. B. Stamjis, State senator in the legislature, and 
that there wlis .some money passed Detweon you ; that you jiaid money 
to tho.se two men ; that there w^as some dispute grew out of it, and that 
it was finally settled by a division of the money between the men, and 
that the money was paid to influence their votes for United States Sen¬ 
ator. State to the committee if that is a fact.—A. It is infamously 
false. 



1084 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How is that ?—A. It is false. 

Q. Did any such transaction occur at anytime!—A. Never at any 
]>lace; no, sir. 

Q. Do you know Desjoie !—A. I never heard the name before, and 
never saw him. 

Q. Do you know T. B. Stamps!—A. I do, sir, 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. 1 suppose hve or six years. 

Q. Mr. Harris, did you ever pay Mr. Stamps ! 1 understand you did 

not know Desjoie!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever pay Stamps any money in connection with the elec¬ 
tion of United States Senator!—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know any one who did !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever pay anyone any money, in connection with that elec¬ 
tion !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know any man who ever paid any member money?—A, 
No, sir. 

Q. Were yon at Dibble’s office in January, 1877 ? —A. I do not think 
I was. 1 was there in the city a few days, probably not over forty-eight 
hours. I know it was less than a week. 

Q. Where did you reside then ?—A. I left Chicago to go to New Or¬ 
leans about that time—I think the last day of December. 1 arrived in 
New Orleans the 3rd of January, stopped at the Saint Charles Hotel, 
and from there vreiit to my plantation. 

Q. Your plantation is where?—A. In Concordia Parish. 

Q. You were planting there at the time !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have any connection with the members of the legislature !—• 
A. 1 met very few of them, if any. 

Q. Do you know Albert W. Flanagan !—A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q When did you say you first came to the State of Louisiana!—A. 
In the winter of 1864. 

Q. What was the first office you held there ?—A. The first office was 
assessor of the second district of Orleans. 

Q. When did you commence to hold that office!—A. I think it was 
in 1872. 

Q. What were you doing previous to that?—A. Planting cotton. 

0. Where !—A. In Concordia Parish. 

Q. Were you an office-holder in that parish, as deputy ?—A. I was 
not in what you would call an office. I was on the police jury. 

Q. Engaged in issuing parish scrip?—A. No, sir; the scrip had been 
issued previous to that by our Democratic predecessors. 

Q. Was none issued afterwards!—A. None, after we went in. 

Q. You mean your so called Democratic predecessors !—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Under a liepublican administration?—A. Y"es, sir; I think there 
was none other, from the time I went there in 1864. 

Q. Then you held office from 1872 to 1877 !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you got two brothers in that parish who are office holders ! 
Have you a brother named Al. Harris ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did he hold office there ?—A. That I could notjstate. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Desjoie!—A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know him by sight?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you at any time in the office of Henry C. Dibble during 
December, 1876, or January, 1877 !—A. I presume I might have been 
in his office. 

Q. Do you know where that office was situated ?—A. Yes, sir. 




SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


1085 


Q. Wlieie at ?—A. I think it wan on the corner of Carondelet and 
Common streets, somewhere in that vicinity. f{e was at one time attor- 
ney-j?enera!, and 1 had some business with him. 

Q. Wiien did you have a notitication in Kansas City to come here to 
Washiijfjton to testily ?—A. I received it by mail I think about the 
li5th of last month, I think it was. 

Q. A subpiena irom the conjiiiittee?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the first intimation you had got that you would be called 
upon to testify ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you not have a conversation with Charley Hill in Kansas City 
the week previous to that, in which you stated you were coming hereto 
testify?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. When did you last see him before coming here?—A. On the morn¬ 
ing or the evening of the 8 th of this month. 

Q. Were you in the State-house during January, 1877 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How often ?— A. Well, quite a number of times during Governor 
Packard’s administration. I could not state how many times. 

Q. Do 3 oil mean the six weeks he was shut up’there ?—A. In prison ; 
yes, sir. 

Q. Well, inside of his fort?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you ])ersonally acquainted vvith many members of that body 
sitting there—Packard’s house ?—A. Well, sir; most of the senators. 

Q. And all of the house?—A. Yes, sir; 1 knew a good many of the 
house—the Republican members. 

Q. Were you in the building when the vote w^as taken by that body 
to elect Mr. Kellogg to the United ^States Senate ?—A. I think not. 

Q. You were not there that day ?—A. 1 think not, sir. 

Q. Canyon be positive about it!—A. I cannot be positive, but I am 
almost certain I was not, and I cannot say positively that I was in the 
city. 

Mr. Walker. That is all. 

Dn motion, the committee adjourned to meet at 10 o’clock a. m., 
Wednesday, January 11, 1880. 


Wednesday, January 11, 1880. 

The committee met pursuant to its order of adjournment. Present, a 
iiuorum of the committee; also R. T. Merrick, esq., and C. L. Walker, 
esq., counsel for the memorialist; the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford, 
and the sitting member, Hon. William Pitt Kellogg, and his counsel, 
Judge Shellabarger. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. Judge 
Shellabarger, have you any witnesses present ? 

Mr. Siiellabargek. Yes, sir; we will examine Mr. Twitchell first 
this morning. 

The Chairman. Is he one of the subpoenaed witnesses ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, sir; he is subpoenaed from Canada. 


TESTIMONY OF MARSHALL H. TWITCHELL. 

Marshall H. Twitchell, a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Question. Mr. Twitchell, where do 3^011 reside ?—Answer. I now re¬ 
side in Kingston, Canada. 





1066 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. How long have you resided there ?—A. Siuce a year ago last May. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. 1 am now cousul at Kingston. 

Q. How long did you say ? I did not understand the last answer.— 
A. 1 am cousul at Kingston. 

Q. How long have you been there as consul ?—A. About two years. 

Q. Were vou a member of the Louisiana State senate —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In 187’8?—A. In 187G. 

Q. When were you elected ?—A. I was elected that term in 1874. 

Q. Had you ever served before '?— A. That wjis my second term. 

Q. Were you a member of what was known as the Packard legisla¬ 
ture in January, 1877 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Twitchell, a witness by the name of Baugnou swore in sub¬ 
stance that a few days before the election of United States Senator in 
bis presence I met you in the operators room near the executive depart¬ 
ment, and that I gave you a roll of money that he says was about $300, 
and I put it into your vest pocket and that you said thereupon that you 
would support me for United States Senator, or words to that effect—I 
do not pretend to quofe the language literally—but did any such trans¬ 
action as that occur?—A. No such transaction occurred, and it is,ab¬ 
solutely false. 

Q Do you know the telegraph operator at that tbne?—A. Yes, sir; 
I did know him at that time. I know a uian that Mr. Baugnon dragged 
into his testimony. 

Q. Do you know where the telegraph room of the executive depart¬ 
ment was?—A. I was quite familiar with it. 

Q. Was it near the senate chamber?—A. No, sir; it was near the 
executive office in the legislative hail of the house of representatives. 

Q. Did I ever at any time during that session of the legislature or 
any time before, give you any money for any purpose whatever?—A. 
You never gave me any money for any purpose. 

Q. Did I ever offer you any money for any purpose ?—A. You never 
offered me any for any purpose whatever. 

Q. Did I ever suggest anything of the kind to you ? Was there any 
conversation, directly or indirectly, regarding the payment of money at 
any time for any purpose between you and me ?—A. No, sir. We never 
had any consultation for the payment of any money at any time or for 
any purpose. 

Q. Now, I understand you to say specifically that there was no such 
transaction occurred?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did I ever promise you any office or any money or any induce¬ 
ment for your vote for me as Senator?—xV. Never. You never asked 
me to support you. 

Q. Were you present at the election of United States Senator?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Li January, 1877 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What day did it take place?—A. I would say the 10th day of 
January. 

Q Do you remember the day of the week ?—A. I do not: I think it 
was Wednesday. It- must have been Wednesday, because we com¬ 
menced on Tuesday. 

Q. Do you know this man Bagnon?--A. I know him by sight. I did 
not in New Orleans know him. I could not remember the name as be¬ 
longing to any man that I ever saw. 

Q. Do you know him personally ?—A. I have seen him lately. 1 
knew the man, but I did not know that name belonged to him. 

Q. Do you know Francis Garrett?—A. Very well, by sight. 




SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


1087 


Q. 1 uiuiersttind that you know (rairett ?—A. By sir. 

(^>. Did you know him as apioininent Republican f—A. I cannot say 
that he is prominent. [ know him as always around every convention 
and le^^islative hall, but I flid not know him as a prominent Republican. 

r.incis Ojariett appeared before the subcommittee in New Or¬ 
leans and testihed as follows: 

Q. And that was wbat was talked about, was it/—A. Yes, sir; .jnst before the vote 
was taken. I will state about Senator Twitchell. I was in couversatiou with him sev'- 
eral times, beiu«r serjeant-at-arms. 1 asked him if there would be any difficulty iu 
Senator Kellojj’s election, and I found that he woidd hold on and ]iull thVou jh at last; 
and he said, “ ^es, Kellojj will be elected, but he would hate to V»eelecte«l by the same 
cost.” He said there were not twenty votes that Kellojj could jet without buyinj 
them, and that negroes broke faitli; that if 3’ou would take them into 3'our conlidence 
to-day they would break faith with j'ou to-morrow, and that j’ou could not rel}' on 
them. 

Did any such conversation as that take place?—A. No, sir; no 
such conversation ever occurred bet^ween us. 

Q. Francis Garrett also testified as follows: 

Q. That is of your own knowledge ?—A. No, sir; not directly. I know that on the 
same day, about fifteen or twenty minutes before the Senate went int** ft e house, .Sen¬ 
ator Twitchell and a man named Harris went to Kellogg’s ofiice to see him, but I do 
not think they found him, because Twitchell asked me if I had seen him. 1 wtis com¬ 
ing but of one of the adjoining rooms, the office ot his private secretary. Afterwards 
he saw Kellogg, and I went into the senate chamber, and after thej' got in there, I was 
talking to them about how those members were going about, and I said I thought it 
was bad faith to come to the legislature on Senator Kellogg’s inone^’ and everything 
of that kind, and then try to sell him out. Senator Twitchell said thej' had agreed, 
and had the money, and the crow’d was to vote for Kellogg that day. I do not remember 
the name of the man he mentioned, but some man was there who was kicking in the 
traces. It was Sutton, I think. I thought he was an easy man to satisfy, and was a 
particular friend of Kellogg’s. Senator Twitchell mentioned some other man, and 
was speaking of how w’rong it was for a man to trj’ to break up a party iu that way* 
He said that he had just been to see Kellogg sgain, and he had to pay out more money, 
and he sent a boy for a man, and this man Harris took some money out of Senator 
Twdtchetl’s vest pocket, and i)Ut it into an envelope and sent it b^’ a boj* to some mem¬ 
ber’s desk. I do not know who it was. 

Did any conversation of that kind take place at that time or at any 
time during; the session between you and Garrett ?—A. No, sir; not at 
all. Mr. Gairett was not the kind of man that I would have any con¬ 
versation with. As to visiting: your house my physical condition was 
such as to prevent my taking but a few steps at a time. 

Q. I understand you to say that it is absolutely untrue that you and 
a man named Han is went to my house ?—A. 1 was carried there once 
in a cab, but it is absolutely untrue as he states it. It was impossible 
for me to go in that way. 

Q. Do you know Han is ?—A. I know a good many men named Har- 

lis. 

(,). Did you have any man by that name about you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was there any man about the senate of that name—any man 
about the senate of I87()f—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Garrett regarding the 
members going about and acting in bad faith towards me f—A. 1 never 
had any such conversation with him. 

Q. Did you ever say to Mr. Garrett or any other person, referring to 
the members of the legislature, that tliev had agreed and had the money, 
and were to vote for me?—xV. 1 never said they had the money or were 
promised any. 

Q. Did you say that any of them were kicking iu the traces !—A. 
Never. 


1088 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you know Sutton?—4. I know him well. 

Q. VVlio was he ?—A. State senator. 

Q. From what j)arish ?—A. I think Saint Mary’s Parish. 

Q. Was he a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know anything regarding Sutton having received any 
money to vote for me ?—A. I never heard of it before. 

Q. Was he not a warm supporter of mine ?—A. I never knew but that 
lie was. 

Q. Mr. Twitcheli, speaking of other men breaking up the party, did 
you ever use any such expression?—A. I may have made some such 
-expression regarding the senators who left the legislature and went 
over to the Nicholls legislature. 

Q. Did you ever say that you had just been to see Kellogg again, 
and he had to pay out more money ?—A. That is absolutely false. 

Q. (Reading.) “And he sent a boy for a man, and this man Harris 
took some money out of Senator TwitchelPs vest pocket and put it into 
an envelope and sent it by the bo.t to some member’s desk. I do not 
know who it was.” Was there any such transaction as that?—A. It is 
absolutely false. 

Q. Do you know of this man Garrett having anything to do with the 
election of Senator, either as an otiicer of the senate or as an adv^ocate 
of my election ?—A. He was prominent as a leech, and was always bor¬ 
ing senators to get an appointment. 

Q. He was a bummer, then?—A. Yes, sir; he was regarded as a 
bummer, and would take anything from the position of a page up. 

Q. This question was asked him before the sub-committee in New 
Orleans: 

Q. Were yon there promoting and aiding the election of Kellogg?—A. Yes, sir, I 
was. Senator West was my friend, but as he was out of the field, I thought Kellogg 
was the best man for the place. 

Do you know anything of that?—A. It would not be a matter that 
would have any effect probably, or a matter that I would take any in¬ 
terest in. 

Q. Mr. Twitcheli, do you know Mr. E. L. Weber?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. I think six or eight years. 

Q. What position did he occupy in January, 1877 ?—A. He was rec¬ 
ognized as a State senator. 

Q. Now, Mr. Twitcheli, I want to ask you a question or two more. I 
understood you to say that you were present when the vote for Senator 
was taken ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there any question as to the quorum?—A. No, sir, there was 
no question. 

Q. Was there any question as to the quorum in the senate?—A. 
There was no quorum in the senate. 

Q. Was there a quorum in the house?—A. There was a quorum in 
the house, and a sufficient number over, so that there was no question 
of a quorum of the joint session. 

Q. There was a quorum of the members elected to both houses ?—A. 
Y"es, sir, there was no question as to the quorum of the joint session. 

Q. Who received all the votes of the joint session ?—A. William Pitt 
Kellogg. 

Q. Was there any other candidate ?—A. If my memory serves me 
there’was no other mentioned. 

Q. Had Warmoth and all the other candidates withdrawn, and rec¬ 
ommended their friends to vote for me?—A. That is my understanding. 

Q. Do you know whether there was any money used for promoting or 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 

inducing my election?—A. I am very certain there was no money used 
for that purpose, or in connection therewith. 

Q. You understood that all the State officers and other prominent 
leaders were for me ?—A. I so understand, that there was no opposition 
at that time. 

Q. I was the universal choice of all the leaders of the party ?—A. You 
were at that time. 

Q. Of the outgoing and incoming officers ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any offers, or rewards, or pecuniary inducements, 
directly or indirectly, that were offered to anybody to secure my elec¬ 
tion ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Was I present in any caucus urging my own election?—A. You 
never was. 

By Senator Bill : 

Q. Are you through with the witness ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, for the present. 

By Mr. Walker: ^ 

Q. In what parish in the State of Louisiana do you claim your resi¬ 
dence or domicile ?—A. Bed River Parish. 

Q. How long have you been there?—A. Since its organization. 

Q. In what year?—A. If my memory serves me correctly, 1870. 

Q. What office or official connection have you held with the affairs of 
that parisl) in that time?—A. I have been a member of the school- 
board. 

Q. In what year ?—A. I don’t remember. I think, though, ever since 
the organization of the parish, and I have been a member of the police 
jury. That is all. 

Q. Y'ou were a member of the legislature in what years ?—A. I was a 
member of the State senate during the entire time. 

Q. From 1870 to what time ?—A. To 1878. 

Q. Is it not true that you had control, to a great extent in that par¬ 
ish, of the financial affairs of that community ?—A. i don’t know that 
1 can measure my infiuence. I always had sufiicientcontrol to be elected 
when 1 went l)efore the people. 

Q. Did you have control of the issuance of jury papers?—A. I 
didn’t; I was one of five who had that matter in charge. 

Q. Were they under your infiuence ?—A. I don’t imagine that 1 had 
more than ordinary infiuence that a man ought to have. 

Q. 1 don’t want your imagination ; 1 want an answer to my question 
affirmatively or negatively.—A. 1 always control my own vote. 

Q. Did you ever have an appropriation made for the improvement of 
Lake Bistenay?—A. 1 didn’t; 1 was not a member of the legislature at 
that time. 

Q. Didn’t you have a contract for doing the work ?—A. I was one of 
the incorporators. 

Q. Well, that is scarcely an answer to that question, Mr. Twitchell. 
Who were the parties to that contract?—A. Yat. Puckett, M. H. 
Twitchell, Mr. Lewis, and another man whose name has passed my 
memory now. There were four incorporators, but 1 don’t remember the 
fourth. 

Q. What was the amount of remuneration under that contract— 
twenty thousand dollars?—A. There were fifty thousand dollars api)ro- 
priated, or so much thereof as ai)i>ropriate. 

Cl) S K 


1090 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. ilow much did you receive?—A. There were forty-eiglit thousand 
six hundred dollars paid out. 

Q. AVbo received that money ?—A. Parties who performed the work 
for Mr. Puckett and myself received the money from the State and paid 
the contractors and sub-contractors. 

Q. Did you pay Mr. Puckett $5,000 for his certificate—for certifying 
that the work had been done when it was not doue, and otdy an insig¬ 
nificant amount of it was done ?—A. 1 did not. 

Q. When you were State senator from that district, didn’t you cause 
to be made an appropriation of $3,000 to build a dam across Honey 
Bayou ?—A. I didn’t cause any such appropriation ; I don’t remember 
that 1 was a member of the legislature at that time; nor was I a mem- 
l)er at the time this other appropriation was maue, that you have 
dragged in here. 

Q. When was the parish of Eed River created ?—A. In 1870. 

Q. Or 1871—which?—A. I cannot remember. 

Q. Weren’t you chiefly instrumental in having it created?—A. I was 
energetic in my endeavors to have it created. 

Q. Do you know a firm by the name of Abney & Love ?—A. I do ; 
or did. 

Q. Did you not go to them and insist upon their naying you two hun¬ 
dred dollars, or you would have the court-house moved to their detri¬ 
ment?—A. 1 did not. 

Q. Did you make the same application to Dr. Goehagan ? Do you 
know him ?—A. 1 do ; but 1 didn’t. 

Q. Did you do the same to Mr. Prudhomme or Mr. Paxton or Fr^^e, 
or Liscaux & Bro. ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was Mr. Dewees a member of that jury ? —A. A member of the 
police Jury ? Yes, sir. 

Q. i). W. Dewees?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He V7as your associate in that body ?—A. He was a member of the 
Republican party with myself. 

Q. And a member of the legislature also ?—Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there a man of the name of Roach ?—A. Who? 

Q. A man by the name of Roach ; was he also a member ?—A. He 
may have been a short time, but I do not remember positively. 

Q. And a negro by the name of Andrew Bosley ?—A. I do not re¬ 
member that he ever was. Are you speaking of the police jury or the 
legislature? 

Q. The police jury.—A. I do not think he ever was. 

Q. Do you know what Dewees’s re()utation was?—A. I do not. 

Q. You do not know what his reputation was ?—A. I do not know 
that there was anything specially good or specially bad. He had the 
common reputation of any other man. 

Q. You do not know what his reputation was?—A. I suppose I do. 

Q. Do you know anything to his discredit?—A. 1 know nothing to 
his discredit. 

Q. Did you ever have a man by the name of John T. Yates appointed 
sheriff?—A. 1 did. I recommended his appointment when the parish 
was created. 

Q. Did you not know that he had been tried and convicted for steal¬ 
ing corn and cattle and cotton ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you not know that his general reputation was that of a thief ? 
—A. Not at the time that 1 signed his papers. 

Q Was this man Roach his deputy?—A. He was under Yates; yes, 
sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1091 


Q. You leineiuber a man of the name of Pickens ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. What i)Osition did he occupy ?—A. lie was parish judge; judge of 
the parish, elected by the i)eople. 

^Ir. SS11ELLABA.RGER. 1 do not feel callecf upon as counsel of Senator 
Kellogg to make any objection to the scope of this examination except 
so far as it might bring into the case things affecting him or matters 
that are damaging to him. I make the point that if this examination is 
for the purpose of introducing original evidence upon this point, it is 
not a cross-examination. If it is not a cross examination 1 do not see its 
relevancy. 1 have waited to see what it has to do with his credibility, and 
I have failed to see it I make the point, therefore, that it is not a cross- 
examination; and if it is to bring in matters of a disreputable nature as 
affecting this witness originally, it is not a proper examination, and it does 
not go to the credibility of the witness. It relates, so far as 1 have seen, 
to nothing that he has testified to. It cannot, therefore, have any other 
object than to reflect upon his character. If these transactions are dis¬ 
reputable, certainly they are not competent to be testified to here as af¬ 
fecting the credit of the witness. You cannot show as an original i)rop- 
osition that he has been doing wrong unless it relates to his character 
or reputation for truth and veracity, and therefore as bearing on his 
credit. I want once for all to make the i)oint, and to make it bear on 
others as well as this witness, that when it is not a proper cross-exami¬ 
nation it is not competent testimony to be heard by this committee. 

Mr. AValker. I cannot do more than to control the examination of 
the witness according to the rules which I understand to govern the ex¬ 
amination before this committee. 

Senator UoAR. State the question again. I came in since the point 
was made. 

Mr. Walker. The question was asked if a man by the name of Pickens 
was in his (the witness’s) recollection, and if he held office in the parish ; 
and I can only judge of the latitude allowed counsel before this commit¬ 
tee by the course of the sub-coinmittee in New Orleans, and I do not 
think" I have put myself in the examination of this witness outside of 
the rule set by the sitting member for his own guidance before that 
committee. 

Senator Kellogg. I would like the counsel to state where it is in the 
record that I have set out any rule. 

Air. Walker. The instances are so numerous that I do not know that 
I could indicate any particular one for the Senator’s information just 

Air. ShellABARGER. Will you answer the question of Senator Hoar ! 

The Chairman. It is as well probably to say here that we have no 
fixed rules to govern the examination of witnesses before this committee. 
\Yry great latitude has been given to the examination and the cross-ex¬ 
amination. Strictly speaking there is more latitude allowed in cross- 
examination than in the examination-in-chief. We <lo not desire to re¬ 
strict the counsel on either side, but it is diflicult for the committee to see 
what is the object of the testimony very often ; difficult to tell sometimes 
whether it goes to the credibility of the witness^or to the facts in the case. 
I ciinnot tell what this counsel proposes by these questions, whether it 
is to affect the credibility of the witness or what it is tor. I think if it 
is to be testimony to affect his credibility very great latitude has al¬ 
ready been allowed in the examination. 1 think it is better for counsel 
learned in the law to govern themselves by what they know to be 
right and proiier, without reipiiring the committee to interfere. We 
have allowed counsel to appear before the committee; counsel are able 


1092 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


to conduct tlie case, and we rely upon them to conduct it properly both 
in the examination and the cross-examination. 

Senator Logan. In this examination the latitude has been very great, 
and I do not know that I object to that; but I could not see for the life 
of me what pertinency there was in the evidence whether this man in a 
former legislature advocated an appropriation for a bridge across a river 
or not. I could not tell what that had to do with the election of United 
States Senator, nor what his contract had to do with it unless it re¬ 
ferred to this election. I do not object particularly, but I cannot see the 
relevancy of it. 

The Chairman. I cannot see the relevancy of a great deal of testi¬ 
mony that has been taken upon both sides of this question. 

Senator Logan. My remark referred to this particular matter. 

The Chairman. There are so many questions that arise here, not 
alone with reference to the Senatorship, but as to the character of the 
witnesses and matters of that sort. There are innumerable issues, so 
that we cannot tell at once what the object of counsel is in asking for 
certain testimony. I would be glad, on both sides, if counsel would re¬ 
frain from putting questions that do not bear in some manner upon the 
main question before this committee. I think it would be better for 
them to shorten this investigation, and save us very much irrelevant 
testimony. Of course 1 cannot give them any directions, for I cannot 
see always what is the object of the testimony ; but I repeat that if this 
testimony is to affect the credibility of the witness a very great latitude 
has already been allowed. If it is to prove that this man was a mem¬ 
ber of the police jury and a dishonest man, then that has nothing to do 
with this case. 

Senator LoGAN. That is what I thought. I am not making the objec¬ 
tion to this gentleman’s testimony particularly, but to all of the same 
kind. It is very easy for gentlemen to say wbat their object is in ask¬ 
ing for testimony, whether it is to bear upon the main facts of the elec¬ 
tion of Senator as to discredit the witness. If it is the latter, it is only 
taking up the time of the committee unnecessarily, and encumbering the 
record with no legitimate object in view. 

Mr. Merrick. The object is to affect the credibility of the witness, 
and the examination is within the limits of the rule under which each 
party has been allow^ed to proceed up to this time. I desire to remark 
this much, that in the courts, wLere the most austere rules are strictly 
applied in the matter of taking testimony, parties on cross-examinatioii 
are allow'ed to go outside of the record and ask the witness about his 
transactions and his life in order that the court may see who he is, so 
that the court and the jury and the judge can see from his own state¬ 
ments how far he is entitled to credit, and that privilege—I suppose we 
may call it a privilege—is subject alone to the discretionary government 
of the court. How far that will be the rule in this committee 1 cannot 
say. That is a matter which is to be governed by the committee itself. 
But the committee has already decided that it is not governed by the 
austere rules of the courts of common law; and from my own experience 
in the examination here last spring each side were allowed very broad 
latitude in the examination of w itnesses. I am sure my associates will 
not ask any question that will not at some time throw'light upon the 
character of this w itness, and show’ w hether he is a ht person to be be¬ 
lieved or not. I do not myself prefer to go beyond the strict rules of 
law except wiiere the testimony may relate to the character and credi¬ 
bility of the w itness ; and perhaps since the world began there has never 
come before any court or committee such a cloud of witnesses as has 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1093 


been before this comiuittee, and I think you will take some latitude 
in this examination in order to find out the character of them, and 
whether they ought to be believed, and I think you ought to search by 
every means in your power to find out the character of each and every 
one of these witnesses. If a witness is before you and testifies straight¬ 
forward on the facts, if there are in the possession of other parties evi¬ 
dences that he has lived a life of an habitual villain, and that his char¬ 
acter is stained with every crime on the record, do you think that in 
that case you ought to shut out from your eyes testimony of that record, 
and take from his lii)S as from the lips of a pure man his testimony as 
truth, and worthy of belief ? I certainly think you will not and should 
not. As to what use is to be made of the testimony sought now, that is 
another question. Mr. Shellabarger’s objection at another time when 
we come to allow the testimony would be proper, but under the two 
rules of law that I have referred to, you have the right to get from him 
the testimony of his life and character ; and, second, you have the right 
to get from him explanations of matters that have been introduced in 
evidence. 1 think, therefore, tliat you are certaiidy right in deciding to 
let us have that testimony. 

Senator Hill. I suppose it would be proper to admit it if it relates to 
the credibility of the witness. I think in that case it is right, and 1 
suppose there is no issue between any of us. We must decide it now, 
and let the examination go on. 

Mr. SiiKLLABARGER. 1 deem it due that I should say this much in 
rei)ly to Brother Merrick : 

We do not differ about the principles of law, and certainly before 
a committee of this kind, composed of eminent and able lawyers as they 
are, 1 would not presume to dift'er upon (piestions of that kind. I 
agree that if a witness is tried before the committee that is stained with 
every crime in the record, as he has suggested, that it would be allowed 
to bring that out; but the only practical matter is contained in my ob¬ 
jection, and is this: That the cross examination was bringing out dis¬ 
tinct transactions as well as contracts, and the payment of this money 
and that money ; those things jiointing to distinct transactions as the 
subject-matter of distinct accusations against this witness. xVnd if these 
things are to be gone into, and are to be thrown at this man for the pur¬ 
pose of imiieaching his testimony, I insist, if the witness is to enter at 
that door, and the committee at that door, and it is to be allowed to exam¬ 
ine and show up all these transactions, that we shall be allowed, upon the 
other hand, to call witncvsses and show them as they were. You see 
where it is leading us to. I insist upon your doing nothing more than 
our brother suggests. If he is a convict, you can show that; and I think 
that in doing what he suggests we are coming fully up to what the law 
will justify. 

Senator Hilt.. I think so too. 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. 1 iusist, if these transactions are gone into, that 
we shall be allowed to call witnesses and have testimony showing them 
as thev were. 

Mr. Merrick. As I said, and I repeat, let us take the (luestions as 
they arise; let us take them as they come up, and anticit)ate nothing. 

Mr. SIIELLABARGER. 1 anticipate nothing. 

Mr. Merrick. Under the two rules of law which I have stated, we 
have the right to go on and make this man say what his lite has been, 
and what his transactions have been, and then, when the questions come 
up in the course of that testimony, we can dispose of them, and we can 


1094 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


tell when the objection is made what we propose to do with the testi¬ 
mony. 

Senator Hoar. Ido not understand the two rules of law to be as stated 
by Mr. Merrick. I understood them to be as he first stated, that, in the 
discretion of the court, you might go over the general character of the 
witness, where he lived, who he was, his occupation, and so on ; but 
that you could not enter into an examination of every act of his life— 
'whether he has been in prison or charged with crime, or whether he has 
been convicted ; that all stands upon a separate ground, and while it is 
legitimate on cross examination in certain cases, I do not think, in an 
investigation of this sort, in the manner here proposed, it is proper tes¬ 
timony. 

Now, in order to do that in a proper manner, ought he not to tell the 
witness, as well as tell the court, the object of questions which are put 
to him ? There must be a certain latitude allowed in the examination of 
witnesses. It is due from the tribunal to the counsel, and it is due from 
the counsel, that the privilege should not be abused. This is a political 
strife between the two parties dividing the people in Louisiana. It is 
enough to go into his life to the extent of showing that he is a Repub¬ 
lican politician; that he was active on Kellogg’s side, and an intense 
politician. You may show that he is a man whose politics have been 
profitable to him, and that he has been connected with transactions 
that brought him office and profit. You can ask that witness whether 
he has been employed in the custom-house, and whether his services in 
the Republican party have been profitable to him and profitable to his 
l^arty in securing this result. If it is competent, then it is very difficult 
to ask Mr. AYalker to point out the effect of every question that he pro¬ 
poses to ask the witness. But 1 understand that, so far as the facts that 
are brought out are not material, the i)erson asking the question is 
bound by the answer, and cannot hereafter interpose other testimony to 
prove that it is not a fact as stated by the witness. So I would be op¬ 
posed to interfering at this i)oiut. 

Senator Logan. Before proceeding I want to make a suggestion, and 
I do it not for the purpose of saying anything that counsel will think is 
aimed at them, but simply to save time. 1 do not know what the rule 
may be here, but in the courts where 1 practice the courts do not hear 
arguments on objections to evidence. If that is a proper rule I should 
like to confine it to that before the committee. I do not want to take 
up the time of the committee in hearing the argument of questions that 
he court itself is competent to decide, and I say if that is a proper rule 
I think we ought to adopt it here. 

Mr. Merrick. In the courts where I practice it is not the rule not to 
hear argument upon objections to the testimony, but I am willing, to 
save time, to acquiesce in the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois. 

Senator Logan. I do not say that it is the rule here, but it is the rule 
where I know something of the rules of practice in the courts, but 
whether it is or not the rule here I would like to see it adopted, 

Mr. Shellabarger. I say witli brother Merrick that it is not the 
rule in my State, but I am willing to see it prevail here. 

Senator Hoar. As both counsel have stated their acquiescence that 
that should be the rule of the committee, I move that it be so adopted 
until further orders. 

The Chairman put the question to'the committee, and the motion to 
establish the rule as stated was adopted. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1095 


By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Wasn’t there a jail and court-house built in the parish of Red River 
in 1871-2?—A. I think so, sir. Yes, sir; 1871 or ’72. 

Q. Who had the contract ?—A. John T. Yates. 

Q. Were you interested in that contrast!—A. I was not. 

Q. Who w’as api)ointed tax-collector in 1871 ! —A. I think my brother, 
Homer J. Twitchell, who was afterwards murdered after being disarmed. 

Q. Who was afterwards appointed !—A. King, who was murdered in 
187(3. 

Q. AYho next?—A. Mr. Wolfson, who made the noise on the court¬ 
house so my shooting should not be heard. He was appointed by the 
Democrats. 

Q. AVhat shooting?—A. AVhen they were attempting to murder me. 
They shot as they thought, I suppose, unfortunately, but not effectively, 
for they shot off* my two arms and crippled me in the legs. 

Q. Do you know whether F. J. Stokes was tax collector of that parish ? 
—A. He was sent up there in 1871, in May, I think. 

Q. What parish \vas that?—A. Red River. 

Q. Was Dewees connected with that contract to build this court¬ 
house ?—A. NOf sir; not to my knowdedge. 

Q. Did you ever have any connection with the issuing of scrip in that 
l^arish of Red River?—A. I w’as president of the police jury. It was 
my duty to sign the scrip after its issue was decided upon by the police 
jury. 

Q. Did you ever make scrij) payable to officials who had never 
rendered any services for it ?—A. Never. 

Q. Did you ever issue any scrip in the morning and sell it the same 
da.r at a large discount ?—A. Never. 

Q. What w’as scrip worth at that time ?—A. You are speaking of 
some number of years. What time do you mean ? 

Q. 1871, 1872,’and 1873 ?—A. My impression is about 75 cents. 

Q. And subse(iuently, in 1874, ’75, and ’7(3 ?—A. Before they com¬ 
menced the murders there and destroyed the confidence of the people 
that was the price. 

Q. And when the scrip began to depreciate they commenced to 
murder ?—A. They began the murdering and then the scrip began to 
go down. They were murdering the heavy tax-payers. 

Di<l you ever make any statement with reference to the transac¬ 
tions of F. J. Stokes as tax collector ?—A. It is possible I did, but not 
probable. 

Q. AVere you the treasurer of the school board ?—A. No, sir ; I never 
was treasurer. 

Q. You w^ere president of the police jury ?—A, Yes, sir ; and he w'as 
treasurer. 

Q. AVho was?—A. Homer J. Twitchell. He had part of the school 
money on him wiien he was murdered, which helped to pay the assassins. 

Q. Did you have a brother-in law named King ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVas he tre.asurer of the parish ?—A. Part of the time. 

Q. Did you ever call an enumeration of the childeren to be made in 
the parish of Red River ? 

Senator Hill. Of what? 

Air. AValker. Of the school children of the parish ? 

Q. (By Air. Walker :) Did you ever have an enumeratian in order to 
make it double what it was?—A. 1 did not; on the contrary, I tried to 
keep it right where it belonged. 


1096 


SPOPFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You say Dewees was a man of good character? Do you know a 
man by the name of John D. Plunkett ?— A. I know a man of that name. 

Q. Was he ever in that section of the country I —A. I know a man of 
that name in that section of the parish. 

Q. What is his character ?—A. He is a kind of simple boy, no charac¬ 
ter particularly that I know of. 

Q. So he has no character?—A. No character particularly ; he is just 
a simple boy. 

Q. What is his reputation ?—A. I do not know as he had any except 
for a lack of sense. 

Q. Was he associated with you in any business transaction ?—A. In 
no business at all. He was a body servant of mine a while. 

Q. Mr. Twitchell, you were interrogated regarding the quorum, I be¬ 
lieve, on the 10th of January, in the joint session. Do you recollect 
whether there was a quorum of the house on the day preceding?—A. I 
do not. 

Q. Do you recollect whether there was a quorum the day succeeding 
or the day after ?—A. I am quite certain there was of the house, and 
equally certain there was of the senate. 

Q. Don’t you know that on the 10th of January there was great con¬ 
fusion existing in that hall of the house where the joint session was held ? 
—A. I do not know as there was any more than is usual on such an oc¬ 
casion. 

Q. Don’t you know that it was largely mixed in with by-standers that 
were mixed in with the members ?—A. I do not. If it was so I was not 
aware of it. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did Senator Kellogg aid you in getting an appointment your consul 
at Kingston ?—A. Not in the least, to my knowledge. 

Q. Well, now, Mr. Twitchell, were not measures taken there to pre¬ 
vent the members from going out of the house on the day of that joint 
session ?—A. It is likely, but I do not recollect it. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Did you take pains to ascertain whether there was a quorum pres¬ 
ent on the 10th?—A. I watched the roll-call of members. I was care¬ 
ful, for I had some fears before that that there would not be a quorum, 
and I am positive there was a quorum. 

Q. Do you remember Thomas, of Bossier?—A. I do not remember 
about him particularly. 

Q. Do you recollect whether he was present?—A. I do not remember 
him particularly. 

Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Heath, of Webster, was there ?— 
A. I am quite positive he was, but I do not remember him particularly, 
but I know we had a quorum there. 

Q. Were you a member of the senate?—A. I was a member of the 
senate. I was not particular as to the house, as I knew that I had not 
a quorum in the senate. 

Q. There was a necessity, then, for watching?—A. Yes, sir; for one 
or two senators had left the day before and broken a quorum, so that I 
was particular as to the house. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did you state you knew Mr. E. L. Weber?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Weber was before the committee and testified in regard to a 
letter which he said was written by you to him— 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1097 


Now, there is a matter that I wish to refer to, that I would like to have my testimony 
given in Washington before the Potter committee. In that is filed a copy of a letter 
signed “ H. M. Twitchell,” and I am going to say something about Twitchell, and I 
would like to have that letter. Ii is in my testimony, and must be filed in my testi¬ 
mony given in Washington. 

Well, I wish to state, in connection with that letter, that it was sent to me by Mr. 
Twitchell, then senator from the Red River County. It was sent to me by the hands 
of this man Sweazie—George A. ,J. Sweazie—saying that he wanted to see me at once. 
This was on the day of the election, on the day just before the election for United 
Senator. I met Mr. Twitchell subse<[ueutly, and he told me that if I had responded 
favorably to his note that I could have made $2,.">00. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did he tell you how he could have made it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State that, if you please.—A. By appearing in the senate in my seat and voting 
for Governor Kellogg for Senator. 

I will ask you if you remt^nber any such conversation as the last oc¬ 
curring between you and ^Yeber ?—A. 1 may have had a conversation 
with him, but I made no such statement. 

Q. Will you look at that letter ? [Handing witness a letter.] Is that 
your letter ?—Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect where that was written ?—A. In the State-house. 

(^. State to the committee on what it is written.—A. It is on the paper 
of the executive department: written Saturday, the 13th of January. 
That was brought out by a friend of Weber’s, who represented that he 
wanted to come back, and was afraid of being arrested, and I said in the 
letter, therefore, that there was no sergeant-at-arms in it. 

Q. Please read the letter. 

The witness read as follows: 

State of Louisiana, Executive Depaut.ment, 

Xtiv OrleauH, January 13, 1877. 

Fiuend \Vf:i{ER : Please make mean appointment for a friendly and confidential talk 
to-morrow. No sergeant-at-arms in it. 

M. H. TWITCHELL. 

Q. When was the election for Senator?—A. The 10th. 

(,). And this is dated the 13th ?—A. The 13th. 

Q. Was I in the city at that time?—A. Vou had left the city, as I 
su])posed, Friday night or Saturday morning. 

Q. For where ?—A. For Washington. We were anxious for you to 
get here as soon as you could. 

Q. Weber said tluit that letter was to make up a quorum, and when 
Mr. IIill-called his attention to the date he said the date was a mistake. 
Now, I ask you if that letter had anything to do with the election f—xV. 
It was settled at that time. 

Q. Was he there when I was elected ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Wasn’t he known to be my bitter enemy ?—A. Invariably for 
years in the senate. 

Q. Didn’t he go away to break the quorum and hurt me ?—A. Yes, 
sir; that was understood. 

Q. Didn’t he state that he was my enemy?—xV. Yes, sir. 

(,). Do you know why he left the legislature?—xY. I understood that 
he was purchased. 

Senator Kellogg. I will state that this letter was taken from the 
tiles of the Potter committee, and the clerk is here waiting for it. 

IMr. Walker. It was referred to, I thiidv, in the testimony last No¬ 
vember. 

Senator Hill. Weber stated, I thiidv, that he thought it was written 
the day before or the day of the election. 


1098 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Seuator Kellogg. Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) That is the original letter?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there ever any other letter written to you by him ?—A. I re¬ 
member of no other letter. There was none before that. 

Q. Did you have any response to that letter?—A. Afterwards, some 
time, he sent his agent to me continually to meet me and expressing his 
regrets and his fears to come himself, and all that. 

Q. When was that ?—A. I think the first of March or the last of Feb¬ 
ruary ; I think it was that long before I could get to see him. 

Q. Do you remember what time it was that Weber absented himself? 
—A. He left the 8th, or the morning of the 0th of January. 

Q. Did he appear in the State-house after Monday ?—A. He did not 
after the inauguration. 

Q. Of Packard ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What day was that ?—A. The 8th of January. 

Q. At mid-day ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did he next appear in the senate chamber ?—A. If my mem¬ 
ory serves me, it was the last of February or the first of March, just be¬ 
fore the sixty days expired. 

Q. Do you remember whether Breaux was present?—A. Breaux was 
present. I have the full notes now in regard to Mr. Bagnon’s testimony. 

Senator Hill. I think. Senator Kellogg, he has answered that matter 
emphatically enough. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) His full name is Louis F. Baugnon. Do you 
know any such man ?—A. 1 have seen him since I came to Washington. 
He said he had delivered that testimony by being paid for it, but 
he ho])ed that he would lay up no hard feelings against him on account 
of it; that he was offered a thousand dollars by Mr. Spearing to testify, 
and was there, and that was how he came to do it. 

Mr. Merrick. (Objecting pending the delivery of the testimony.) I 
object, and move to strike that out. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I object to its being stricken; it is what the wit¬ 
ness says about his testimony subsequent to its delivery, and I object to 
its being stricken. 

The Chairman. Enter the objections, and we will consider them after¬ 
wards. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) When was your brother tax collector of 
Bed River Parish ?—A. He succeeded Stokes, in 1871 or 1872. 

Q. How long was Stokes tax-collector?—A. About a year. 

Q. How long was your brother?—A. Up to 1874, when he was mur¬ 
dered. 

Q. You were asked as to whether you ever made any proposition to 
a man named Abney. Please state who Mr. Abney is.—A. He was the 
commander of the revolutionary forces who took command and over¬ 
turned the parochial governments in that portion of the State and mur¬ 
dered the parish officers. 

Q. Who was murdered at that time?—A. The United States com¬ 
missioner, and the sheriff, F. S. Edgerton ; the district attorney, W. F. 
Howell; the tax-collector, Homer J. Twitched ; the justice of the peace 
of the second ward, M. 0. Willis ; supervisor of registration for the par¬ 
ish of De Soto, BobertDewees; and the supervisor of Red River Parish, 
Clark Holland. 

Q. Mr. Walker asked you if your brother was murdered, and after 
that who was appointed.—A. George A. King. 

Q. He asked you who was next appointed.—A. Mr. Wolfson. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1099 

Q. Where is Kiug ?—A. He is buried ou Starlight plautatiou, Lou¬ 
isiana. 

Q. Where is Wolfson ?—A. I think he is in Red River, but I do not 
know. 

Q. When did this transaction take place, when these officials were 
killed ?—A. In 1874 as to a portion of them, and King was killed in 
187G. 

Q. What time in 1874 ?—A. The 31st of August. 

Q. Was that known as the Coushatta massacre?—A. I think so. 

Q. Did that embrace all of the officials?—A. All who were not run 
away; the parish judge ran away, but I think it effectually destroyed 
the parochial government by killing nearly all the officials. 

Q. And Abney commanded the forces ?—A. Yes, sir; it was under¬ 
stood that he was in commaiuL The officers were taken a little ways 
from the parish seat; they were promised if they would leave the par¬ 
ish they would be protected, and they were taken out a short distance 
and murdered. 

The Chairman. Did this witness see those murders committed? 

The Witness. No, sir ; not at all. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) What about Mr. Packston ?— A. He is a 
very good man, who was poisoned in 1874, so as not to go back on his 
confederates in these murders. 

Q. What was testified about him ?—A. Nothing, except that I knew 
him, I think. 

Q. Mr. Walker asked you what do you mean by your shooting. Now’ 
what did you mean ?—A. At the time they attempted to assassinate me 
in order to change the majority in the State senate. 

Q. When w as that ?—A. The commencement of the campaign of 1876. 

Q. Were you shot?—A. YYs, sir; I received ten bullets. 

Q. And lost your arms ?—A. Yes, sir ; both of them. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Did you send a dispatch from New Orleans to your brother that 
he should have a negro killed up there for political effect ?—A. No, sir; 
I did not. 1 have had murder proposed to me several times for political 
effect, but I said that I did not belong to any party that carried their 
ends by murder. 


TESTIMONY OF PIERRE MAGLOIRE. 

Pierre jMagloire (colored), a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sw orn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. AVhere do you reside ?—Answer. In Avoyelles. 

Q. In Avoyelles Parish ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided in Avoyelles Parish ?—A. I was born 
and raised there. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. Well, I am a farmer. 

Q. Have you ever represented your parish in the legislature ?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. What year ?—A. In 1877, sir. 

Q. When were you elected?—A. In 1870. 

Q. November, 1870?—A. Y"es, sir. You all must excuse me. I am a 
creole and do not speak so fast. 


1100 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you one of the undisputed members ?—A. JTo, sir. 

Q. Was your election disputed, I mean'? Were you returned by the 
returning board ?—A. My election was not disputed. 

Q. You were returned as elected ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that was conceded by the other party?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You served your term out in the Nicholls legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you meet with what was called the Packard legislature the 
first Monday in January, 1877 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When the Legislature organized ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you a member of the house ?—A. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Q. Did you participate in the election for United States Senator?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. You remember about the time it was held—the day ?—A. About 
the 9th or 10th of January, I believe. 

Q. Of January ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whom did you vote for for United States Senator?—A. For Mr. 
Kellogg. 

Q. Mr. Magloire, last June, before this committee, a witness by the 
name of Tom Murray testified. Do you know him ?—A. Well, I know 
him so-so, not fto very good. 

Q. Thomas Murray testified that he saw three men, naming them, 
who had money after the election for United States Senator, and who 
said they received that money for voting for me for United States 
Senator. Y^ou were one of the three men named, Magloire of Avoyelles. 
Kow I want you to tell the committee if that is true?—A. Ko, sir; I 
never did receive this money, and do not remember speaking to Mr. 
Murray about this thing. 

Q. Did any one ever ofier you any money to vote for me?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any one receiving any money?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any one being promised anything—office or other 
consideration—to vote for me ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did all the Eepublican members of the house vote for me?—A. I 
do not recollect. 

Mr. Merrick. I think that is a matter of record. 

Senator Kellogg. Well, it would show that there could be no induce¬ 
ment to buy men to vote for me. 

Mr. Merrick. I think it shows that they were pretty well bought. 

Senator Kellogg. I do not see it. 

By Senator Hoar: 

Q. Didy ou ever say to anybody that you had received money or 
that anybody had received money to your knowledge for voting for 
Governor Kellogg ?—A. No, sir. 

Mr. Shellabarger. The most material part of the testimony of this 
witness, whom we shall now call [Mr. Seymour], relates to the contents 
of certain affidavits, especially that of Blackstone. Now, if that affi¬ 
davit was not put in evidence in New Orleans that will dispose of this 
witness to some extent. 

Senator Hill. That is in evidence. 

Senator Hoar. Now, that matter about the affidavit has come up a 
good number of times, and I would like to have an understanding about 
it. Governor Kellogg had one understanding and the members,of the 
committee another about it. 

Senator Hill. Jeremiah Blackstone was a member of the Packard 
legislature. He made an affidavit to my knowledge, and he stated that 
Governor Kellogg furnished him money to vote for him and to buy votes 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1101 


for him. This aftidavit was produced as an admission of one of the co- 
conspirators, and the witness liimself was introduced to deny tliat he 
had made the affidavit. It was proven by Mr. Seymour that he did 
make it, and I think Seymour attested it. 

Senator Hoar. 1 do not understand, thoup,h, how it was introduced. 

Senator Hill, it was introduced to contradict the witness and to 
prove his admission. You could not prove by him that he had received 
the money, for that would be to prove a crime ut)ou himself, but you 
could prove his admission of the fact that he had received that money. 

Senator Hoar. 1 think perhat>s that it was prot)er for the sub-coni- 
mittee in New Orleans to receive such affidavits in that manner, because 
before the end of this case is reached there might be shown a conspiracy 
or something of the kind to make them comi)etent testimony. In that 
event, I think it was right enough to receive them and for that purpose. 


TESTIMONY OF W. H. SEYMOUE. 

AY. H. Seymour, a witness heretofore examined by the sub commit¬ 
tee, was recalled to the stand on behalf of the sitting member. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Question. AVhere do you reside ?—Answer. In New Orleans. 

Q. How long have you lived there ?—A. Twenty or twenty-live years. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. I am a notary at i)resent. 

Q. AYere you a witness before the sub committee in New Orleans? — 
A. I was. 

Q. AAHio were you called by ?—A. I do not know, sir; I came on a 
subpoena. 

Q. I mean in whose behalf did you testify ?—A. That I could not tellf 
I answered such questions as were propounded to me. 

Q. AAYre you a nofaiy i)ublic in March, 1878 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AA^as there any investigation then going on in regard to this charge 
of bribery in connection with the election of United States Senator ?— 
A. Yes, sir. Some two months previous to Alarch, in the month of Jan¬ 
uary, 1 was employed to take some depositions, hut that is all in the 
record, and 1 can only reiterate that portion of it. 

Q. Had a committee been raised by the legislature to investigate that 
matter?— A. There was a committee of two, I thiidv— Mr. Boatner and 
Mr. Zachary. 

Was there not a third ?—A. There was, 1 believe. 

Q. Air. Dumont ?—A. Air. Dumont was a member; yes, sir. 

' Q. AVere they senators ?—A. They were senators. 

Q. AYas that'committee in existence in Atarch and April, and during 
the summer of 1878 ?—A. A^es, sir. 

(^ Now, were certain affidavits taken before you at that time ?—A. 
The allidavits were not taken before me; 1 was simply one ot the sub¬ 
scribing witnesses. I took tlie jiarties around who had the atlida\ its to 
a brother notary and attested them myself. 

Q. AVhere is your office ?—A. On Customhouse street. Air. Lewis, 
who* swore them, was on Exchange alley, about one hundred yards offi 

Q. Who were the parties?—A. Blackstone, who was a member ot the 
legislature, and there were two other parties, Kelley and Franklin, 
whom I was afterw’ards informed were not members of the house, al- 



1102 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


though they made affidavits corroborating what Blackstone said him¬ 
self. 

Mr. ShellABARGER. Did 1 understand that they were excluded, those 
affidavits of Franklin and Kelley ? 

Senator Hill. Tliey were excluded. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Was there a statement taken before you or presented to you for 
your attestation purporting to be made by Milon, a member of the legis¬ 
lature?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In your examination in New Orleans I believ^e you testified in re¬ 
gard to that, that Milon appeared at your office in company with other 
parties, and presented this statement. Please state who those parties 
were.—A. One of them was Mr. Dicks. 

Q. What is his given name?—A. George Dicks. 

Q. Who is George Dicks?—A. He was a claim agent, some two years 
ago, in New Orleans; Ido not know where he is now. 

Q. Is he the man who was up there before the Potter committee ?— 
A. The same one, sir. 

Q. And who testified ?—A. And testified ; yes, sir. 

Q. Did you swear Mr. Milon ?—A. I did not. 

Q. What is the reason you did not ?—A. He presented a document to 
me on legal cap paper with a signature attached, and two or three sub¬ 
scribing witnesses, but he did not show me what were the contents. 

Q. Was Mr. Dicks one of the subscribing witnesses?—A. I think notj 
not to that one. There were three names to it. 

Q. Whose handwriting was it?—A. I only saw the concluding por¬ 
tion of the affidavit, and I am certain it was Dicks’s handwriting. 

Q. Do you know what it was about?—A. I know it w^as in reference 
to- 

Mr. Merrick. Wait one moment. Produce the paper. 

Senator Hill. This is the same paper that went into the record in 
New Orleans. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. (Handing the witness the alleged Milon affidavit.) Is that the pa¬ 
per?—A. Yes, sir ; the same paper. 

Q. In whose handwriting is that paper ?—A. George Dicks’s. 

Q. Please state the day that Mr. Milon or the person who brought 
this paper to you appeared before you.—A. I am unable to state the 
date. 

Q. Can you state the month ?—A. It was either in February or April, 
1878. 

Q. Was it before or after the 9th of March ?—A. It was after, I think. 

Q. After the 9th ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did the person bringing that paper claim to be a member of the 
legislature?—A. AYs, sir; he was introduced to me as such. 

Q. By whom ?—A. By Mr. Dicks. 

Q. From what jiarish did he claim to be a member?—A. Plaquemines. 

Q. Did you know Mr. Milon personally?—A. No, sir; I never saw 
him before. 

Q. Did he swear to that affidavit before you ?—A. He did not. 

Q. Did he say that was his signature and his statement?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was this admitted in evidence before the sub committee? Did 
you read it before the sub committee?—A. I do not remember whether 
I did or not. 

Q. Did you testify in regard to it?—A. I remember giving to the 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1103 

committee the substance of Blackstone’s aflidavit, of which I had kept 
a copy, but not as to Milon’s. 

Q. Did you testify with reference to Milon’s affidavit?—A. Yes, sir; 

I did. 

Q. (Readiii".) “ Senator Hill (to Senator Vance). What do you say, 
Senator ? We propose to incorporate that affidavit in the’testimony. 
Senator Vance. O, yes. Senator Hill (to the stenographer). Please 
incorporate that affidavit at this point.” Is this the paper that you had 
before you testifying to?—A. No, sir; I had simply one paper, the sub¬ 
stance of Blackstone’s affidavit, and when the original was introduced 
it was found to be correct. 

Q. Did you see this one before you ?—A. I did not; it was not in my 
possession. 

Q. Ill your testimony before the sub committee in New Orleans I find 
under the head of William H. Seymour, a witness called by the memo¬ 
rialist, this: “ By Senator Cameron. Q. When did you first see this 
]>aper, Mr. Seymour ?—A. When it was brought me by Dicks and Mr. 
Milon; Mr. Dicks was one of the subscribing witnesses.”—A. That is 
right. 

Q. Is this the paper?—A. Yes, sir ; this is the paper. 

(^. And incorporated in your testimony ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Now, I will ask you to state to the committee if you have since 
seen Mr. Milon ?—A. No, sir; that is, I have not seen the same party 
who called on that occasion. 

(^. Have you seen Mr. Milon ?—A. I have seen a colored gentleman 
there who I was informed was ^lilon. 

Q. Was he being examined before the sub-connnittee ?—A. He was. 

Q. Was that man who was thus being examined the man who ap¬ 
peared with Mr. Dicks before you ?—A. No, sir. I stated before the 
committee that the man who appeared and desired to be sworn was a 
grille in color. 

Q. What color was the man who w^as on the witness stand ?—A. He 
was black. 

Q. When Mr. Milon was being examined did anybody send for you?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did 3'ou appear in the room ! —A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Did they ask you if that was the man ?—A. No, sir; I think not. 
Tliey asked Milon if he had ever seen me before, and he said not; but 
the question was not put to me. 

Q. I asked you if you were asked privately by anybody whether he 
was the man ?—A. I was asked if that was the same party, and I said 
I could not recognize him. I said he was not. 

Q. And did you then leave the room ?—A. Yes, sir; I left the room. 

Then it was not Mr. Milon ?~A. Ido not know ; I know it was not 
the partv who was on the stand. 

Q. And it was after the Dth of March that was?—A. Yes, sir. 

When did you go with Dicks to Lewis to see the Blackstone affi¬ 
davit made, when you went to have the;oath administered? Do you 
remember the day of the month ?—A. The 17th of April, sir. 

Q. The 17th of April ?—A. Yes, sir; that is correct, the 17th of April. 

(,). Was that the same day that the Franklin and Kelley papers were 
sworn to ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. When you went with Mr. Blackstone, Kelley, and Franklin, did 
you understand that all three were members of the legislature ?—A. I 
knew positively that Blackstone was a member, and I was under the 


1104 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


impression that the others were also. The transaction, however, took 
only a few minutes’ time. 

Q. Did Dicks accompany you !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He seemed to have these men in charge?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you believe they were members?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. W. K. Spearing?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does he reside?—A. In New Orleans. 

Q. What is his business ?—A. He has a livery stable on Gravier 
street. He was formerly from Chicago, 1 believe. 

Q. Was he ijresent at anj^ time when these affidavits were being 
drawn up or discussed and executed?—A. Yes, sir; he was present at 
the first meeting of the committee in my office at night. 

Q. Was he in Lewis’s office with you ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know a man named Ewart?—A. Yes, sir; he testified in 
New Orleans. 

Q. What is his business ?—A. He keeps a coffee-house and boarding¬ 
house near the French market and does a large business, and I believe 
discounts pension papers also. 

Q. When did you first see or liear of him in this matter ?—A. In the 
month of March or February, 1878. 

Q. Did you see him with Spearing at that time ?—A. Yes, sir; I saw 
him on one or two occasions with Spearing. In fact, more than that; 
on several occasions. 

Q. Did you see him with Blackstone ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were they all three together at your office in the month of March, 
1878?—A. Yes, sir; in January, February, and March. 

Q. Often ?—A. Well, sir, on several occasions. 

Q. What was their business?—A. Mr. Spearing was the gentleman 
who introduced me to the members of the legislature and to the commit¬ 
tee for the purpose of taking testimony and depositions; that is the way 
I became acquainted with him. 

Q. With Spearing?—A. Yes, sir; I found him a very pleasant gen¬ 
tleman, and I called on him several times and he on me. 

Q. Was that all the connection you had with these affidavits ?—A. 
That is all; the Blackstone and Kelley and Franklin affidavit, and see¬ 
ing the Milon affidavit. 

Q. Will you look at that document and see if it is signed by Mr. 
Spearing ? (passing a paper to the witness).—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it written by him ?—A. I could not tell whether it is written by 
him. He gave it to me and said it was his signature. 

Q. Look at that paper (passiuganother to the witness).—A. That docu¬ 
ment was drawn up by Mr. George Dicks, who drew up the affidavits. 

Q. Please state to the committee the date of that ?—A. March 9,1878. 

Q. That is a document addressed to yourself ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Signed by William K. Spearing ?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Was it signed on the day indicated?—A. Yes, sir; and delivered 
to me by Mr. Spearing in person. 

Q. Was this paper signed by Dicks ? (passing the second paper a& 
above indicated back to the witness).—A. Yes, sir; that is his signj^- 
ture. 

Q. Is that Ewart’s signature ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that Ewart’s signed with red ink ?—A. Yes, sir.. 

Q. Who had the Blackstone affidavit after it was executed ?—A. 
Ewart had it for mouths. 

Q. Did he take charge of that affidavit when it was made? Did he. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1105 

or Dicks, or Spearing?—A. Mr. Ewart took charge of it, so he in¬ 
formed me. 

Q. Djd he take charge of all of them?—A. No, sir; only two. 

Q. Which two?—A. Blackstone’s and Milon’s, and he informed me 
that he locked them up in his safe. 

Q. When did you next see those affidavits?—A. A day or two before 
they were introduced before the sub committee in New Orleans, and be¬ 
fore it was about to be convened there. 

Q. You recollect the day that Mr. Ewart testified ?—A. I think it was 
after I did—five or six days. 

Q. You remember what day it was?—A. The day Mr. Ewart testi¬ 
fied ? 

A. Yes, sir.— 1. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Do you remember that those affidavits were given up by Ewart to 
Spearing the day before he testified ?—A. I could not say. I know they 
were together the week before, probably. 

Q. Were they at your office the day before ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, two weeks before?—A. No, sir ; it was several daj^s. Mr. 
Ewart had gotten into contempt of court for not appearing before the 
court, and the judge would not let him off for several days, and that was 
the reason why I understood he did not appear sooner. 

Senator Kellogg. I desire to introduce these papers. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) What is the date of this paper ?—A. March 
9, 1878. 

Q. Was it made at the same time as the other paper?—A. I could 
not state. It bears the same date. 

Q. Didn’t you have personal knowledge of these two papers ?—A. 
You mean the getting up of this agreement? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. No, sir; I knew nothing about it for some time after¬ 
wards. 

Q. You knew it from the admissions of the parties subsequently ?— 
A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Y^ou knew of the one from Spearing to you, though ?—A. Y’es, sir; 
Mr. Blackstone insisted on having a copy of that note of Spearing’s, 
and I gave it to him; the other came into my possession some time after¬ 
wards quite unexpectedly. 

i\Ir. Shellabarger. I offer them in evidence. 

The Chairman. They will go in unless there is objection, and if there 
is we will hear it. 

Mr. Merrick. We object to the admissibility of the papers, and 
under the arrangement previously made the papers can be taken and 
inspected by the committee, and introduced or not as they may deter¬ 
mine. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I suppose I am not excluded from stating the 
grounds on which we offer them. The ground is that as between Dicks 
and Spearing, re[)resentatives of the prosecution at that time and still 
of Senator Kellogg, they disclose a corrupt arrangement, and that the 
affidavits against Kellogg were bought and were paid for, or in part 
j)aid for. If there is any doubt about their admissibility I would like 
for the committee to consider the question in full committee, as it is 
likely to be an important point in Senator Kellogg’s case. 

Senator LoGAN. Has this man Blackstone been sworn in this case? 

Senator Hill. Certainly. 

Senator Logan. Has Ewart ? 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir; and Seymour, in New Orleans. 

Mr. Shellabarger. This is one of those questions the decision of 

70 s K 


1106 


SPOFFOED VS. KELLOGG. 


which ought to he kuown to counsel and the party as early as practica¬ 
ble. We ought to know whether these papers will be in or not, as that 
fact will affect every other subject nearly in the proceeding. We might 
go on on assumption that they are in, but if they are declared to be out 
afterwards, we might have need to supply the proof in some other way. 
That is the reason vrhy we should know the decision of the committee at 
once. 

Senator Kellogg. W^e propose now, Mr. Chairman, to read these 
papers. 

Mr. Meerick. I object. 

The objection w^as sustained as to the reading of the papers by Sen¬ 
ator Kellogg, and the preceding objection was held under advisement, 
to be hereafter determined by the committee. 

Mr. Walker, of counsel for the memorialist, stated that he had aban¬ 
doned the idea of cross-examining Mr. Thomas B. Stamps; and the wit¬ 
ness was thereupon discharged. 

On motion, the committee adjourned the further consideration of the 
case to 10 o’clock Thursday, January 15, 1880. 


Washington, D. C., 
Thursday^ January 15, 1880. 

The committee met pursuant to its order of adjournment, and resumed 
the taking of testimony. 

Present, a quorum of the members of the committee, Mr. E. T. Mer¬ 
rick and 0. L. Walker, counsel for the memorialist, the memorialist, 
Henry M. Spofford, Mr. Shellabarger, counsel for the sitting member, 
and the sitting member in person, Hon. William Pitt Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. The first question, I believe, is to decide upon the ad¬ 
missibility of those papers which were mentioned yesterday afternoon. 
It is necessary, as Judge Shellabarger says, that counsel and the parties 
should know what the decision is with regard to them before going on. 
Here is a letter addressed to William H. Seymour, esq. (reading the 
letter): 

Senator Yance. Where does the letter come from '? 

Senator Hill. Senator Kellogg produces it here, and proves its 
genuineness as being sent to Seymour. 

Senator Hoar. Seymour did, in fact, take part in getting up those 
affidavits. 

Senator Hill. I think, in preparing four of the affidavits. 

Now, here is the other paper (reading the paper). 

Senator Hoar. Is Blackstone’s affidavit in ? 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hoar. I would like to hear the argument of counsel as to 
the admissibility of that testimony. 

Senator Cameron. Ewart was examined in New Orleans, and testi¬ 
fied that he had no pecuniary interest in this matter. 

Senator Hill. I think he testified something of the sort. 

Written across this in red ink is the following (reading the indorse¬ 
ment). I am ready to form my opinion upon the admissibility of the 
testimony. 1 do not think there can be any doubt about it. 

The Chairman. The question before us is whether these papers shall 
be admitted. 

Mr. Merrick. I wish to make a remark in regard to this testimony. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1107 


After looking over, and after seeing wbat tbe public press says about 
it this morning, I have concluded to withdraw my objection and let tbe 
papers go in. 

Henator Hoar. I have not seen wbat was said in tbe public press 
about it. 

Senator Hill. 1 have not seen anything in tbe press. 

Mr. Merrick. These papers have gone forth in tbe public press as 
contracts with which Mr. Spofford was connected. Now, in order to 
put upon tbe record proi)er evidence upon that point, I withdraw tbe 
objection. 

The Chairman. Mr. Stenographer, state that, tbe objection being 
withdrawn, tbe papers are admitted to go upon tbe record. 

Tbe papers are as follows: 

W. H. Seymour, Esq.: 

Dear Sir: I am authorized to guarantee, and do guarantee, personally that the ex¬ 
pense of obtaining the necessary evidence to establish charges of bribery, &c., made 
against William P. Kellogg will be paid to tbe extent of $1,500, provided this expense 
is approved by you as necessary; and jyrovided further, that no money or pecuniary 
reward is paid or promised to any witness for testifying. The witness wdll be ex¬ 
pected to appear before the legislative committee and testify, and the money only 
to be paid after the case is properly made out and Avorked up. 

WM. K. SPEARING. 

March 9,1878. 

New Orleans, March 9, 1878. 

It is understood and agreed between George Dicks and EdAvard J. Ewart that the 
amount to be deposited in the hands of IVilliam H. Seymour, notary, SL.'iOO, being 
the amount to be paid to Jeremiah Blacksione for his services in procuring testimony 
and aftidavits in the niatter of JViUsam J\ Kellogg, as ^ev contract, signed this 9th day 
of March, 1878; that the said Edward J. Ewart shall advance unto the said George 
Dicks what amount may be necessary in order to procure the corroborative testimony 
in the said case of Kellogg, providing that the said sum shall not exceed five hundred 
dollars ($500), and that William II. Seymour, notary, be authorized to retain out of the 
said $1,500 the amount advanced by E. J. EAvart, together Avith interest and commis¬ 
sions amounting to-dollars. 

ED. .7. EWART. 

GEORGE DICKS. 

I agree to the above contract. 

JEREMIAH BLACKSTONE.” 


(Indorsement:) This agreement having been broken reputedly by Mr. Dicks, all 
further agreements and transactions shall be manig and controlled by use regardless 
of Mr. Dicks. 


ED. J. EWART. 

J. BLACKSTONE. 


April 17,187."'. 


William H. Seymour, tbe witness last upon tbe stand yesterday, 
was recalled oii bebalf of tbe sitting member. 

By Mr. ShellABARGER: 

Question'. I believe you were not asked yesterday about it, but here 
is an original afiidavit wbicb bas been banded me by tbe stenograpber; 
whose bandwriting is that in (passing tbe Blackstone atUdavit.) ?— 
Answer. The bandwriting of George Dicks. 

Q. Is that tbe allidavit you saw sworn to and attested by tbe notary 
of whom you have testified ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It is dated tbe 17tb Ajuil; is that tbe true date of tbe transac¬ 
tion f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 1878?—A. Y'es, sir, 1878. 

Do these two contracts, bearing date tbe Otb of March, 1878, bear 
tbe'^true date of tbe transaction ?—A. They do, sir. 




1108 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. IJo I iiDclerstaiid you to state, Mr. Seymour, that you saw Biack- 
stoiie sign this pai)er, which purports to be au affidavit from him, bear¬ 
ing date 17th April, 1878?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Seymour, are these papers, the one bearing date New Orleans, 
March 9,1878, and signed by Ewart and Dicks and Blackstone, and the 
other, bearing date New Orleans, March 9, 1878, and signed by Spear¬ 
ing, original papers?—A. Yes, sir, they are original papers. 

Q. Do you know how they came into the possession of Mr. Kellogg ?— 
A. They did not get into the possession of Mr. Kellogg. 

Q. How did they get into the possession of counsel on the other side? 
—A. They were delivered to a member of the committee at his request. 
He wrote a note. 

Q. Which member of the committee were they delivered to!—A. The 
Hon. Mr. Cameron. 

Q. To whom was the request addressed ?—A. To me, sir. 

Q. Were they in your custody?—A. They were, sir. 

Q. In what capacity?—A. One of them had been addressed to me by 
Mr. Spearing, at the request of Mr. Blackstone, who has a copy of the 
note of Mr. Spearing in his possession ; and the other was called an 
agreement, and was left with me for safe keeping some week or two 
after the affidavit. It was made by Blackstone after the 1st May, 1878. 

Q. The affidavit of Mr. Blackstone bears date April 17th?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And the paper which I understand you to designate as an agree¬ 
ment bears date of the 9th March ?—A. That is correct, sir. 

Q. The agreement was left with you?—A. Yes, sirj about the 1st 
May. 

Q. Sometime after the date it is dated?—A. Yes, sir; some seven, 
eight, or ten days. 

Q. Who left it with you ?—A. Mr. Ewart and Blackstone. 

Q. Ewart and Blackstone left it with you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You state that that was eight or ten days after the contract was 
made?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Do you mean eight or ten days alter the affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir ; 
after the 17th April. 

Mr. Merrick. What is that? 

Mr. Shellabarger. I asked liim if he meant to say the deposit was 
eight or ten days after the contract, or after the affidavit of Blackstone, 
and he sa\ s it was after the date of the affidavit. 

Mr. Merrick. No, sir; he says it was after the date of the contract, 
as I understand it. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I understand him differently. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. The paper you designate as the affidavit is dated March 9, 1878 ? 
—A. I was not speaking of that note, sir. 

Q. The note is dated March 9, also the same day as the agreement 
by Ewart and Blackstone ?—^A. That last agreement did not come into 
my possession until about the first of May. 

Q. Did you know of its existence before?—A. I never knew of its 
existence until that time. 

Q. Well, the note came into your possession when ?—A. On the day it 
was addressed; it was delivered to me by Mr. Spearing on that day in 
person. 


spot FORD VS. KELROGG. 1109 

Q. Mr. Spearing delivered it to you on the day it bears date ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. But the paper called an agreement did not come into your possCvS- 
sion until the first of May ?—A. Until the first of May, sir. 

Q. The allidavit bears date the day it purports to be made?—A. Yes, 
sir; I took him before the notary on that day myself. 

Q. Why did not you swear him yourself ?—A. I told you I had had 
some considerable experience with that class of witnesses, and I was 
afraid it would turn out again as it did, and that they would go back on 
them. 

Q. You didn’t want to complicate yourself, then ?—A. I thought they 
would deny it, and it turned out that way, and for that reason I took 
them to another notary, and had Captain Sambola, a prominent attor¬ 
ney, to attest it with me. 

Q. Captain who?—A. Anthony Sambola; that is his signature and 
affidavit. 

Q. That is his affidavit. Having received the letter of Mr. Spearing 
on the day which it appears to bear date and the paper purporting to be 
the agreement dated the Oth of March after first of May, what was your 
relation to the transaction from that time, the first of May, compared with 
whatever your relation might have been prior to that time ?—A. It was 
simply in the same manner from January until iMay. Mr. Spearing was 
very desirous to get these papers, and Blackstone declined to give them 
until he was satisfied that he would be reimbursed for any expenses in 
getting to the country to get these afiidavits. Blackstone did go to the 
country and remain away some time. 

Q. In this note that Mr. Spearing addresses to you I find that he 
states as follows: 

W. H. Seymour, Esq.: Dear Sir: I am antborized to f;uarautee and do guarantee 
j)ersonally that the expense of obtaining necessary evidence to establish charges of 
bribery, tVc., made against William P. Kellogg will be paid to the extent of Si,500, 
provided this expense is ajiproved by yon as necessary, and provided further that no 
money or pecuniary reward is paid or promised any witness for testifying. The wit¬ 
nesses will be expected to appear before a legislative committee and testify, and the 
money only to be paid alter the case is properly made out and worked np. 

You will see that he reposes a sort of trust in you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. “ Provided this expense is approved by you as necessary.” Did 
you acceiit that trust ?—A. Yes, sir; I had been engaged in the matter 
some two months before that. 

Q. And you were to approve the bills?—A. Yes, sir; any bills that 
might be incnrred. 

Q. “Provided further that no money or pecuniary reward is paid or 
promised to any witness for testifying ?”—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. Then you understood the expenses to be paid were expenses nec¬ 
essarily incurred in searching for witnesses, but 3^011 were not to bo aP 
lowed to pa.y money to an^^ witness or to pay money to anj^ person to 
pay to the witnesses ?—A. That was my understanding of it. 

Q. After the 1st of May, when this contract came into your possession, 
what view diil you then take of the matter, and what did you then do 
with regard to this imposed trust ?—A. 1 saw then that it was simply a 
combination by these parties to make money, and I dropped the whole 
matter. 

(^. You saw it was a combination between these chaps to make 
money, and 3 ’ou determined to have nothing more to do with it ?—A. 
YYs, sir. 

Q. Who were these parties, now ?—A. Mr. Blackstone, he appeared 


1110 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


to be the leader so far as Dicks and Ewart were concerned, he being a 
colored man, and on account of the influence it was supposed he had 
over these colored witnesses. He proposed to go to Shreveport, and 
the trip was an expensive one, as there were no railroads there. 

Q. Well, now, when you got that information from that paper that 
the testimony was to be got as a marketable article and sold to the 
highest bidder, was that your understanding of it A. It struck me 
that way. 

Q. And you then determined to have nothing more to do with it ?— 
A. Nothing more at all. I abandoned the whole aflair. 

Q. I suppose it made no diflerence to these men who got the infor¬ 
mation—which side—so they got paid?—A. I should so consider it. 

Q. Now, there is one other question I should like to ask—one or two 
only. These papers have been introduced here by the other side, as I 
understand it, for the purpose of showing that this arrangement was 
made with a view to the investigation now pending. Did they have 
anything to do with the investigation before the Senate of the United 
States?—A. I did not understand that the Senate of the United States 
had taken any action in the matter then. 

Q. The note says, “ The witnesses will be expected to appear before a 
legislative committee and testify, and the money only to be paid after 
the case is properly made out and worked up.”—A. Yes, sir; that was 
the committee. 

Q. And the money was only to be jmid after the case was property 
made out and worked up before a legislative committee, I understand?— 
A. Yes, sir. There were two or three gentlemen on that committee 
that met at my office on two or three occasions. 

Q. Which committee was that?—A. A committee appointed by the 
legislature of Louisiana, consisting of Senator Boatuer, wffio was chair¬ 
man of the committee, and Mr. Zachary. 

Q. When bad they met at your house for the last time ?—A. In the 
months of January and February. 

Q. They had met there, then ?—A. Yes, sir 5 at my office. 

Q. That was 1878?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were a committee of the Nicholls legislature ?—A. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Dumont, who was a colored member and senator, also had not 
been notified to put in an appearance, and, as he lived near me, I in¬ 
formed him one day that this thing was going on and he should know 
it. 

Q. You informed him that this was going on ?—A. No, sir j not this 
combination, but that the investigation was going on. 

Q. When was the last meeting of the committee ?—A. They met on 
two occasions, once in January, I am positive, and the other time at the 
close of January or in February. 

Q. Did that committee ever do anything further in the matter ?—A. 
No, sir ; Mr. Blackstone was present and one or two other colored men, 
and Mr. Boatner, who was chairman, stated to Blackstone that he had 
no promise to make in this matter, but he would guarantee him to get 
a note from Mr. Ogden, the attorney-general, that he would not be 
prosecuted for being bribed while a public officer. That note was got¬ 
ten. 

Q. Was there any testimony taken?—A. No, sir; for some reason 
they seemed to abandon it. 

Q. Did Mr. Spofford know anything on God’s earth about this trans¬ 
action ?—A. Nothing that I know of. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1111 


By Senator IIill : 

Q. Was i\rr. Spearing a member of the legislature ?—4. He had been 
a member, I think, of a previous legislature, in the Nicholls legislature. 

Q. What do you mean by previous ?—A. The one that assembled 
prior to that of 1876. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. A^ou speak of this being a legislative committee, and you refer to 
two gentlemen who were State senators. Do you know whether it was 
a caucus committee, or a regularly-appointed senate committ;ee of the 
Democratic State senate ^—A. 1 could not say, major. 1 looked upon 
them as gentlemen in full charge of the matter. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Do you know of any oifer having been made by any of those fel¬ 
lows to sell those ])apers ?—A. To do which, sir ? 

Q. Do you know of any offer by any of these men to sell those pa¬ 
pers ?—A. ^7o, sir ; 1 do not. Dicks and Blackstone both had copies of 
the letters, and of course knew the contents of them. 

Q. As they were to be gotten as articles of trade and to have gone on 
the market, you do not know but what they had gone there f—A. No, 
sir; I do not know that. 

Q. Do you know anything of Spearing’s having made an offer to any¬ 
body to sell these papers for $150 or $250 ?—A. !Mo, sir; I do not, 
really. Mr. Spearing appeared to take a deep interest in the investi¬ 
gation. 

Q. Or the investment—which ?—A. P]ach time the committee met, 
Mr. Spearing was on hand promptly. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Did you have these papers in your possession at the time you were 
summoned to testify in New Orleans ?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. Can you inform me of the reason you did not communicate the 
fact that 3 ’ou had that to counsel ?—A. Why I did not? 

Q. A^es, sir.—A. Because I did not think, myself, there was much im¬ 
portance ill them, and I did not know that I was to be examined upon 
this subject. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with me about them ?—A. I 
called at your office with JMr. Cavanac, and said that if there was any¬ 
thing I could do for you in the matter, I would do it. 

Q. I mean previous to your examination.—A. Yes, sir; at your office 
I asked you to summon myself as well as Mr. Sambola. I asked that 
of you as a favor. 

Q. That was after you had been examined ?—A. A"es, sir ; afterward. 

Q. A^ou had no con versation with mo before you were examined ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. And you said nothing to me of these papers ?—A. No, sir ; I said 
nothing. 

Q. Who had Blackstone’s affidavit in his possession at that time?— 
A. Either Spearing or Ewart, but Ido not know which. 

Q. Do you remember the date of the claimed election to the United 
States Senate of Mr. Spofford ?—A. What was the question ? 

Q. Do you remember the date of the election which Mr. Spofford 
claims to the United States Senate ? Do you remember at what date 
it occurred ?—A. I think it was in January, 1878. A^es, sir; I think it 
was January, 1878. 


1112 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


Q. Do you mean January, 1878, or 1877 ?—A. It was either one or the 
other; I do not recollect which. 

Q. At any rate it was before the date of these instruments of which 
you are speaking?—A. Yes, sir, prior to that. 

Q. Did you mean by your answer to one of the questions put by Mr. 
Merrick, that you do not know- 

Senator Hoar. That is a public date, the date of the election of Mr. 
Spofford, I believe, Mr. Shellabarger. 

Mr. Shellabarger. The witness is wrong. He said that it was in 
1878, but, it was in April, 1877. 

Senator Hill. The contest, I think, was settled the last day of No¬ 
vember, 1877 j ^all of which transpired before this thing occurred. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. My question then was, whether you meant to say, in answering in 
regard to that matter, that at the time these contracts were gotten up 
there was no expectation on the part of Mr. Spofford to make a claim 
to a seat in the Senate, and to which he claimed he had been elected?— 
A. I presumed at the time the testimony was taken the object of it was 
to present it to the legislature, to be thence forwarded to Washington. 

Q. This paper on which Mr. Merrick has examined you—I mean the 
one signed by Spearing and addressed to you—commences, “I am au¬ 
thorized to guarantee, and do guarantee personally, that the expense of 
obtaining the necessary evidence to establish charges of bribery, &c., 
made against William Pitt Kellogg will be paid to the extent of $1,500.’^ 
Did he state who had authorized him to guarantee that ?—A. No, sir; 
he did not. 

Q. Do you know as a matter of fact whom he was representing?— 
A. No, sir ; I do not. I knew from what he said to me that he was the 
agent of some one, but I do not know who. 

Mr. Merrick. It does not appear that any money was paid. 

Senator Cameron. Yes j some was paid. Blackstone w’as paid some. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. In fact, now, how much money was furnished under that contract ? 
—A. A couple of hundred dollars, I think. 

Q. W^ho furnished it ?—A. Mr. Ewart. 

Q. Who was Ewart, and what relation did he bear to this case ?—A. 
He was the friend of Dicks. Dicks was a claim agent and Ewart being 
a man of means in New Orleans would discount pension rolls, and Dicks 
being his friend they got intimate together and went into this business. 
These financial transactions were going on at the same time, and in that 
way Ewart became involved in this matter. 

Q. And Mr. Spearing, how came he to be introduced into it ?—A. Mr. 
Spearing seemed to take a deep interest in the matter, but from whence 
that interest proceeded I knew not. 

Q. Now this contract, as it is called, dated the 9th of IMarch, 1878, 
has a provision in it in these words : 

That the said Edward J. Ewart shall advance unto the said George Dicks what 
amount may be necessary in order to procure the corroborative testimony in the said 
case of Kellogg, provided that the said sum does not exceed $500. 

Now, my question is—as there seems to be some ambiguity in the state¬ 
ment you make—how the services to be paid for with that $500 differed 
from the services that Blackstone was to be paid for with the remaining 
$1,000 ? How did the services of the two men differ, if at all ?—A. My 
understanding of the agreement of the three parties was this: Mr. 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1113 


Spearing not having advanced the money, Mr. Ewart was to do so, 
and he was to be paid back the $500, or whatever he advanced, with 20 
or 25 per cent, additional upon whatever money he advanced. The bal¬ 
ance of the funds were to be divided between Blackstone and Dicks. 
That was my understanding of it. 

Q. That does not answer my question. It seems there were to be 
$500 reserved, all of which was to be paid to Blackstone, but out of the 
$1,500, $500 was to be retained and paid to Ewart. The money was to 
be paid to Blackstone for procuring corroborative testimony in the case. 
Now, my question is this: Was there any difference between the serv¬ 
ices to be rendered for the $500 and that was to be rendered by Black¬ 
stone for the remaining 81,000, or was it all for gathering testimony in 
the case ?—A. No, sir; I look on it simply that $500 were to be appro¬ 
priated for expenses, and that the balance was to be divided. 

Q. That was the profit ?—A. That was the “ whack-up,” as Mr. Black¬ 
stone expressed it. 

Q. The whack up,” what does that mean ?—A. He said he would 
toss it up and divide it. 

Q. And when you found that was the character of the transaction 
you retired Irom it?—A. Yes, sir; 1 had nothing more to do with it. 

By Mr. Kellogg : 

Q. I do not know tlfat you were asked the question in New Orleans 
or here, but were there any other affidavits than those that were taken 
by you before Mr. Lewis? Were these all?—A. Y^es, sir; Franklin, 
Kelley, and Blackstone, the three. The other was not sworn to. 

Q. Were those taken in execution of and in conformity with this 
agreement?—A. Yl^s sir. 

Q. And subsequent to it?—A. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. The work was being done in conformity with that contract?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And that covered Franklin, Kelley, and Blackstone?—A. Yes, sir 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. And Milon I —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Those are the four that you and Dicks and Ewart had to do with ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is Mr. Spearing now ?—A. Mr. Spearing, I think, sir, is in 
New Orleans, but I have not seen him for some time, probably for two 
months; at least I saw him wiieu the committee was in session there. 

Q. He is there now ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Were you in New Orleans when the witnesses were summoned here 
last June?—A. Was I in New Orleans? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Yes, sir; I was. 

Q. Was it in your knowledge that Mr. Spearing was active in the 
matter of looking after the evidence ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You do not know anything about it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who did you understand was the person that Mr. Spearing, in his- 
communication to you, was authorized to represent. 

Mr. Merrick. He has stated that he did not know. 

By Senator Kellogg : * 

Q. Did you not act on the understanding that it wasSpofford ?—A. I 
really did not know, sir. 

Q. On what presumption did you act? 


1114 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


Mr. Merrick. I object. 

Senator Kellogg. I was asking what his judgment or opinion of the 
matter was. 

Senator Hill. Judge Shellabarger went ovw that quite fully, I 
thought. 

Senator Kellogg. Judge Shellabarger asked some questions, but I 
thought 1 might elucidate the facts a little more clearly. (To the wit¬ 
ness.) Ho you know whether Ewart has been paid for any expenses ? 
—A. I do not think he has. 

Q. Ho you know how Spearing procured that affidavit of Blackstone 
from him'?—A. I do not. 

Q. Were they not in your office together a few days before Ewart tes¬ 
tified?—A. Ves, sir; they were. 

Q. Ho you know whether after that interview he produced the origi¬ 
nal affidavit?—A. Yes, sir; he had the original paper of Blackstone 
and Milon. 

Q. Hid he refuse to give up the original?—A. Yes, sir; he gave 
copies. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Mr. Ewart has already testified in the case and produced the origi¬ 
nal affidavits ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. I have only a few questions more. In your testimony you pro¬ 
duced a copy only ?—A. Yes, sir ; a synopsis of the original affidavit. 

Q. And some days afterwards Ewart testified and produced'the origi¬ 
nal ?—A. He produced the original of Blackstone’s affidavit. 

Q. I understand you to say that you do not know whether any¬ 
thing was paid by Mr. Spearing to Mr. Ewart for it. You do not know 
it?—A. I do not. I know at the last interview that Mr. Ewart men¬ 
tioned that he was a couple of hundred dollars out of pocket by the 
transaction that he would like very much to get back. Mr. Spearing 
and he went off together, and what occurred afterwards I do not 
know. 

Q. But Ewart appeared on the stand and testified and produced it ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Have you not told Senator Kellogg that these papers had no rela¬ 
tion to Mr. Spoffbrd’s contest here at all ?—A. How is that ? 

Q. Have you not told Senator Kellogg that these papers—this con¬ 
tract letter—had no relation whatever to this contest here in Washing¬ 
ton ?—A. I do not think so, sir. 

Q. What is your answer ?—A. Ko, sir; I do not think so. I have 
had conversations with him out iu the lobby—conversations with gen¬ 
tlemen on both sides—but I do not remember that. 

By Senator Logan : ' 

Q. While counsel are consulting, I will ask you a question : Ho you 
mean by this last conversation or answer to change your testimony with 
reference to this man Blackstone ?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. You said it was another man tl^at came to you ?•—A. Ko, sir ; that 
was with reference to Milon. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. There is one thing, Mr. Chairman, I think I will ask this witness. 
I think you went over it yesterday. (To the witness.) Milon is a man 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1115 


who came to you, at least a man claiming to be Milou came to you, to 
swear him to an affidavit, and declined to let you read it, except a few 
lines of it. That man was not IMilon, as you found out afterwards ?— 
A. That was not the same party I saw on the stand before the sub¬ 
committee testifying as ^Ir. Milon. 

Q. Then there were two others, Kelley and Franklin, who were brought 
to you, and you were led to suppose that they were members of the leg¬ 
islature, and making affidavits as such ?—A. Mr. J3icks was managing 
the affair, and came up and said, “ Mr. Seymour, here are two other 
affidavits.” I was busy at the time, but dropped my work and went 
with them, and had them swear to them. 

Q. Who gave you to understand that they were members, and mak¬ 
ing affidavits as such ?—A. Mr. Dicks. 

Since then you have ascertained they were not members?—A. 
They were not. 

Q. Then these three affidavits were three affidavits gotten in execu¬ 
tion of that agreement of the Oth of March ?—A. Yes, sir ; the fourth was 
to be Milon’s. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. Mr. Seymour, I want to ask you a question. If I understand you, 
you say this investigation which you testified to yesterday occurred in 
1878, was under the auspices of a legislative committee?—A. That is 
correct, sir. 

Q. Was there an understanding, or anything to the contrary, that the 
expenses would be paid out of the contingent fund of the legislature ?— 
A. That was the idea, sir. 

Q. Did Blackstone say anything on that subject?—A. Ko, sir; but I 
think that Mr. Boatner, the chairman of the committee, did; and Mr. 
Blackstone said after that he did not propose to go on unless there was 
a note or a letter in black or white on which he could go on afterw^ards. 

Q. Was that the note of Spearing?—A. Yes, sir; or else he would 
not give up the affidavits. 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. Do you mean by your answer to Senator Hill 
that the contingent fund of the legislature provided the sum of fifteen 
hundred dollars to go on with this case ?—A. Ko, sir; but as the Senator 
has refreshed my recollection, I know something was said of the money 
being paid out of the contingent fund. 

Q. Was that to be this fifteen hundred dollars ?—A. Ko, sir; there 
was no amount mentioned. 

Q. Was it to supplement this fifteen hundred dollars?—A. No, sir; 
it was regarded as one and the same transaction. 

Q. It was to come out of that fund ?—A. The way of it was about 
this: One of the gimtlemen said, we have a little money in the contin¬ 
gent fund; any of the expenses that will be proper to pay we will be 
prei>ared to pav for them; and Blackstone said the contingent fund 
would not suit'^him, so Mr. Spearing made himself responsible. Mr. 
Spearing being a man of means, Blackstone took his word for it. 

Q. Do ygu mean to say now that Mr. Spearing professed to speak for 
and represent the contingent fund legislature or represent the Nicholls 
legislature in that matter ?—A. No, sir; I don’t presume to say who he 
was working for. I don’t know. 

Q. How came he to pledge the contingent fund if he had no authority 
and did not profess to have or represent the Nicholls legislature?—A. 
Well, sir, the members of the legislature said that in his presence, that 
there would be an appropriation for the contingent fund to meet these 
expenses. 


1116 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. To that degree, then, he did represent the legislature % He looked 
at it in that way —A. As to that question, he was working for this com¬ 
mittee. The gentlemen of the committee seem to have confidence in 
Mr. Spearing and to leave the whole matter in his hands. Blackstone 
confessed a doubt that this contingent fund was a very small matter, 
and he wanted Spearing to be responsible for it; and I think the note 
was worded to suit him. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. When were you first employed in this case, and by whom, and 
what were you employed to do?—A. In January, 1878—the third or 
fourth of the month. It was a few nights after New Yearns that the 
conference took place at my ofilce. Mr. Dicks introduced me to Spear¬ 
ing, and Spearing informed me he would like to have this testimony 
taken, and have a meeting at my office to have the testimony taken be¬ 
fore the committee. That was the testimony of one or two members of 
the legislature who were willing to give up this bribery matter. 

Q. Vou mean 1877, don’t you?—A. No, sir; 1878, referring to the 
election of 1877. 


TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. SOUER. 

Louis J. Souer, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. What is your name !—Answer. Louis J. Souer. 

Q. Where do you reside ?—A. In New Orleans. 

Q. How long have you resided in Louisiana ?—A. Since 18G3. 

Q. Were you a member of what is called the Packard legislature in 
1877 ?—A. I was. 

Q. Were you a member of any committee of that legislature ? Which 
branch did you belong to?—A. The lower house. 

Q. Were you a member of any committee of that house?—A. I was 
chairman of the committee on contingent expenses. 

Q. What were your duties as a member of that committee and as its 
chairman?—A. I was fiscal agent of the house; its disbursing officer; 
provided for whiitever payments were made and issued orders or vouch¬ 
ers for the members when money was due them. 

Q. Describe what the process is by which members, being entitled 
to a voucher, are paid.—A. It is the duty of the members of the 
committee to provide a schedule of mileage and per diem and open 
an account with each member and with every officer and employe; at 
certain periods to issue orders on the auditor and the auditor issues a 
warrant on the treasury. 

Q. A member makes application for his pay and upon that applica¬ 
tion there is a certain paper issued. What do you call that paper ?—A. 
A voucher. 

Q. What is the character of the instrument ? Have you one of them 
with you ?—A. Yes, sir; I have a blank one. (Witness here produced 
the blank.) 

Q. The copy says that is issued by the chairman of the committee on 
contingent expenses. Just read it. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1117 


• Office Committee ox Contingent Expenses 

Of the House of Representatives, 
State of Loumana. 

New Orleans, -, 1877. 

To the Auditor of Public Accounts : 

This is to certify that the sum of-dollars and-cents is due to 

> for-, and the auditor of public accounts is or¬ 
dered to issue his warrant upon the State treasurer in favor of-, for 

the sum of-dollars and-cents, in accordance with the provisions 

of act No. 8, approved the eighth day of January, A. D. 1877. 

• Chairman Com. Cont(j. Ex. House Rep. 

Speaker House Representatives. 

Q. That is tlie paper oii which a member proceeds to the auditor’s of¬ 
fice f—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now what does be get when he gets to the auditor’s oflice !—A. 
lie presents the voucher and the auditor issues a paper like this. 

Q. Just read it. 

The witness read the paper, which was as follows: 

[Warrant No. —. Series 1857.] 

Auditor’s Office, State of Louisiana, 

[Coat of arms.] 


New Orleans,-, 18—. 

To certify that the sum of -dollars is due by the State of Louisiana to- 

-, and I do hereby direct that the treasurer of the State of Louisiana pay 

to the said-or order the sum of -dollars, out of funds appropriated 

for that purpose, to wit:-. Charge to account-. 

$-. -, Auditor. 

[Small design.] 

-, Register. 

Note. —The words “General Assembly” are printed in large letters 
across the whole certificate. 

Q. ^Now that is the ultimate paper carried to the treasurer and upon 
which the money was drawn ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. State to the committee whether there is any stub or remnant left 
in the books out of which those first papers are taken which preserves 
to the officer or member the number, &c., of these papers.—A. Y^es, sir j 
there is a stub containing the whole history of the warrants issued. 

Q. Have you that book here—those stubs ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Now state wdiether the book you now produce upon the table is 
the book from whicli the vouchers were cut which were issued to mem¬ 
bers of the Packard legislature; the house I mean.—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Just give us one siiecimeii of the character of the entry of con¬ 
tents of one of those vouchers as it appears on the stub that is preserved 
in each case.—A. It is almost a verbatim copy of the voucher. 

.Mr. Merrick. What is the book? 

Mr. iSiiELLABARGER. It is the book from which vouchers are issued, 
and the stubs contain a history of each paper. 

(^. Now, Mr. Soiier, give us one specimen, and state whether the others 
are, like it. 

The Witness (reading): 



















I 


1118 SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 



No. one,] 

Office Committee on Contingent Expenses 

House of Representatives, 

State of Louisiana, 
yeiv Orleans, January 20, 1877. 

Received from L. J. Sower, chairman of committee on contingent expenses house 
of representatives, State of Louisiana, a voucher on the auditor of public accounts 
for the sum of one hundred and sixty dollars and cents, in payment of amount due 
me, as member of H. R. from Ouachita Parish, as mileage and iier diem. 

$ 160 . 

F. W. BARRANGTON, 

Ouachita Parish. 

L. J. SOUER. 

And across it are the figures 109, showing folio in the ledger. 

Q. How does that compare, barring the dates and amounts, with the 
residue of the stubs in the book ?—A. Exactly. 

Q. It is a printed form, with the exception of the manuscript, to fill in 
the dates and amounts % —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State as a fact, how the members were situated in that legisla¬ 
ture of Packard’s with regard to needing their pay, and their applying 
to you for advance on their pay.—A. Well, sir, the element that com¬ 
prised the house was mostly of a poor class of people. When they 
got there they needed money, and I being the oldest member of the 
house they sometimes applied to me for money; and I sometimes ad¬ 
vanced money, just as in this case—took an order for their per diem, 
and in due time I received the money from the auditor. 

Q. That paper you took as your collateral, to secure your reimburse¬ 
ment?—A. 1 took the order, yes, sir; it was in the shape of an order 
on the chairman of the committee. 

Q. Y^ou took the order from the person applying to you for the ad¬ 
vance ?—Yes, sir. 

Q. State whether you ever paid any money to Sims—what parish was 
he from ?—A. Saint James. 

Q. Sims, Johnson, of Terrebonne, Magloire, of Avoyelles f—A. Well, 
I cannot remember that in detail; but I presume that it is likely I did. 

Q. A witness by the name of Murray has stated that those three 
men came from you at a certain time, and had money that he intimates 
they got from yon, and intimates that it was money they got from you 
for voting for Kellogg for Senator. Was there any such transaction 
as that ?—A. It is quite likely they received some small sums of money 
to relieve them from oppressing necessity, but none of it was for their 
votes for Kellogg. 

Q. Was any such thing ever mentioned b}’ either of those men of pay 
for voting for Kellogg?— A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever pay either of them, or any other person, any money 
for voting for Kellogg ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Was that matter ever hinted to you at any time before the elec¬ 
tion of a Senator ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any payment or proposition to pay any money or 
any office, or to give any other inducement, for voting for Kellogg for 
Senator?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you ever, directly or indirectly, yourself, pay any money to 
anybody for any purpose of that kind ?—A. Assuredly not. 

Q. Did you ever make any payment in money, or any other reward, 
for the purpose of inducing such vote for Kellogg ? Do you know of 
any other person who ever did make any such payment, or hold out any 
such hope of reward ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Murray, in his testimony, spoke of two other persons, Tolliver and 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1119 


Washington, who had gotten some sums of money from you for voting 
for Kellogg, or something of that substance, was his testimony. Do you 
know anything of those men ?—A. It is quite likely they may have re¬ 
ceived some such sums of money, but nothing for that purpose. 

Q. How is it likely they received it ?—A. On their pay. 

(»>. Do these names contain the names of all the members you ever 
paid })er diem ?—A. A^es, sir. 

Q. 8o you have here on the table a record of all to whom you paid 
money in that legislature?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,>. State if you ever paid that money to any of those members of the 
house without taking an order to reimburse yourself.—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. You have already described the situation, that the men were poor 
and in a state of siege, and could not get along without money advanced 
on their pay ?—A. A>s, sir. 

Q. Something, I am told by Senator Kellogg, was said by a man by 
the name of Gaston that Alilon told him that Souer paid 8500 for the 
corrupt purpose of getting him to .vote for Kellogg, or something of 
that kind ; I will ask you if you ever made any such payment of that 
kind for Milon ?—A. No, sir; 1 did not. 

Q. Do you know it now as a matter of memory whether you ever ad¬ 
vanced anything to Milon on acc^ount of his pay ?—A. 1 do not as a 
matter of memory, but I can refer to it in this book. 

Q. Just say if you did.—A. (The witness examining the book.) Y^es, 
sir. 

Q. How much did you pay Milon ?—A. That I cannot tell. I can’t 
tell the amount, but I have his warrant hero for 8ld0. It depends alto¬ 
gether upon what the market rate of the warrant was at the time I took 
it how much money I paid him. 

Q. The amount of the warrant was 8100 ?—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. How much he got on it dejiends on the market value, or what the 
warrant was w'orth at that time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did those warrants vary in regard to their market price, as 
to the maximum and the minimum price?—A. Tliey have been sold as 
high as 52. 

By i\Ir. Merrick : 

Q. How much, sir ?—A. Fifty-two, sir. 

By .Mr. Shellabarger : 

(I. When was that done ?—A. I cannot remember the date. 

Q. And they went from that down to what ?—A. Down to nothing. 

Q. State whether there was or whether you have any knowledge at 
all of any money or other reward being otfered to any member of the 
legislature by anybody to secure the election of Kellogg to the Senate. 
—xV. Xo, sir. 

Q. State whether there was any opposition to his election when the 
time came for that election, or at any time before, in the legislature.—A. 
There was not at the time. He received the caucus nomination by a 
majority of the house, which virtually made him Senator. 

Q. When was that caucus held ?—A. In the early part of January. 

Q. Were you in it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was Kellogg in it ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether he declined to attend it or not ?—A. Posi¬ 
tively. lie was notified by the caucus, and a committee ai)pointed to 
wait on him, but Governor' Kellogg declined peremptorily to appear in 
the caucus. 

Q. Do you know whether Governor Kellogg made use of his power 


1120 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


as governor for the purpose of influencing or constraining anybody to 
vote for him, either in the caucus, before the caucus, or after the cau-' 
cus?—A. I have no knowledge of it. 

Q. Did you ever hear of such a thing “?—A. Ko, sir. 

Q. State whether in that caucus the subject of the wisdom of nomb 
Dating Kellogg was discussed; and, also, what conclusion was reached, 
and anything that was said in the discussion there that you know about 
in regard to the wisdom of making his nomination.—A. O, the discus¬ 
sions were innumerable, and the general suppositioii was that Governor 
Kellogg’s experience in Washington before would be of great service to 
our party in securing the recognition of the Packard government. 

Q. Well, did all opposition disappear ultimately in the caucus to his 
nomination ^ —A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State how soon Governor Kellogg left for Washington after the 
10th of January, the day of his election.—A. I think within a day or 
two ; almost immediately after. 

Q. Now, at the end of the affidavit of Blackstone that has been put 
in evidence occurs this passage : “ That after the election of William P. 
Kellogg to the United States Senate, and on or about the day of 
January, 1877, deponent was paid by Louis Souer the sum of $200 as an 
extra compensation for his services, and also for voting for William P. 
Kellogg as United States Senator.” Is that the truth or not?—A. It 
is false, and tliere is no truth in it. 

Q. Did you ever pay him anything ?—A. No, sir; except as I did the 
others—as an advance on his per diem. 

Q. Was anything said about its being extra !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever pay him anything as extra compensation ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Did you ever pay him anything for voting for Kellogg ?—A. I 
never did pay him anything for voting for Kellogg. 

Q. Can you tell us by your books how much money was paid to him ?— 
A. I received his first payment, $160. 

Q. How is that ?—A. I received his first payment of $160. That was 
the warrant. 

Q. See if you advanced him anything more; but, first, what was the 
date of that?—A. January 20. (The witness further examined his 
voucher book.) Yes; there is another item here, I see, of $120. 

Q. What is the date of that?—A. That is February 25. 

Q. State whether he got vouchers for those amounts such as you 
have described.—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Do you know, as a matter of recollection, whether you advanced 
him anything on those two vouchers ?—A. Yes, sir. I cannot remember 
the details, of course, there were so many of them ; but I remember let¬ 
ting him have money on several occasions to live on. 

Q. You cannot tell by memory, nor by the books, how much money 
he got on those two vouchers ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That would depend, I suppose, on the time it was done ?_A. Y^es, 

sir. 

Q. Do you remember whether he redeemed those vouchers ?—A. I 
cannot tell; I think I still have his warrants. 

Q. And none of those advances had any relation to the Senatorship ? 
—A. None at all. 

Q. And none to any extra compensation ?—A. None at all, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Milton Jones, it seems, made an affidavit that was produced before' 



SI’OFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


1121 


the suh-committce, made the 4tl» of April, 187!), in wliicli lie m.ikes sev¬ 
eral allejialioiis where your name occurs. I will try to pick them out as 
(pnckly as possible. He says he was at Hrst in favor of Colonel Casey, 
brother in-law ot (reneral Grant, and that Senator Kellofrtj beini^ 
called into the caucus remarked ‘‘that he ha<l worked and sutlered for 
the party, and that it they went back on him then he would let the 

hole matter go to hell and to the Democrats. I then left the caucus 
angry.” Do you know anything ot that ?—A. You never were in the 
(mucus, and it (muld not have occurred without my knowledge. 

Q. Were you in the caucus ?—A. YVs, sir. 

(>). Did anything of that kind occur ?—A. Xo, sir. 

lie says that “the next morning Louis 8ouer called me out of the 
caucus, and said, ‘Jones, make yourself easy about this thing; you (;an 
make si>50 out of this thing.’ He told me to stand by Kellogg, and 1 
would be all right, or words to that effect.” Do you uiiow anything of 
that kind hapiiening between youselfaiid Milton ?—A. No, sir; it never 
occurred. 

Q. (Still (juoting trom the athdavit.) “ I told him 1 wanted the money 
then; that 1 was in debt and needed it.” He said, ‘ Jones, you are 
foolish; juststand by me and Governor Kellogg, and it will be alTright.’” 
Did anything of that kind occur between you and riones?—A. No, sir. 

Q. (Still (pioting.) “ Souer said he had no mom^y then, but go t,o the 
governor, and he might give me some. 1 went to Governor Ivdlogg 
and asked him for 830.” Do you know anything of that kind occur¬ 
ring ?—A. No, sir. 

(*). He says that a few days afterwards, and now 1 (piote literally, 
“ Mr. Souer was in his room in the State-house. There was a crowd of 
th(i members outside, and they were all called in one by one. I saw 
them come out many of them with money in their hands, and 1 counteil 
the money for some of them after they came out.” State how that is.— 
A. Yes, sir. About the latter part of January the members weie sulfer- 
ing a good deal for the want of money, and I had advanced nearly all £ 
could afford to, and had stopped doing so. A committee was at)pointe(l 
to wait on Governor Tackard and devise some means to raise funds to 
take care of them. 

By Mr. Siiellailvrger : 

Q. What date was that f—A. Tlie latter })art of January. 

(}. After the Senatorial election f—A. Long after. I was appointed 
on that committee to raise the funds, and did procure funds and paid it 
to them. The money was paid openly, and handed to them just as it is 
in the sergeant-at-arms’ room downstairs. 

By S(‘nator Kellogg : 

(}. He says it was a few days after the election ; was it ?—A. No, sir; 
I think it was the latter part, probably later than January. 

(^. But it was some time after the Senatorial election. Did I have any 
connection with it?—A. Not the slightest. The men were in the build¬ 
ing and had to leave. 

Q. He stated further this about yourself: “ They would not let me go 
in, but he came out afterwards and brought me downstairs. He said I 
had too much mouth, and advised the others not to have anything to 
do with me. He then, when we were downstairs, gave me $150. He 
said this was a loan.” Was there anything of that kind that happened ? 
—A. Mr. Jones was a very boisterous man, and I was liable to call his 
attention to the size of his mouth, but as to that sum of money being 
paid him nothing of the kind happened. 1 recall a personal transaction 
71 s K 


1122 


SPOFFOKD VS KELLOGG. 


between liiin and I before the meeting of the legislature, but I liave not 
read the affidavit to see if he refers to it. 1 have not read it until to-day 
myself. 

Q. lie says at the last end of it tliat “ Souer has never asked a return 
of that money from me.”—A. During the month of November, I believe— 
it was before the election—Jones came to me and wanted some money to 
buy either some farming implements or some mules, but that transaction 
he closed up subsequently. 

Q. Did he pay you back subsequently ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he give you a due bill tor the debt?—A. Yes, sirj he gav^e 
me a due-bill and attached collaterals to it. 

Q. When did he pny you ?—A. Some few days before the meeting of the 
legislature, as soon as he brought in his crop, as he has a little [)lanta- 
tion near Point Coupee. 

Q. Had that transaction anything to do with the Seiiatorship?—A. It 
had no connection with it whatever j in fact 1 had almost forgotten it. 

Q. What parish did you represent?—A. Avoyelles. 

Q. What parish did he represent?—A. Point Coupee, the adjoining 
j)arish. 

Q. How long (lid you represent Avoyelles?—A. Eight years. 

Q. How long had he been in there with you?—A. Six years, I think. 

Q. Were you in the habit of loaning him money ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you loan it to everybody?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. You loaned it wliere you could get good security ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVas that your only transaction with Milton ?—A. No, sir. Almost 
every year he comes down and gets an advance on his pay. 

Q. Well, this affidavit of Milton’s. I ask you generally if you ever 
paid Milton Jones anything for his vote for me for United States Sena¬ 
tor?—A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Do you know of my having paid him anything?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any person having paid him anything for his vote ? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. You may answer what Mr. Shellabarger requested me to ask you, 
if you know of any one who did promise Milton Jones anything for his 
vote?—A. I do not know anything about that or what was promised 
him, of course. 

Q. Of course you do not know that?—A. I only know my own busi 
ness. 

Q. Now, Mr. Souer, it is important for me, without taking up too 
much time, to ask you some questions. I have not read one of those 
affidavits, I believe, but I think there are two or three of them—one 
made by De Lacy, I think, and one made by J. J. Johnson of De Soto, 
Milton Jones, and Jules Sev^eignes; I don’t know what that one is about, 
I think about the quorum; and Blackstone and De Lacy—I believe 
those are the four. It strikes me, though, there are five. In these affi¬ 
davits, said to have been made by them, your name may occur as stating 
that they received money from you. State if you paid either of them 
any money for voting for me for United States Senator.—A. No, sirj I 
did not. 

Senator Hill. I think that is unnecessary. He has sworn to that 
fully, stating that he paid no one. 

Senator Kellogg. I wanted to call his attention to the specific things 
and the particular parties. 

By Mr. Merkick : 

Q. Give me your full name?—A. Louis J. Souer. 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


1123 


Q. Wliere are you from originallyA. New York City. 

Q. What is your age ?—A. Thirty-seven. 

Q. When did you go to New Orleans A. In 1863. 

Q. In what business were you engaged when vmu went to New Or¬ 
leans ?~xV. I represented N. H. Brigham, a merchant in New York. 

Q. \\ ho?—A. N. tl. Brigham, a New York capitalist. 

Q. In what had you been engaged in New York I— A. I was his clerk 
formerly. 

Q. Mr. Souer, what time did the election of Senator Kellogg take 
place?—A. January 10. 

Q. When was the caucus held ?—A. The caucuses were being held 
from the 26th of December on to the day of election. 

Q. From the 26tu of December?—A. Yes, sir; as the members carne 
in they were introduced to the caucus. 

Q. I understand you to say that all the members of that legislature 
were of the poorer class of people, and without means. Is that so?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you cash the warrants, or did you give them these evidences 
of a claim against the State whenever they called upon you for them, if 
they were entitled to them !—A. Excuse me ; I didn’t hear the first part 
of your question. 

Q. What do you call this paper?—A. That is a voucher! 

Q. Did you give them their vouchers indifferently when they called 
upon 3 oil, if anything was due them ?—A. No, sir; we had a specified 
time. 

Q. AVhat werej’our times?—A. I believe every ten or twenty days. 

Q. Then, if any member, no matter who, called upon .you for a 
voucher at the expiration of ten or twenty days, you gave him the 
voucher?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did .you cash them alike for any or all of them, if they asked you ? 
—A. No, sir; I used my own judgment as to those w^ho were need.y. 
I cashed their warrants for those, and those who were not needy 1 did 
not. 

Q. It was their need alone which prompted you to do that, and which 
entered into your calculation ?—A. Not entirely. I was anxious to see 
the Republican party succeed, but the Packard legislature was con¬ 
strained, and temptations were held out from the other side to get the 
members away. My desire was to have them remain in the Packard 
house. 

Q. Did you tell them that if they would remain you would furnish 
them with money ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How did you manifest your anxiety ?—A. They manifested it in 
the caucus. 

Q. I understood you that 3 "ou were anxious about them ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did 3 ’ou manifest yours in the caucus ?—A. And in every way, 
and by ever^^ means. 

Q. bid you manifest it in the way of furnishing them with money?— 
A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Whose money was it that you used to cash these warrants ?—A. 
The great portion of it was my own. 

Q. Whose was the rest?—A. Mr. John Walsh furnished some of it, 
both to advance these sums to the members, and also to the police in 
charge of the building. Also, Mr. Herwig furnished some. I cannot 
remember all who did. 

Q. Who is Mr. John Walsh ?—A. A citizen of New Orleans, the gen¬ 
tleman who was on the witness stand a few days ago. 


1124 


SPOFFORL VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. This money 'vas used, then, to keep the members in the Packard 
legislature'?—A. The money was used for the purpose of relieving their 
necessities. 

Q. Did they say they would not stay if you did not give it to them '? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. You felt that they had to have it in order to stay ?—A. I felt that 
they had to live. 

Q. But it was not necessary, was it, for them to live in the Packard 
legislature?—A. Well, sir, meu cannot live without money. 

Q. That is all true, but did anything ever pass between you and any 
one of them about their going out of the Packard legislature ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. You never exchanged a word with them ?—A. Except to advise 
them to stay in the Packard legislature. 

Q. I ask you if anything ever passed between you and them on that 
subject ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did anything ever pass between you and others, to the best of 
your recollection, on that subject?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you did not advise them to stay ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tlien, something did pass between you ?—A. I already stated that 
I bad given them that advice. 

Q. How did you present that advice ?—A. In the caucus. 

Q. Did you ever talk to any of them about not going out of the legis¬ 
lature except in the caucus ?—A. Yes, sir j iu personal conversation 
and at every opi)ortunity I had. 

Q. In those conversations on this subject was money mentioned ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t they intimate that they would have to have money in order 
to stay ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. None of them did ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How did you know they needed money ?—A. They explained their 
necessities to the caucus. 

Q. To the caucus ?—A. Yes, sir; and also to me as chairman of the 
committee on contingent expenses, and looked to me as the fiscal agent 
of the house to aid them. 

Q. And they explained to the caucus and to the house their necessi¬ 
ties, and if they were not relieved they would have to go out?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Was nothing said of that kind ?—A. No, sir. They needed money 
to meet their necessities; they had to live and wanted to be helped from 
time to time as their money gave out. 

Q. Did you ever advance to them beyond the amount due them at 
the time the advance was made ?—A. No, sir, never; 1 think up to the 
amount due them, but only according to the market price of tne collat¬ 
eral. 

Q. Then you shaved them down as much as possible?—A. That ex¬ 
pression is hardly th ^ right one. No, sir; it was my good will. 

Q. Being good paper you was buying it?—zi. No, sir, I was loaning 
them money and taking collateral. 

Q. Didn’t you buy the warrants?—A. No, sir. 

Q. It was loaning on the market value of the warrants ?-^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 1 thought it was an entire transfer of the warrant to you ?—A. No, 
sir; but in case of their not taking up the warrant I became the absolute 
holder of it, as hai)i)ened in some cases. 

Q. How many cases?—A. 1 do not know, sir, without looking over 
them. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1125 


Q. Do yon know bow many ?—A. I do not know it. 

Q. V» ere tliere over fifty ?—A. No, sir. 1 suppose two-thirds of them 
redeemed tliem with the money received from the Nicholls lej^jislature. 

(^>. And tlie other third have not redeemed theirs?—A. No, sir. I 
have some of them her\ 

Q. 1 don’t sni)pose tliey are very valuable !—A. No, sir; I have not 
discovered any recent value in them. 

Q. Were not all tliose warrants ever paid under the Packaid gov¬ 
ernment ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did the Packard government ever pay any of its member j?—A. 
It i)aid them in the nsnal way. 

(}. Yon nmlerstand my question, Mr. Souer ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then, they didn’t pay them ?—A. NoJ'sir. 

<2. They didn’t ? That is a frank answer. Now, were you a candi¬ 
date t"r speaker of the house ?—A. In that year ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. No, sir. 

Did the Packai d legislature ever actually pay any of the expenses 
it incurred ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What were they ?—A. The law that paid the members i)rovided 
a contingent fund. JSorne of those warrants were issued under that 
clause in the law. Money was advanced on them to get money for the 
contingent expens(‘s of the legislature, and they were ])aid. 

Q. IJow much ?—A. I cannot say. The gas bill and other things of 
that nature. 

Q. Was it a thousand dollars?—A. O, yes; several thousand, I 
guess. 

Q. And that was i>aid by the Packard government?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tliese warrants that were given to the members were never paid 
by the Packard government, though ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did that Packard government pass any laws that are now upon 
your statute books ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. There is no law on your statute book passed by that govern¬ 
ment ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did it ever do anything except to elect Kellogg to the Senate and 
pass this bill to pay its own exi)enses ?—A. They passed several bills, 
but they didn’t go on the statute-book because they were i)assed by the 
Packard government. 

Q. Was the bill for contingent e.xp(‘nses ])assed ?—A. A^(‘S, sir. 

i}. You say generally the expenses of the legislature were not paid 
by the Packard legislature, but by the Nicholls legislature?—A. No, 
sir; they were paid by individuals who advanced the money on the 
warrants, and who hold tliem now. 

Q. They were paid by individuals, and not by the government ?—A. 
They were paid on the individual faith those men had in the Packard 
government. 

Q. Then, in point of fact, that Packard government has not done any 
act which is any operative act except to elect Kellogg ?—A. That would 
seem to bo the only thing, sir. 

Q. And that is the only thing they did ?—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. What were they doing all the time they were being supported by 
you and other gentle^iien in the State-house ?—A. Performing, so far as 
they c-ould, the duties assigned to them. 

Q. They staid in there pretty nearly all the time, day and night, 
didn’t they ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And when they adjourned that government passed out of exist¬ 
ence ?—A. Yes, sir. 


1126 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you ever, Mr. Souer, giveto members of the legislature orders 
for clothing, as well as pay them money ?—A. I cannot recollect any 
instance. 

Q. Can^t you recall some instance in which you gave orders on mer¬ 
chant dealers in New Orleans for clothes to these tattered creatures who 
came down to represent the dignity of the State of Louisiana?—A. I 
cannot recollect an instance just now. 

Q. Who was the gentleman in New York that you said you were as¬ 
sociated with in going to New Orleans.—A. N. H. Brigham. 

Q. Where is he now ?—A. In New York keeping a store—a general 
produce and provision business—and he had a line of vessels between 
New York and New Orleans. 

Q. Does he live in New York now ?—A. Y’es, sir. 

Q. Did you go to New Orleans to establish a branch house?—A. No, 
sir; I ot to establish a branch house, but to reiiresent his interest there. 

Q. How were you to represent his interest if not to establish a branch 
house?—A. There was no branch house. I was simply representing 
him, or his capital, as his confidential agent. 

Q. Did you keep any New Orleans account connected with his af¬ 
fairs?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have a room there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you live—in the town of NewOrleans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How frequently have you been in the legislature ?—A. I have 
been elected four terms. 

Q. When was your first term ?—A. In 1870. I was elected in 1809. 

Q. Did you have anything to do with politics prior to 1869?—A. 
Yes, sir. I was associated with Mr. Morey as clerk of the committee on 
contingent expenses in 1808 and 1809. 

Q. Prior to 1868 did you have any connection with political affairs?— 
A. No, sir ; except that of an ordinary citizen. 

Q. In 1868 you were clerk to the committee on contingent expenses? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The same committee of which you afterwards became chairman ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your salary ?—A. At that time when I was clerk ? 

Q. Y"es, sir.—A. Six dollars a day, I think. 

Q. Six dollars per day ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Did your duties to your capitalist then in New York allow you to 
discharge these duties of clerk ?—A. I severed my connection with the 
firm in 1804,1 think. 

Q. What business did you go into then ?—A. The same business in 
New Orleans at that end of the line as the firm of Souer & Edey. 

Q. That business was not very profitable or successful, was it, as you 
took a clerkship at $0 a day?—A. That was in 1804. The clerkship 
was taken in 1808. 

Q. Was it successful, that business of yours?—A. Pretty successful, 

sir. 

Q. What was it?—A. It was selling |)roduce and things of that sort. 

Q. What was your fortune at that time?—A. Perhaps eight or ten 
thousand dollars. 

Q, Do you own any real estate?—A. No, sir. 

Q. In what was your fortune ?—A. In money. 

Q. What was your fortune in 1877?—A. In 1877 ? That I do not 
know. I decline to answer that question unless I must. 

Mr. Merkick. I shall ask the committee to require you to answer it. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1127 


The \\ ITNESS. I decline to answer it now because I have business 
matters now on hand that are unsettled, and it might aftect my credit.. 

Senator Hill. What is the question ? 

Mr. Meiiuick. I have asked the witness about his personal fortune 
in 187 1 . It goes to show the credit of the witness, and we want to 
show, if we can, wlu‘re that money came from about which he has testi- 
tied, and tlie use of which he has in part explained. 

Senator Logan. I do not think it is a proper question. 

Senator Hill. Shall tlie ciuestion be asked ? 

Tlie Oil AIRMAN. I understood this witness to say that out of his^ 
funds he made advances to members of the legislature in 1877. 

]\Ir. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The (luestion, I suppose, is to test his ability to do 
that thing in the manner stated by him I shall vote that it is a'proper 
question. 

The committee on votii'g decided that the witness should answer the 
question. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Witness, I meant to ask you about your personal fortune in 1877. 
—A. 1 have to decline that for the same reason. I met with losses that 
year, but if you go back of that I will answer. 

Senator Hill. We will that you must answer the (jnestion as to 1877, 
at the time these transactions o(;curred. You have volunteered the in¬ 
formation concerning your actings and doings financially with the mem¬ 
bers of the legislature, and on cross-examination I think it is right to 
ask you what your fortune was at that time, as the Chairman states, to 
test your ability to do what you say you did do. 

The question was written out and handed to Senator Hill. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. Mr. Witness, here is the question : What was your personal fortune 
in January, 1877 ? The committee rule you must answer that.—A. I 
presume it was somewhere in the neighborhood of eight to fifteen thou¬ 
sand dollars. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. ITne.icumbered f —A. Unencumbered, sir. 

Q. How much money did you advance to members of the Packard 
legislature in 1877 f —A. 1 presume somewhere in the neighborhood of 
about 83,000. 

Q. Of your own money?—A. YMs, sir; I am speaking of my own 
money. 

Q. How much of other people^s money; who else furnished it?—A. 
]\Ir. Walsh furnished some. 

Q. How much did he advance?—A. That I do not know. He con¬ 
ducts his own business. 

(,). And it was not advanced through you?—A. I w’ould advance 
some ot it and turn over the warrants to him. 

And you advanced about 83,()()()?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you get money from anywhere else except through the sources 
vou mention ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Do you mean to say that Kellogg never advanced any ?^A.,Xo, 
sir. 1 do not think any money transai tiou was had between us to the 
extent of more tluui fifty or sixty dollars. 

Q- ^Vhy was it that those warrants become so much depreciated ? t 
understood from your testimony they never were worth more than fifty 
eeiits.—A. Yes, sir; tlM*\ were once as high as fifty-two. 


1 128 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. W(‘l], bow wos it they became so mncli depreciated ?—A. Because 
of the success of the Nicholls government. 

Q. When did the Packard legislature adjcmrn finally sine die or 
disperse ?—A. About April, I think ; that is matter of record, however. 

Q. About April? That will do. Now, when did it convene?—A. 
The first Monday in January, 1877. 

Q. Theu, from the first Monday in January, 1S77, down to ten days 
thereafter, according to the rule, these members could receive their 
warrants. Warrants were never worth more than fifty-two per cent. ?— 
A. Yes, sir. I do not think they were worth that at that time. 

Q. What were they worth on or about the 10th of January ?—A. 
Well, I cannot tell that without looking at a price current. 

Q. Haven’t you something from which to show that ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What is your best recollection ?—A. They were fluctuating all the 
time. 

Q. They kept up pretty well, however, to the 10th ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did they come down pretty rai)idly between the 10th and 20th ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. They didn’t?—A. No, sir. 

Q. These warrants, as I understand you, which you took as collateral 
security at the market rate at the time of the advances, were the only 
security you received for your advances ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were the only security ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they were given as such loan to those who were poorest and 
most needy ?—A. A'es, sir. 

Q. And you shunned the wealthy and capable, and charitably took 
care of the poor and needy. Is that so ?—A. Yes, sirj that is so. 

Q. As a question is suggested by Mr. Spolford that may be of some 
moment: During the period you were in the legislature you were still 
living in New Orleans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What parish did yon represent?—A. The parish of Avoyelles. 

Q. Did you ever live in Avoyelles?—A. Yes, sir. That has been ray 
residence and home since 1869. 

Q. Since when?—A. Since 1869. I have always voted there and 
registered there.** 

Q. How many days out of the 305 have you usually spent there?—A. 
It would depend upon circumstances. 

Q. Have you ever spent a mouth at a time there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long at a time? You know my desire.—A. I think the long¬ 
est time was six months, but I take, say, about three months in the year 
living there. 

Q. Do you own any property there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You own none there now ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you a family ?—No, sir. 

Q. And you own no property in the parish ?—A. No, sir, no real estate. 

Q. How long were you in the parish in 1866?—A. It was 1869 I went 
there, sir. 

Q. Did you claim it as your residence in 1869 ?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. How long did you stay there in 1870?—A. Three or four mouths. 

How long in 1871?—A. Two or three months, 1 suppose. 

Q. You do not know, then, you just suppose?—A. Yes, sir; taking 
difterent times, sometimes I staid three weeks, sometimes three months. 

Q. And you own no property there?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And have no family there?—A. No, sir. 

<i. Did you ever have any business there?—A. I did. 

Q. What was it?—A. Kunning a newspaper. 



SPOFFORD VS, KELLOGG. 


1129 


(}. What newspaper wa^ that?—A. The Avoyelles RepnblicaD. 

Q. When did yon start in business?—A. 1872 or 1873. 

Q. When did it expire?—A. In 1876. 

Q. Did you edit the paper?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That required you to be there all the time, didn’t it ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Was it a weekly journal ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the only business you had there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Ihen you had none there before or since?—A. Not in the parish. 
A great part of my business took up my time in New Orleans. 

By Mr. Walker: 

Q. Does that warrant or voucher book there constitute the only rec¬ 
ord that was used of the financial operations of the Packard house ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And none other was used?—A. None other. 

Q. This was the only entry among the archives that shows the opera¬ 
tions of the committee on contingent expenses?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were any warrants or vouchers issued before the date that appears 
there on No. 1 ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. No book was kept previously to this one ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And every voucher issued at the date specified on the stub ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect in 1875 your being included in a charge of brib¬ 
ery as a member of the house from Avoyelles Parish, that the com¬ 
mittee reported against you and others, and that you were permitted 
to remain in the legislature iu deference to Vice President \VTieeler’s 
famous compromise?—A. I do not remember that I was charged with 
bribery. There was a general charge made by the Democrats against 
the Republicans, but 1 have no recollection of it. 

Q. Were you not included in that charge?—A. If there was any 
charge of that kind, it is a matter of record; but as for any report hav¬ 
ing been made against me, that is not so. 

Q.. Were you ever engaged in the velocipede business?—A. In New 
Orleans ? 

Q. Ves, sir.— A. Yea, sir. 

Q. Wiien ?—A. In 1868. 

Q. Were 3 ’ou ever engaged in the restaurant business ?—A. No, sir. 

Senator LoGAN. Let us understand what is meant by the velocipede 
business. 

Senator IJiLL. What is it ? What is the question ? 

The Witness. He wants to know whether I was ever in the veloci- 
j)ede l)nsiuesa ; I suppose whether I ever rode a velocipede iu public or 
ever rented them to make money. 

Q. (By Mr. Walker.) What year was that?—A. In 1868. 

Senator Logan. Now, 1 wish him to exi)lain whether this was renting, 
riding, selling, or making velocipedes. I want to know what is meant 
by “ ihe velocipede business.” • 

The Witness. I was renting velocipedes and teaching others how to 
ride ti)em. 

Q. (By Mr. Walker.) As a matter of business ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you ever had any other occui)ation for the last nine years 
exce[)t that of a member of the house of representatives from the parish 
of Avoyelles?—A. Yes, sir; 1 have been in all kinds of business. I will 
buv an^’thing from a needle to a cannon that I can make money out of. 

Q. Is Avoyelles a negro parish ?—A. No, sir ; it is a w hite parish. 


1130 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


Q. You were returned as a Republican ?—A. Yes, sir; I was always 
elected, that is, 1 was always elected when I went before the people until 
the last time. 

Q. Did you stay in the Nicholls legislature?—A. I did, towards the 
close of it; after "the Packard legislature adjourned. 

Q. Have you any idea of wdiat the aggregate number of vouchers was 
that were issued ?—A. How many of them f 

Q. Aes, sir; how many of them or the aggregate amount?—A. The 
entire appropriation was $175,000 or $180,000; and every warrant that 
has been issued shows itself in this book. 

Q. What was the date at which the operation of that appropriation 
act commenced ?—A. It went into operation from the day the vouchers 
were issued. 

Q. That was the 20th of January ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (Jan you specify that transaction in which you say 52 cents were 
paid for Packard warrants and the time that it was ?—A. Mr. Folks paid 
51^. 

Q. Do you know for how many thousands of dollars ?—A. No, sir; he 
paid 51J or 52 on the dollar. 

Q. But to what extent, to your own knowledge, did he pay it?—A. 
They were generally quoted at that, and that was the market value of 
them. 

Q. But I want you to specify what transaction there was that you 
know of where 52 cents were paid on the dollar ?—A. Well, sir, for some 
that I purchased myself. 

Q. Whom from ?—A. From John Folks. 

Q. How much?—A. Two or three thousand dollars. 

Q. When ?—A. From January to April. 

Q. What dates?—A. O, there were no warrants on the market until 
after the 20th of January. The members were then giving their orders 
on the chairman and using them. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. They were giving their orders?— A. Yes, sir ; on the chairman of 
the committee on contingent expenses, and then he issued the vouchers 
when the time came. It took some time to get up the warrants, to have 
them lithographed and bound for the auditors office. 

Q. Then they would give an order on yon, and then you would give 
them this order or voucher on the auditor?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. Can you specify anj^ other transaction in which money was paid 
for Packard warrants?—A. Mr. R. A. Bray bought numbers of them. 

Q. Do you know it of your own knowledge f—A. I know it from his 
statements to me and from the members. 

Q You did not see it done?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you cannot say it was done from your own knowlege ?—A. I 
know it as well as it can be known by anybody who did not see it 

Q. Do you know ^uy others who did ?—A. Mr. Frank Morey did so, 
from his own statements to me. 

Q. You know it in no other way ?—A. No, sir; Mr. Dinkgrave also 
bought them. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

(^. I have gotten into a little misunderstanding by not clearly under¬ 
standing this transaction that you speak of. You say no warrants were 
issued prior to the 20th of January ?—A. None. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1131 


C^. Prior to that time thej’ were issniii" orders on 3 'ou ?—A. Yes, sir.. 

Q. And yon were issnin*' pai)ers such as yon have shown to the com¬ 
mittee ?—A. Precisely. 

Q. And yon were discounting thosei)ai)ers at the time?—A. No, sir, 
not all ot them. A good many of the members had Iriends outside who- 
were advancing money to them, and the books show it. The warrants 
were made out to them the same as to me. 

Q. P>ut you say that members came to you about it; that the members, 
of the legislature were in need and you had to advance them money on 
the security of their warrants, and that when the warrant was* not 
issued you took the promise oMt ?—A. AYs, sir; that is the transac¬ 
tion. 

The member came to you for money and you gave an order on the 
auditor, did you not ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(>). And then took from the member the order for the warrant, that 
the warrant might be issued as security to you. Is that so?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Now, do you know the rate for which you took those warrants ?— 
A. There were no warrants on the market before the liOth of January. 

Q. When you took these orders and gave them this money before the 
20tli, how much discount did you know to takeout!—A. I do not think 
any warrants jvere upon tlie market, but the vouchers wt*re. That is 
the warrant (indicating a paper) and these are the vouchers (indicat¬ 
ing another).. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, I will ask you to be a little patient 
with us in the examination of Mr. Souer. This is an important witness, 
and we want some things understood that he can testify to. (To the 
witness.) Mr. Souer, I understand you to say that your election was un¬ 
disputed as a member of the legislature from Avoyelles Parish in 1870 ?‘ 
— A. In 1870 '? no, sir. 

(}. Was it in 1874 ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it undis])uted in the six years previous?—A. A"es, sir. 

Q. During the four sessions of the legislature ?—A. It never had beeir 
contested before this election of 1870. 

You were, however, accepte(l as elected, and joined the Nicholls- 
house after the overthrow of the Packard government ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So, then, yon served your full term out as a member from Avoy¬ 
elles in the Niciiolls liouse ?—A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. How was that ?—A. The early part of the session the member who- 
contested my seat was seated immediately to make a quorum ; and then, 
afterwards, this contest was to be vitiated, and I was to take the seat, 
and then he was to contest it without reference to what had already been 
done. 

Q. Then in 1877 you took your seat in the Nicholls house in Ai)ril ?— 
A. In 1878. 

Q. No; 1877, was it not?—A. A>s, sir; 1877. You are right. 

Q. And in April, was it not?—A. Yes, sii-. 

Q. Mr. Walker impiired of you in regard to a charge of bribery. 
Now, was there ever any iei)ort made against you in that case?—A. I 
do not rernember. 

Q. Was that charge of bribery in a case where a member published 
the names of some fifteen Democrats who were members of the legis¬ 
lature, and who!n he charged with having received money for voting 
for Howard’s lottery* bill ?—A. I think that is the bill. 

Q. There were twelve or fifteen Democrats and four or five Kepubli- 


1132 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


cans whom lie charged received money for the lottery bill ?—A.. I do 
not remember it distinctly, sir. 

Q. Did not the Democratic member from Bienville come out and 
charge his colleagues with bribery and publish their names with the 
sums they received set opposite to them!—A. 1 do not remember it, 
it, sir, distinctly. 

Senator Kellogg. Well, I will try to hunt it up, and ask to incorpo¬ 
rate it in the record. 

Mr. Walker. And I will ask to put in the records of the legislature 
on that subject. 

Senator Kellogg. Oertaiiily. (To the witness.) I understand you 
to say that you reside in Avoyelles Parish about six mouths in the year ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you do business in the city of New Orleans ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Buying and selling stocks !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Though you reside in Avoyelles, you do business in the city !—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You owned a newspaper up there!—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. And other property !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Where was the paper situated, where was it published!—A. In 
Marksville, the county seat. 

Q. You were asked by Mr. Merrick regarding the Packard legisla¬ 
ture ; when did the Packard legislature meet!—A. The first Monday 
in January. 

Q. Who was governor the first week !—A. You were. 

Q. Where did the Nicholls legislature assemble!—A. Odd Fellows 
Eall. 

Q. Where did the Packard legislature assemble !—A. In the State- 
house. 

Q. Was there a quorum in each house! —A. There was. 

Q. The lieutenaiit-governor presided in the senate!—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. And the speaker was elected in the house!—A. Tliere was. 

O- Was there a message from the gov^ernor sent to the two houses !— 
A. There was. 

Q. Did a committee from the so-called Odd Fellows Hall legislature 
wait on the gov^ernor and ask for recognition!—A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. During the first week of the sessioji, were there not several bills 
passed by the legislature sitting at the State-house!—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Was there not an appropriation bill passed !—A. Among others, 
there was one passed. 

Q. Do you remember the amount of it!—A. I think $175,000 or 
••$180,000. 

Q. What was it for!—A. For the ])ayment of the mileage and per 
diem and contingent expenses of the two houses of the legislature. 

Q. Were the veto messages acted upon by the house!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And were there other acts done!—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. I object to the character of this examination. It is 
certainly not ])roper under the rules established by the committee. 

Senator Kellogg. The question was asked of Mr. Souer if anything 
had been done by that legislature except the election of Mr. Kellogg. 

Senator Hill. Anything, Senator, that is now of force in the State. 
I think that was the question asked; and with that correction, there is 
no difference between us. 

Q. (By Senator Kellogg.) Do you remember any of those acts ?— 
A. Well, I think I can. There was one to establish a court, and another 
strengthening the militia and providing for their organization. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1133 

Q. hat was the official journal of the State ?—A. The New Orleans 
Kepublicaii. 

Q. Made so by law f—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Were all those acts approved by the governor and published in 
the official journal ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. Now, were these vouchers that you have testified regarding issued 
by the coinniittee or by direction of the couiinitu*.e and in conformity • 
with (Mistom ?—A. Yes, sir; not so much by custom as by law. 

Q. That had been the custom before f—A. Yes, sir; always since I 
have been there, and I think the precedent was established by Ihe Demo¬ 
cratic ])red(‘cessors. 

Q. Was it not the custom to get a voucher and sell it ?—A. No, sir ; 

I thiidv they had been in the habit of selling their orders, which pro¬ 
duced the voucher, and the voucher produced the warrant. 

Q. About what time did the mejnbers commence calling ui)on you for 
their vouchers ; that is to say. this document which you gave them and 
which they sold?—A. As soon as the committee was appointed. 

Q. When were the warrants issued?—A. The lirst lot of warrants 
were issued January 20, as the books and records show. 

C^. So, as a matter of fact, the warrants were issued under the bill 
passed the first week of the session ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^. That was for the mileage and per diem of members ?—A. \>s, sir. 

Q. No\v, where are those warrants generally?—A. lam the unfortu¬ 
nate possessor of some; Fred. Folks has some, and 1 think, Mr. J>ray. 

Q. What is Folkvs’s business ?—A. He is a broker. 

Q. What is Mr. J>ra.\’s ?—A. He is a broker. 

Q. What is Mr. Walsh’s business ?—A*. 1 think he is a broker. 

Q. And ]Mr. Morey also?—A. Y'es, sir; and Mr. Dinkgrave. 

(^. Was th(‘re not a man named Lane who bought some ?—A. Y’^es, 
sir; I could give you a good many names of parties who bought them if 
1 had time. 

Q. There were (piite A iHiinber of others, were there not ?—A. Y'es, 
sir; I can give you a dozen of them. 

Q. And when those men, whoever they might be, who purchased those 
orders, presented them, it was the practice of the auditor to cut them 
up into smalhu’ orders, was it not?—A. Y>s, sir; the warrants were re¬ 
ceivable for licenses and taxes. 

Q. I am coming to that; but they were cut up. What was theobjiicfc 
of this practice of the auditor’s office?—A. Well, sir, these warrants 
were receivable for licenses and taxes, and the smaller amounts were in 
demand. 

Q. Were there ever any warrants issued before by a legislature in 
Louisiana that were receivable for licenses and taxes f—A. No, sir. 

Q. Why was that done in this instance ?—A. In order to give a better 
value to the warrants. 

Q. Was it not because the licenses and taxes are due the first .six 
months of the year?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And these warrants would have had a monopoly over others if the 
Packard government had stood ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 8o, if the Packard government had stood they would have been 
receivable for taxes dollar for dollar ?—xV. Yes, sir; they would have 
had almost a par value. 

Q. Now, if it b-' the case that the President of the United States is¬ 
sued an order stating that the returning board existed in accordance 
with law, and havitig control over the returns of the election, and giving 
certificates to such and such Slate ofiicersand the legal quorum of both 


1134 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


houses, thus leaving theimpression that he iutended to recosTnizo Pack¬ 
ard as the legal governor; if such an order or statement by U. S. Grant, 
the President, had been published and the legislature was sitting there 
at the time, these warrants would naturally go up, would they not?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is, if they were receivable for taxes?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, about that time did the vouchers not go up?—A. 1 do not 
know. 

Q. Or warrants, I will change the word “ vouchers”?—A. They tluc- 
uated so that I cannot say. 

Q. At the time the Electoral Commission sat in Washington, do you 
remember that?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Do you remember when it was announced that the vote of Florida 
would be counted ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did the warrants not go up then, on the assumption that the vote 
of Louisiana would be counted and Ilayes would be President and Pack¬ 
ard governor?—A. Y'^es, sir. 

Q. Did they not go up then and appreciate in value ?—A. Yes, sir, 
that is one of the times they appreciated in value. 

Q. How long did that legislature sit there ?—A. Until April. 

Q. How late did they have a quorum in the two houses? Did they 
regain a quorum at any time ?—A. Yes, sir; some time in March some 
ot the membors came back. 

Q. Members who had gone to Odd Fellows Hall?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had the house a quorum all the time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they passed laws which were signed by Packard and pro¬ 
mulgated?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If Mr. Packard had been maintained as governor would not all 
those laws have gone on the statute books passed under my adminis¬ 
tration and his?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then the reason you say they did not wasu because after April the 
^Nicholls legislature i)assed laws which were promulgated, and they 
were the ones that went on to the statute books ?—A. Yes, sir, 

Q. You mean to say the reason the Packard legislative laws, those 
legislative enactments are not on the statute books now was because 
after the expiration of the sixty days the Nicholls government being in 
existence and recognized, their laws are the only ones recognized in the 
State?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. I must say this argumentative style of examination is 
wholly unnecessary and out of place. It is taking up the time of the 
.committee and adding expense to the gov^ernment. 

Senator Kellogg. I will try and refrain hereafter from doing any¬ 
thing further to provoke your criticism. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Kow, Mr. Souer, do you know of any laws having been published 
by the Nicholls legislature during that winter that went into force ?— 
A. No, sir ; not until after they had a quorum. 

Q. In April after they had a quorum, and they were recognized as 
the legal legislature, they passed laws ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they went into force ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You stated you belonged to the Nicholls house, or became absDrbed 
into it; did they adopt the laws passed by their house retrospectively 
after they became a government?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know anything about the organization of the Odd Fellows 
Hall assemblage ?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORU VS. KELLOGG. 1135 

Q. Do j'on know what their tirst act was ?—A. No, sir ; unless you 
refresh my recollection. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 present, Mr.Chairm;in, act No. 2 of the Nicholls 
legislature, to be reterred to in the evidence. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Aon were asked by Mr. Merrick if all the members of tlie Packard 
legislature were poor. Were not some of them jiretty well off?—A. Yes, 
sir. 1 stated tbey had a great many meiiiln*rs ot the legislatuie who 
were ))oor. 

Q. But you did not mean to say that all of them were?—A. I meant 
that njost of them were poor. 

Q. They were mostly small farmers in the country ?—A. A>s, sir. 

Q. Did they not come down there generally with some money ?—A. 
It was not usual—not at that time of the year. 

Q. Now I want to be specific about this matter. Do you know of any 
vouchers or warrants that were issued before my election ?—A. 1 know 
there could not have been any. " * 

Q. There might have been orders, however?—A. A"es, sir; there 
might have been orders for warrants or vouchers. 

Q. Do you remefuber what time the vouchers were issued ?—A. 
Vouchers were issued immediately after the speaker aunouuced the com¬ 
mittee on contingent expenses. 

Q. Do you know when that was?—A. Well, that is a matter of 
record. 

Q. But the warrants were issued the 20th of January ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Ten days after I was elected ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know where I was then ?—A. In Washington. 

Q. Do you know when i left for Washington ?—A. A few days after 
you were elected. 

Q. Then I understand you that you and others only used money for 
the purpose of advancing to members on their warrants and vouchers 
to help them aloug in their necessity ?—A. Y^es, sir; and the warrants 
were issued after the 20th. 

Q. How about the money ?—A. The money was paid when they asked 
for It, but the order was taken from the committee at any time. 

Q. Was Mr. Bray a special friend of the Packard government ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And Mr. Morey ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And what they did was on the belief that the Packard govern¬ 
ment would be sustained ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they banked on that?—A. Yes, sir. 

t^. And there were others who favored the Nicholls government?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tell this committee if I had anything to do, directly or indirectly, 
with furnishing money for advances on warrants, or ever advanced a 
dollar on them to anybody to your knowledge?—A. No, sir; 1 answer 
that to all the questions. 

Q. Now, did not these men who were banking on the chances of 
Packard being governor a<lvance money to help his government ?—A. 
Y^es, sir. 

Q. I have had no interest in any of these vouchers or warrants ?—A. 
No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Q. Had you ever given any voucher or warrant or money to any 
member of the house in connection, however remotely, with my election 
for Senator?—A. I do not remember any. I do not remember your 


1136 


SPOFFORi:) vs. KELLOGG. 


having connection at any time with any voucher or warrant issued to a 
member. 

Q. Do not you know that the caucus called on me as well as others 
to go in, amrthat I would not have anything to do with the matter of 
raising money to pay the expenses of the legislature!—A. I have stated 
that. 

J\Ir. SiiELLABARGER. You Stated that he declined to go into the cau¬ 
cus, but I do not think you stated that he declined to do anything about 
turnishing the money. 

The Witness. 1 (io not know of any proposition made to him to raise 
money. I was on the committee to invite Governor Kellogg to address 
the caucus on the Senatorial question, and he refused. 

By Mr. Shellaearger : 

Q. What did he say !—A. He refused to address the caucus, being a 
candidate, as he said, for the position of United States Senator him¬ 
self. 

By ]\fr. Kellogg : 

Q. Was that before the election !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I understand you to say that all the members of the legislature 
were for me!—A. A"es, sir. 

Q. The outgoing and incoming officers were for me!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They wanted me elected so I could come right on to Wasliington 
and secure their recognition !—A. YYs, sir ; that was the reason of its 
unanimity. 

Q. Do not you know as a matter of fact that it was a question of in¬ 
difference to me, so much so that I refused you all anything in the way 
of aid in securing my election !—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. I understand you to say that you did not know that Governor 
Kellogg refused to do anything in the matter of advancing money or 
raising money to pay the members of the legislature!—A. Yes, sir; I 
do not know that. 

Q. AVhat time did you let Mr. Jones have that monej^!—A. Some 
time in November, or perhaps earlier. 

Q. Did you let him have any after that!—A. Y^es, sir; some small 
sums. 

Q. How much did you let him have in December!—A. In December 
I did not let him have any. I let him.have in January some small sums, 
the same as I did to other members. 

Q. How much did you let him have in December! That is the ques¬ 
tion I asked you, Mr. Souer.—A. I let him have a small sum as I stated 
to you to purchase ffirrning implements—perhaps some mules. My im¬ 
pression is it was in November. 

The Chairman. A man by the name of Morris and one by the name 
of Elder were under subpoena here. 

Senator Cameron. ^lorris was here on yesterday and said he was 
unwell, and some of us told him that he might go. 

The Chairman. Make a note, Mr. Clerk, that witnesses not being 
here when they are called will not be paid for their attendance to-day. 
So far as I am concerned I want an end to this controversy, and I have 
said to the other side (Spofford’s) that I will not issue subpoenas for any 
more witnesses without their stating what those witnesses are to be 
subpcenaed for. We must have a statement of the reason for calling a 
witness. We must know something that will indicate to us when this 
thing is going to end. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1137 

Senator Kellogg. I have a witness, Mr. Chairman, who is in the 
rooQi. 

The Chairman. Will you lay before the committee the names of all 
the witnesses you expect to call ? 

Senator Kellogg. Certainly I will, sir. 

Senator Vance. I shall oppose the introduction of any more wit¬ 
nesses unless that statement called for by the chairman has been made. 

Senator Hill. I want to ask Mr. Souer one question j perhaps it will 
be admitted on the other side. Was he in New Orleans during the time 
of the sitting of the subcommittee? 

Senator Kellogg. Yes, sir ; we admit it. 

On motion, the further consideration of this case was adjourned to 10 
o’clock a. m. Friday morning, January IG, 1880. 


Washington, Friday, January IG, 1880. 

The committee met pursuant to its order of adjournment, and resumed 
the consideration of the memorial of Henry M. Spofford relative to the 
seat in the Senate from the State of Louisiana held by William P. 
Kellogg. 

Present, a quorum of the committee; R. T. IMerrick and C. L. Walker, 
counsel tj!)r the memorialist; tlie memorialist, Henry M. Spofford; Mr. 
Shellabj^rger, counsel for the sitting member; and the sitting member, 
William^ P. Kellogg. 

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE D. HERBERT. 

Lawrence D. Herbert, a witness called on behalf of the sitting 
member, sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Siiellabarger : 

Question. Where do you reside '! —Answer. In the city of New Orleans, 
La. 

Q. What is your full name?—A. Lawrence D. Herbert. 

Q. I find in an affidavit in this record, which is signed by W. John 
De Lacy, this statement: “On the day that Kellogg was elected to the 
Senate I did not vote when my name was called, neither did my col¬ 
league, ]Mr, Drew'; but George D. Smith came to me and told me to 
stand by Kellogg, and that I*w'ould be taken care of, and get what I was 
promised. Smith threw an envelope on my desk, which I opened and 
found contained money. Mr. Lawrence D. Herbert was present at the 
time.” Now', w^as there any such transaction as that ?—A. No such trans¬ 
action'as that occurred in my presence at that session of the legislature. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Vhere do you reside ?—A. In the city of New Orleans. 

Q. AVereyou dow'n there whilst the subcommittee was sitting ?—A. 
I w'as part of the time. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. At present, I am doing nothing. 
Previous to my coming to Washington 1 was employed in the warehouse 
<lepartment of the custom-house. 

Q. At what time did you enter upon that olfice in the custom-house? 
—A. Some time previous to the campaign; I cannot remember tlie 
date. 


1138 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. At wbat time?—A. Sometime previous to the campaigu, about a 
month before. 

Q. Previous to what campaign?—A. The last one in Louisiana for 
governor; I believe it was about October when I entered the custom¬ 
house, but I am not quite sure of that. 

Q. You think you entered about October, and then continued there 
until how long ago?—A. 1 continued until about two weeks ago; the 
position did not suit me, and I concluded 1 would quit. 

Q. Since then you have been doing nothing?—A. iN’othing, since 
then. 

Q. Prior to the time of your going in there, what were you doing?— 
A. I was interested with a gentleman named Mr. Davizon, at the cor¬ 
ner of Basin and Poydras streets. The establishment was in his name, 
but I was a silent i)artuer. 

Q. Did you participate in the duties of carrying on the establishment? 
—A. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Davizon kept the house, and performed 
all the duties. 

Q. And you did not participate in any of the operations of the house? 
—A. No, sir; except to go there and look after my interests. 

Q. What were you doing previous to that ?—A. I was working in 
Mr. Morgan’s employment, in Algiers. 

Q. Do I understand that you and Davizon kept a coffee-house ?—A. 
He kept it, and I was interested in it. 

Q. Where is he ?—A. I believe he is in the city of New Orleans, em¬ 
ployed in the post-office. ^ 

Q. Did you go, with De Lacy to Mr. Cavanac’s house at any time 
within the last few years?—A. I was with Mr. De Lacy coming in, I 
think, up Eoyal street, and he was discussing the question with me rela¬ 
tive to making a statement to Mr. Cavanac. As we were coming up he 
met Mr. Cavanac and had some conversation with him about it in my 
presence. 

Q. That is not the question I asked you. Did you go to Mr. Cava¬ 
nac’s ofBce with him ?—A. No, sir ; he met Mr. Cavanac, as I told you, 
and had some conversation with him. 

Q. Did you not go into Mr. Cavanac’s office with him ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Never, at any time ?—A. O, why, I have been frequently in Mr. 
Cavanac’s office; he was the State registrar of voters. 

Q. I mean with De Lacy ?—A. No, sir; but I went to the office 
door. We were not in the office. 

Q. You went with Mr. De Lacy to the office door, but not inside?— 
A. We passed the office door, and we had some conversation relative to 
making a statement and opening the Kellogg case. 

Q. Is that the only conversation you ever heard De Lacey engage in 
with Mr. Cavanac about the Kellogg case ?—A. I think that is all. I 
had a conversation with De Lacy afterwards about it. ' 

Q. Did De Lacy, on that occasion, go in and make an affidavit, that 
you know of?—A. I do not know. , 

Q. Did you not tell Mr. Cavanac, at that time, that you were m wit¬ 
ness to the fact that money had been placed upon De Lacy’s desk ?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you tell him anything of the kind ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not propose to him to make an affidavit yourself ?—A 
No, sir. 

Q. Did you tell Judge Stokes—you know him ?—A. I know Judge 
Stokes. ^ 

Q. Did you not tell Judge Stokes that you had forced Kellogg to put 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1139 

you in the custom-house?—A. I did not tell him any such thing, for I 
did not owe my ai)pointment in the custom-house to Kellogg. 

Q. Did you never tell him anything of that kind ?—A. 1 never told 
him anythi‘Ag of that kind in my life. 

Q. Have you not told him so within the last few weeks?—A. Ko, 
sir; I have had no conversation with Stokes within the last few weeks. 

Q. When did you have your last conversation with Judge Stokes?— 
A. The last time I had any talk with Judge Stokes, it was before the 
assembling of the Republican convention, and he asked me if I were go¬ 
ing to oppose the administration in the convention, and I told him that 
I was not making any political tights at that time. 

Q. When was the assembling of the convention ?—A. Really I could 
not tell you the day. 

Q. Give me the month.—A. I think, sir, it was October, but I am 
not quite sure. 

Q. Then you have had no conversation, to put it within certain lim¬ 
its, with Judge Stokes since November?—A. I have had no conversa¬ 
tion with Judge Stokes since that time, except to pass him herein 
Washington, and say, “Good morning, judge,” and he say, “Good 
morning” to me. 

Q. Now, you say you have had no conversation at all with him.—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. I will try and refresh your recollection. Did you not tell Judge 
Stokes tl’at you saw two members of the legislature paid money ?—A. I 
did not ^ell Judge Stokes any such thing, and Judge Stokes is not the 
kind of man that I would tell anything of that kind to. 

Q. I did notask you what kind of a man 50 U thought Judge Stokes 
to be ?—A. Well, I did not tell him that anyhow. 

Q. Did you tell any other kind of a man that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not tell Judge Stokes and certain of your friends that 
you were in the house of representatives the day of the balloting for 
U. S. Senator, and that there was no quorum at the time that Kellogg 
was elected ?—A. I was asked by Tom Murray, whether I recollected 
whether there was a quorum present in the house or not, and I re¬ 
marked to Tom that there was a quorum present, and that is the only 
thing I remember saying, the only conversation I remember having 
relative to a quorum. 

Q. Did you ever tell anybody there was no quorum present ?—I never 
did tell anybody there was no quorum present. 

Q. Did you not state in public on the streets in New Orleans to one 
or more persons that Thomas, of Rosier, was not in the legislature and 
could not have gone there because he had the small-pox, and that he 
afterwards died of it?—A. I could not have told that, because at the 
time I,lived on Poydras street, and invariably met Thomas coming from 
the legfislature or going there. 

Q. You invariably met him ?—A. Yes, sir; invariably, but not every 
day. 

Q. ,l want to know what you mean when you say that you invariably 
met him ?—A. I mean that'l generally saw him once a day, morning or 
evening, because he passed out Poydras street to Claiborne street by 
way ot Poydras, and I lived there on Poydras street. 

Q. Then he did not have the small-pox ?—A. I learned that at the 
legislature, that he had it and that he died of it. 

Q. Rut he w^as moving about town like other men, w as he not ?—A. 
He was moving about tow n like other inen, because I had conversations 
with him between the 1st of January and the balloting for Senator. 


1140 


SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. You bad conversatious with him repeatedly ?—A. Yes,' sir. 

Q. And you say he had the small-pox ?—A. Yes, sir j he died with it. 
They said it was the small-pox, and for that reason I did not go to the 
funeral. ♦ 

Q. And you met him before the balloting for Senator?—A. Yes, sir 
After the election of Senator 1 was not looking out for members. 

Q. Were you looking out for members before?—A. Well, 1 liked to 
know what w^as going on j it was a natural curiosity of mine. 

Q. Was it natural curiosity alone ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Where does Thomas Murray live in New Orleans ?—A. I could not 
tell exactly what street j it was in what is known as the rear portion of 
the third ward, back of Claiborne street. I could not tell exactly the 
locality. 

Q. What street was it where you met Thomas so regularly?—A. I in¬ 
variably met him on Poydras street. 

Q. On what street ?—A. Poydras street when he was passing the door, 
and sometimes at the corner of Canal street and Franklin, where all the 
Kepublican politicians invariably met. You know it is a great city for 
corner politicians. 

Q. It is what ?—A. I say it is a great place for corner politics, you 
know. 

Q. It is?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Have you not stated that Jim Lewn's—you know Jim Lew iSj do you 
not ?—A. I know Colonel Lewis. 

Q. AVell, then. Colonel Lewis, or Col. Jim Lewis?—A. I knqw Col. 
James Lewis. ' 

Q. Well, Col. James Lew is j I want to suit you, Mr. Witnesk Did 
you not say that Col. James Lewis sw^ore to a lie w hen he swore to the 
committee that he did not come here in the interest of Kellogg, and 
that Lewis bragged about the witnesses from Mr. Cavanac?—A. I never 
made any such statement j in fact, I did not know what brought Colonel 
LcAvis to Washington. 

Q. You do not know now?—A. No, sir, unless it was to secure him¬ 
self in that fat office he has got down there. 

Q. And you know of no means he w^as going to use to do that—to 
take those w itnesses away ?—A. None in the least, sir. 

Q. And you do not know of any instrumentalities he used to effect 
that change?—A. I do not know of any, sir. 

Q. Did you not state, prior to your appointment in the custom-house, 
that you had suffered for bread to eat, and the Kellogg party would not 
take care of you ; that they would not give you anything to do in the 
custom-house, and that you would have satisfaction out of Kellogg ?—A. 
I never made any such statement as that. I may have said that I w^as 
out, and that I was going to carry my delegation in the convention so 
as to get in. i 

Q. Your delegation ?—A. Y^es, sir,* and I did carry them and I got in, 
and I did not owe it to Kellogg. " , 

Q. How do you know ?—A. Lecause he never gave me any otScial 
position in his life when he had plenty of patronage to distribute. 

Q. Did the man who gave you this office give it to you on account of 
Kellogg?—A. The man who gave it to me did it for friendly, personal, 
kindly, and social considerations. I told Mr. Dumont when I was going 
to quit to give the place to somebody else. • 

Q. Do what?—A. To give the place to somebody else, that I did not 
want it; I w^as going to quit. 

Q. Quit what?—x\. Quit working in the building. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELJ.OGG. 


1141 


Q. Now, reciirriug to a former part of the examination, have not yon 
stated to J udge Stokes or some of your friends that Governor Kelloggput 
you in the^eustom-house and kept you there to keep your mouth shut? 
—A. I never made any such statement to Judge Stokes, but Judge 
Stokes came to me and asked me to go in with him and go for Kellogg, 
which I most respectfully declined. 

Q. Judge Stokes came to you?—A. Yes, sir j but that was before; 
that was before the convention and not since. 

By Mr. Shellararger : 

Q. What convention ?—A. The State convention of Louisiana. 

By Mr. Merrick ; 

Q. Before November?—A. Yes, sir; before November. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. What year ?—A. Last year. 

By Mr. Merrick ; 

Q. That is what I wanted to understand. 1 want to know when it 
was that you had this conversation ? 

Senator Hoar. What does he mean by going for” Kellogg ? 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) What do you mean by the expression ‘Agoing 
for’^ Kellogg? Do you mean in favor of him or against him?—A. He 
meant that there would be a general tirade upon him for not taking 
care of cas Eepublicans in Louisiana. 

Senator Logan. O, it is just a kind of a slang phrase, “ going for^’ 
a fellow. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) What do you mean by “going for” Kellogg? 
Do you mean in his favor or against him ?—A. Going against him. He 
wanted him repudiated by the Eepublicans of the party for failing to 
get offices for us in Louisiana. 

Q. And 5 'ou were not in favor of that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. But you got one of the offices ?—A. AYell, I believe all the politi¬ 
cians do that. 

Q. Not after such a conversation as you had. But what State con¬ 
vention do you refer to?—A. 1 meau the State Eepublican conventiou 
that nominated a ticket and shaped the party in that State for the fu¬ 
ture. 

Q. It was a nominating convention, then?—A. Yes, sir; we have 
various kinds of conventions down there; but that was a uoiniuatiug 
convention. 

Q. Was Mr. Stokes a member of that convention?—A. Mr. Stokes 
was not a delegate to that convention. 

Q. Were you a delegate ?—A. I was, sir. 

Q. Did you see Judge Stokes in that convention?—A. Well, now, I 
could not tell you that. I frequently met Judge Stokes where the poli¬ 
ticians. usually congregated in Louisiana, around the custom house; 
but I could not say positively whether I saw him in that convention. 

Q. Do you recollect the name of the person at whose house Thomas 
staid in Now Orleans?—A. No, sir; I cannot tell you that; I do not 
recollect their names. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. He has asked you about Thomas and his being in the joint con¬ 
vention, and about his having the small pox and dying, &c. 1 want to 

ask if you know that Thomas was present at the time Kellogg was voted 


1142 


SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 


for ?—A. I believe that Thomas was present. I could not swear whether 
he was present or not, but I know there was a quorum present. 

Q. You do not remember positively whether you saw hin^ or not f— 
A. I could not state whether he wms in his seat or not. 

Q. How long after the election was it until Thomas died ? Ho you 
remember?—A. I think five or six days. I am not positive of that. I 
am not positive of when he died, but it was after, or a short time after, 
the election when I heard of it. 

Senator Kellogg, on his own behalf, stated that witnesses by the name 
of Morriss and Elder were discharged from further attendance upon 
their subpoenas. A letter from Senator Kellogg to the chairman of the 
committee was read, as follows: 

United States Senate Chamber, 

Washington, January 16, 1880. 

lion. Eli Sauls bury, Chairman, 4'c.: 

Sir: In obedience to the request of the committee that I should supply the com¬ 
mittee with a list of the witnesses whom I propose yet to call, I submit the following; 

Percy Baker, to be examined in reference to the testimony of A. W. Cornog, where 
he speaks of Baker having said that he made ($35) thirty-five dollars out of the elec¬ 
tion of Senator Kellogg; and also in regard to the evidence of Weber, concerning 
Baker’s saying that he had received money for his vote. Also, in regard to whether 
any bribery or corruption was resorted to on the part of Kellogg and his friends in 
said election. 

George L. Smith, in regard to the testimony and alleged affidavit of W. J. De Lacy, 
so far as that relates to matters connected with said Smith. This witness was absent 
from the State when the sub-committee were in New Orleans. He is now^, I am in¬ 
formed, in that city. 

What testimony I may ask to be introduced relating to the testimony of E. L. Weber, 
and his general character for truth and veracity, I cannot state until I k*now what 
disposition the committee will make of my motion to either produce that witness for 
cross-examination or strike his evidence from the record. 

I desire now to repeat my demand, heretofore made, that the committee shall cause 
said Weber to be produced, by attachment or otherwise, before the committee, for the 
purpose of the cross-examination in regard to his testimony delivered before the sub¬ 
committee in New Orleans, or that his testimony before said sub-committee be stricken 
from the record and excluded from the case. 

I reserve the privilege, if I desire to do so, to submit ray own testimony in regard 
to all matters in the case of which I have personal knowledge, and to do this after 
all the testimony is heard by the committee which is delivered against me, or affiecting 
my title. 

Whether I shall desire any other witnesses than those here named will depend upon 
the testimony that hereafter may be disclosed, offered in behalf of the contestant. 

I am given to understand that the affidavit of W.G. Geary, a member of the legisla¬ 
ture, which appears by the printed proceedings to have been put in evidence before 
the sub-committee in New Orleans, is not in the case. If it is part of the record I may 
desire to call testimony in relation thereto. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. P. KELLOGG. 

The GIIAIR3IAN. I think that Senator Kellogg should have the right 
to cross-examine him or have the testimony stricken out of tbe ?*ecord. 
(To Senator Kellogg.) Have you any witnesses ? 

Senator Kellogg. There are none here now. 

Mr. Merrick. Is the other side done ? 

The Chairman. They say that they have no more, except those who 
are mentioned in this letter. 

Senator Vance. Where is this man Percy Baker ? 

Senator Kellogg. He was in Texas four weeks ago, and a subpoena 
was telegraphed to his place of residence. 

Senator Vance. Was he in New Orleans at the time the committee 
was there ? 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; I had him subpoenaed before. I tele¬ 
graphed and traced him to Galveston, and tlieu to Marshall, and got a 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1143 


letter from his fiitlier statin" that he was very sick. Ho was aliiictedj 
has been troubled with consumption. I got a telegram from the post¬ 
master expressing surprise that he was not here. 

The ChAir:man. You do not mean by your proposition in this letter 
that we shall send out and look for him ? 

Senator Kellogg. No, sir; by no means. I only claim the right to 
introduce him, it’ he should arrive here before it concludes, as I thiuk 
bis testimony important. 

Mr. Merrick. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, you have called upon 
me to know whether I can go on with my proof in the case. As I stared 
to the committee a few days since that i supposed I would have no other 
than rebutting proof, except documentary evidence, I repeat that state¬ 
ment ; except documentary evidence, I have no other than purely rebut¬ 
ting proof under tlie issues which the committee wasdirected to try by the 
Senate. I believe it was stated early in the investigation that Mr. Spofford 
bad the opening, and Mr. Kellogg was to follow with his proof, and we 
would then rebut. Now, Mr. Kellogg stated to the committee that he 
has, in a certain sense only, closed his testimony. Now, I submit to 
the committee, should I be required under these circumstances to in¬ 
troduce n)y testimony and divide it up in that manner'? Would it be 
regular, under the ordinary rules of law, to do so, and to do so possibly 
to my disadvantage, and to the delay and annoyance of the committee? 
In Senator Kellogg’s statement to the committee, he refers to Percy 
Baker. Now, whether the committee will allow him to have that wit¬ 
ness came, who is in no ])articular locality and entirely inaccessible, so 
far as this committee is informed, and who may not be here at all, judg¬ 
ing from his condition, as represented by the Senator himself, that is 
possible, and as to him I have nothing more to say. He. wants George 
Smith to testify as to the affidavit of De Lacy, so far as it relates to 
Smith. He w as absent at the time from the city. I am informed he is 
in tLe city now^ He is summoned here, and should be here now. I know 
of no reason why he has not been examined. 

Senator Hoar. Was Mr. Cavanac a magistrate? 

Senator Cameron. No, sir j he was Spofford’s agent in procuring these 
affidavits. 

Senator Logan. Who was it sworn to before? 

Senator Kern an. The assistant secretary of state, it appears to be. 

Mr. Merrick. The assistant secretary of state, Arroyo. 

Senator Hoar. Is he authorized to administer oaths? 

Mr. Merrick. (To Mr. Walker.) Is he? 

Mr. Walker. He is. I do not know whether he is authorized in mat¬ 
ters outside of his office. 

Senator Hoar. You can produce the law' and see. 

M’^. Merrick. We can easily produce the law, but that is immaterial. 
It can be admitted as a written statement merely. They are admissions 
as things the party did himself. That affidavit, I believe, is the only 
other piece of original evidence-in chief that I am wdlling to give to the 
2 ominittee, and I am w illing to put that in now, and to have the ques¬ 
tion disposed of now. 

The Chairman. I prefer that the whole committee, particularly those 
who were in New Orleans, should be present, and whatever rule w'as 
adopted there should bo followed here. 

Senator Logan. Has this man been subpoenaed? 

Mr. Merrick. I do not know. He has been telegraphed for and has 
not come. 

Senator Logan. I do not suppose that it makes any difference whether 


1144 


SrOFFOllD vs. KELLOGG. 


lie is subpoenaed or not, or under whose subpcena he conies, ilhe is here j 
and if he is here, 1 think it proper to put him on the stand. 

Mr. Merrick. The chairman having indicated that he desired the 
New Orleans committee present when matters that relate lo what oc¬ 
curred there come up for consideration, I will pass from that for the 
present and recur to the general position of the case. This fact leaves 
the case entirely open, and I do not think there is a member of this 
committee who will require me to enter upon my case and present 
my testimony until the sitting member’s case is closed. If the condi¬ 
tion existed which the Senator here speaks of, that the party upon the 
other side wmuld not close his case, and had no witness at the time being, 
in court, and the other party did, he might be called upon to examine 
that witness; but when the party says, “I have partly closed, but intend 
to go on and conclude hereafter,” and that he proposes to be examined 
himself, and is here in court, I do not think there is a court in the 
United States that would require the other party to go on and examine 
their witnesses until the first party had concluded. 

Senator Logan. Is that affidavit you have referred to rebutting testi¬ 
mony or testimony-in-chief? 

Mr. Merrick. I think. Senator, you have misunderstood me. I said 
I had no other evidence-in-chief except this affidavit and some docu¬ 
mentary proof. All other testimony which I have is in rebuttal, and I 
think the regular course had better be followed. We opened with our 
case, and Senator Kellogg followed and is now in the midst of his ex¬ 
amination. He does not tell the committee that he has finished j^in fact, 
he says that he has not; that he intends to call other witnesses, and 
one in particular, namely, himself, for the purpose of furnishing testi¬ 
mony-in-chief. 

' Senator Hoar. I do not understand that Senator Kellogg now asks 
the committee to say that you shall go on with your case, and that his 
statements shall be made in reply. I understand that he says when the 
case is all through on both sides he proposes to make a statement him¬ 
self, and he will stand, when he makes it, just as he would if all the 
other testimony was not in. He stands upon his right, as a defendant 
in this case, to make his statement when he pleases, and naturally the 
best time for that is after the testimony is closed ; but he does not intend, 
as I understand him, and he can correct me if I do not, to prevent you 
from rebutting any statement which may be material, and which may 
have the appearance of evidence in chief, opportunity to rebut which you 
have not before had. He simply comes now and gives notice that he 
has asked for this privilege, and that, if granted, he will avail himself ot 
it. When he proposes to do that you can go on and object upon any 
and all grounds that are legal, or that you deem proper to be considerec 
in this matter. • . 

Mr. Kernan. Do you not think that the court ought td let him t^now 
now what its position will be ? Shall we decide now whether to let, him 
put in his evidence in chief in full, then have the rebuttal and sur-rebut- 
tal, if necessary. 

Senator Cameron. In New Orleans Senator Kellogg appeared with 
his witnesses, went on for some time, and after that some time expired 
we examined the witnesses indifferently as they were ready. 

Mr. Merrick. Perhaps you fell into the bad habits of the State ? 

Senator Cameron, No, I think we were trying to get away from the 
possibility. 

The Chairman. In the Kansas case we required the memorialist to 
proceed, and after awhile we made an order to examine the witnesses as 



SFOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


1145 


they were subpceiiaed and appeared before the coininittee. That order 
was complained of by the counsel, and we afterwards modified it to this 
extent, that counsel for the sitting member should not be required to 
produce their witnesses with regard to particular members of the legis¬ 
lature until some proof had been adduced against him. In the Oregon 
case, with which I was connected, we decided that we would examine 
the witnesses as they were produced, first one side and then the other, 
and it went on so through all the case. 

Mr. Mekeick. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that that was the rule 
adopted in the committee in New Orleans. I was not in New Orleans 
at the examination of the w itnesses, but we have proceeded under a dif¬ 
ferent rule here in AVashington. Perhaps what might be admitted to 
be a proper rule in New Orleans, on account of the time of the commit¬ 
tee, would not be a proper rule in Washington. 1 think the gentlemen 
of the committee will appreciate that what 1 have stated is the proper 
rule to follow in this case. 1 will mention one case, not to be under¬ 
stood as presenting it as a precedent, but a very important case in the 
House of Kepreseutatives, where the minister to China—and I had the 
honor to appear as his counsel—asked the chairman, in order that the 
matter might proceed regularl}^, and the facts come out, to order that 
the accusant be required to put on the stand his witnesses, then that ours 
should follow, then that he might rebut, and we might sur-rebut. That I 
thought was a very proper rule. Tour desire, Air. Chairman, to save time 
will be very much gratified if what I suggest be adopted. Senator Kel¬ 
logg proposes to testify; 1 will be allowed to rebut. He wants to testify 
after 1 have put iu all the rebutting evidence I have. He takes the evi¬ 
dence, he goes upon the stand, he is the last witness in the case, accord¬ 
ing to his own proposition, there is to be. Then the question arises, how 
long will I be allowed to get the evidence from Louisiana to rebut what 
he may put in in chief ? 

Senator Logan. 1 do not know’ what the rule has been since I have 
been off the committee, but in every investigation with which I have 
been connected, and this is the fourth, it was always considered prior 
to this organization of the committee that the memorialist was permit¬ 
ted to put in his evidence, the contestee to rejoin, the memorialist to re¬ 
but, and the contestee to sub-rebut, and then it was permitted to the 
contestee to testify. The right was tendered to him after the evidence 
w’as all in. 1 know in the Caldwell case it was done, and Air. CaUhvell 
declined, but the right w’as given him nevertheless, and that I under¬ 
stand has been the rule as to a Senator, in deference to him and his po¬ 
sition, at all times in this committee. I do not know’ that 1 can say it 
has been the rule, but at least it has been a custom. 

Senator Hoar. It was the rule under the old criminal common law 
practice that the party accused w’as allowed to put in his emphatic 
denial, under oath or otherwise, if he desired, of everything that had 
been said against him on the trial. 

Air. AIerkick. In the States where I have practiced the party accused 
was not allowed to say a w’ord, and I except to the pi*bpositiou that it 
is a rule of the common law. 

Senator Hoar. I did not mean to be understood as saying that it 
was a rule of the common law in-geueral, but of the common law’ of the 


States. ^ 1 

Air. AIerrick. I know" it is not so in the common law of England. 
Senator Logan. I spoke of the fact not as it is now, but as it was 
when I was on this committee before. I spoke of the Caldw’ell case, as 
that was a pertinent instance, and I thought might be well followed in 


1146 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


this case. The right was extended as a matter of right and courtesy to 
Mr. Caldwell to make a statement, and he declined to do so. 

Senator Hoar. Yon must remember, Senator, that this is not a common 
law trial; it is a preliminary hearing before a committee, and the testi¬ 
mony is to be reported to the Senate, and the question is there to be 
determined by the Senate itself. On that hearitig Mr. Kellogg is enti¬ 
tled to the floor to make any statement he chooses in debate, and any 
statement that he makes there in debate, upon that any Senator would 
be warranted to decide the w'hole case. Kow, there are gentlemen in 
the Senate, many of them, who if they were to get up and make a state¬ 
ment upon a personal matter alfecting themselves, you would act upon 
it officially even though live aundred witnesses testified otherwise before 
a committee. That is the reason, or one reason, why I think with the 
Senator from Georgia, that Mr. Kellogg can appear and make his state¬ 
ment to this committee at any time. 

Mr. Merrick. I ai^preciate what the Senator says, and I think my¬ 
self that the high and dignified position of a Senator entitles him to 
belief; but I do not think that in a case where testimony is taken aflect- 
ing the title and character of a Senator he should be allowed to come 
in and mak« his statement, unsworn to, rebut and contradict the whole 
case as made out by the testimony of sworn and reputable witnesses. 

Senator HOxVR. Suppose that William Pinckney had risen in the Sen¬ 
ate and stated, even if a hundred witnesses of the most reputable char¬ 
acter from Baltimore had sworn and he w'as charged with malpractices 
in securing his election to the Senate, that he had done no such thing, 
and stated all the circumstances of his election in consecutive and 
patent order ; do you mean to say you would not have believed it? 

Mr. Merrick. 1 might say that I would have believed him, but in 
those times, while he was an honorable man, there were five hundred 
other men in that city as honest and as worthy of credit as he. I do 
not respect—and I say it with no desire to reflect in any manner upon 
anybody—but I repeat that I do not respect the toga of a Senator that 
far. 

Senator Yance. Well, I mean to say this: that whatever the privi¬ 
leges of Senator Kellogg may be on the Senate floor, Judge Spofford 
cannot go in there and reply to his statements. Therefore, 1 think if 
Senator Kellogg desires, or demands the right to make his statement 
here, it is not only right but desirable for this committee to hear it, in 
order that if there should be need to rebut any of his statements Judge 
Spofford can have the opportunity and the powers of this committee to 
secure that rebutting testimony. 

The Chairman. I suppose this committee, whatever the claim or the 
testimony of Mr. Kellogg may be, has it in its power to call witnesses 
to rebut anything that he has said. Personally, I do not see any diffi¬ 
culty in this matter. If Senator Kellogg makes a statement, and Mr. 
Spofford desires to produce witnesses to contradict that statement in 
any particular, 1 apprehend that the committee will allow him to do it. 
In reference td the Caldwell case. Senator Logan, I desire to say 
it differed from this in that there was no other party contesting his 
seat. It was a proposition to oust him on the ground that he had 
got it by bribery. The committee called upon him to make a state¬ 
ment, and he declined to do so. In the Grover case, Mr. Grover did 
not testify ; but when the committee was nearly through, and the tes¬ 
timony was about all in, Mr. Grover authorized me to say that while 
he did not care to testify on his own motion, he was present, and 
would, on the motion of any Senator, come on the stand, to testify 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1147 


on oath to any facts stated by any witness who was present, and tend¬ 
ered to testify. Bat be was not called upon to do so. And, if he had 
testified, there would have been given an opportunity to contradict him 
by the memorialist in the case ; and I suppose that is the case here. If 
Mr. Kellogg makes any statement that Mr. Spoflord desires to contra¬ 
dict, the committee will allow him to do it. There is no difficulty as to 
the time when he testified. I suppose it will be the general judgment 
of the committee; if Mr. Kellogg testifies, that Mr. Spoli'ord should have 
the right to introduce any rebutting testimony that he thinks necessary 
to complete the case. As to Mr. Kellogg, be is the contestee; but I 
should not like to make an order requiring him to testify at any time. 
But I would vote to allow Mr. Spofford to introduce witnesses, if deemed 
necessary to contradict his statements, whenever they may be made. 

Senator Logan. 1 think, Mr. Chairman, you misunderstood me in 
reference to the Caldwell case. Caldwell was charged with a crime. 
Mr. Kellogg is also charged with a crime; and it is on that the com¬ 
mittee has called upon the member thus charged to make a statement. 
It is a question, not of what he is entitled to state, but his right to state 
anything in explanation or denial of charges of crime made against 
him. It is the right to answer charges of crime; nobody, I take it, on 
this committee is going to interfere with the rights of no party. But 
Kellogg stands here charged with an offense, and it is on that ground, 
and that ground solely, that I contend that he has the right, at the finish 
of the case, to make a statement regarding it in its entirety. 

Senator Kernan. I should concur with the chairman that if Mr. 
Kellogg wants to testify he can do so at any time that he chooses; but 
if when he does so it is late in the investigation, I should hold that the 
other party would have the right to call witnesses to rebut the testimony 
given by him. 

Mr. Merrick. I desire to offer in evidence- 

Mr. Shellabarger. When you get through your speech I have just 
one word. 

Mr. Merrick. I thought the committee had decided against me. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I heard no such decision. There are a few sug¬ 
gestions I desire to trouble the committee with, Mr. Chairman, in so far 
as this application, to which Mr. Merrick^s remarks have been addressed, 
is concerned. I desire to state that it is an application to compel him to 
proceed this morning at once, for upon that subject I have not a word 
to say. 

Mr. Merrick. I did not make that application. My application is 
for permission not to proceed until you have done with all the witnesses 
that you have to call. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I have not a word to say with the exception of 
this: That the rule applied to us shall bo also applied to him by the 
committee with regard especially to filing a list of witnesses, and of pre¬ 
vious statement as to what they are expected to testify. That rule shall 
bo complied with on our part, and that much I do ask shall bo applied 
in like manner to the other side. Kow, in regard to all that my friend 
lias said in regard to the letter of Senator Kellogg, I want to say one or 
two things?. The first is this: That in that letter there is no request in 
fact, and it was not the intention that Senator Kellogg should have the 
last say in this matter; whatever he may have as a Senator on the floor 
has nothing to do with this case at‘this juncture; whatever rights have 
been accorded him here have been accorded him as a matter of right, 
but no rights beyond those were meant to be set up in that letter; it 
was a simple request that this committee should not prevent him from 



1148 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


delivering liis statement to the committee after he knew who his assail¬ 
ants were and what was the character of their assaults. Now, to see 
the strangeness of the position in which my friend has placed himself, 
let me remind the committee that he has twice over stated to the com¬ 
mittee that his testimony, original and assailing in its character, is not all 
in, and yet is admitting that the accused shall now be thrown upon the 
stand in order to meet his accusers, when, in point of fact, he does not and 
cannotknowthefullextent of their accusations. He seeks to avail himself 
of the right, and we make that application now, that after the case is con¬ 
cluded he shall be allowed to make his statement^ but my learned brother, 
immediately after the breath leaves this statement that he has docu¬ 
mentary testimony and original testimony which he expects to put in, 
after stating that the oral testimony is not original, but rebutting, pro¬ 
poses that Senator Kellogg shall meet in the statement which he proposes 
to make the whole case absolutely, without knowing what it is. Now, 
in regard to that, I do not think that a set of honorable men, not to 
characterize or dignify them higher than that, will accede to any such 
proposition. It is an unfair proposition, and there is no element of right 
or fairness in it. You are all Senators, and you will look at this matter 
in its proper bearings, and you will see for yourselves that this propo¬ 
sition, coming at this time, lacks every element of fair play. It is unfair 
for any lawyer to come and ask any committee to deprive a man of the 
right and privilege of making his statement, if he desires it, at any 
time; certainly he has no right to demand that he shall make the state¬ 
ment before the documentary evidence which is to assail him shall be 
brought in. And in the very breath in which my friend talks of the 
position we occupy is wTong, he proposes to introduce, and does intro¬ 
duce now in the very last sentence of his speech, original evidence in 
this case, to wit, an affidavit. 8o much, then, for that. There is one 
other additional statement I want to make here, which is that when Mr. 
Merrick said a majority of this committee has already decided that 
there is proof here of a conspiracy, such as is alleged in these affida¬ 
vits— 

Senator Hill. Wait, Judge Shellabarger. Let me remind you that 
what was said related wholly to the New Orleans testimony. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I was going on to say, those affidavits stand in 
a very uncertain position. I do not understand, and I think the jour¬ 
nals of this committee will be on my side, that that question, vital as it 
is, has ever been passed upon, and the committee is unrecorded on the 
journals with reference to them. That was one of the questions re¬ 
served to be discussed by the committee after argument, or if not argu¬ 
ment, certainly after consideration by the committee in full sitting. 
Therefore, when my friend says that a majority has decided, even a 
majority of the sub committee has decided, there is a conspiracy here, I 
protest in the name and behalf of my client and of the law that there 
is not a warrant for the statement that it has been decided, nor founda¬ 
tion in the law for any such decision as he states. 

Senator Cameron. The question of whether or not there was a con¬ 
spiracy was never raised in New Orleans and of course never was 
decided. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I thank the Senator for the suggestion. One 
of the elements of vagueness in the letter which he comments on is that 
we desire to make our statement that the testimony is closed and our 
accusers are known. It was not meant to say that nobody should reply 
to our statements; that was not meant, but it was meant, and I re¬ 
state it, and insist upon it with all the earnestness that counsel are 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1149 


permitted to show before a committee of this character, that we shall 
know what the accusation is and who are the accusers. Another ele¬ 
ment of vagueness is that we cannot tell what other witnesses we want 
until we know what their evidence is to be that is to be brought against 
us. Now, gentlemen, to you all at once I appeal, in view of the fairness 
which I know governs you all, is there not vagueness in that which in 
the nature of the case is voidable ? IMy brother says that he has other 
original evidence which he desires to bring in before this committee. 
He is a lawyer of the highest ability, but will he say to me—for I am 
responsible for that letter, and I shall tell my evidence before I hear 
his—if my friend will say now that he is through, 1 can say to him that 
I am through 5 but until I hear his witnesses 1 cannot tell what other 
witnesses I may want. Another element of vagueness attributed to 
that letter, I believe, is in the fact that we state. [To Mr. Merrick.J 
Will my brother let me see that letter. ^ 

Mr. Merrick. If you will read that passage 1 think you will find it 
is stronger than you have stated it. It is on the middle of the page. 

Senator Hill. I was not in here when this question was raised, and 
I think it is taking up a good .deal of time. 

Mr. Shellabarger. One moment. Senator. It is in regard to that 
testimony that is in the record as the testimony of AVeber. I could not 
tell, and cannot now, what the committee is going to do with that testi¬ 
mony, or what witness I want,impeachingor otherwise, until I know what 
is going to be done with that record. I am in the same position as to 
the affidavit of Geary ; I understood it was out of the record. If it is 
in, then I can tell as soon as I understand that what I want in regard 
to it, so that my friend’s criticism as to the vagueness of the letter will be 
found upon examination to be more addressed to hypothetical conclu¬ 
sions than lo the facts contained therein. 

Mr. Merrick. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, and you will save time if 
you will allow me just about live minutes. Mr. Shellabarger says that, 
if I say I am closed he will close. It is true that I said there was doc¬ 
umentary evidence upon our side which we desired to ihtroduce and 
that was understood. I have no other testimony to offer after his sug¬ 
gestion except the evidence of the Potter committee and two witnesses 
ill rebuttal of what has been said here. 

Mr. Shellabarger. What jiart of that interminably long document 
do you propose to offer ? 

Mr. Merrick. The third volume^ iu regard to Louisiana affairs. 

Senator Hill. The proper way in an investigation of this kind is 
this: Governor Kollegg has been introducing evidence. Now, is he 
closed? If not, let him goon. Then when he closes let the others 
go on. AVhen they close, then Governor Kellogg will be in a position 
to say whether he wants other testimony; or not and if ho does, this 
committee will say whether it is right or not; that he should have it. 
And I will say that if anything developed by the testimony of the mem- 
orialist suggests to him a new defense or explanation he has a right to 
make it, and to have the evidence at any time. If he wants to make a 
statement himself he has a right to make it; and if at the time he makes 
the statement the other party desires to have other evidence to rebut it 
that matter will be considered, and, if proper, it will be allowed. AA^e 
are conducting this investigation with an eye to fairness ; we are act¬ 
ing for the Senate, and I wish to say here that this case has been con¬ 
ducted as though nobody was interested in it but Senator Kellogg and 
.Judge Spoffbrd. I think the Senate is interested in it; I think the 
whole country is interested, and that we should pass upon those points 


1150 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


as they arise, and not before. We must get on as rapidly as we can. 
There is no point raised by this letter which I think needs discussion 
here. 

The Chairman. We hare to meet at one o’clock to examine other 
witnesses ill the Kansas case, and what time shall we adjourn this case ? 

Oil motion, the further consideration of the case in question was de¬ 
ferred to Monday, January 19, 1880. 


Washington, D. 0., 

Monday^ January 19, 1880. 

The committee met pursuant to its order of adjournment, and resumed 
the consideration of the memorial of Henry M. Spofford, relative to the 
seat in the Senate from the State of Louisiana now held by William Pitt 
Kellogg. 

Present, a quorum of the committee; R. T. Merrick and C.L. Walker, 
counsel for the memorialist; the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford; Mr. 
Shellabarger, counsel for the sitting member, and the sitting member, 
Mr. William Pitt Kellogg. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. ELDER. 

John W. Elder, a witness on behalf of the sitting member, sworn 
and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. Where do you reside ?—Answer. In this city. 

Q. Did you ever reside in Louisiana; if so, when ?—A. I lived in 
Louisiana permanently in 1871. I have not resided there since 1871. 

Q. State whether you were employed, and if so by whom, to prepare 
testimony in this contest between Spofford and Kellogg?—A. Well, sir, 
I was employed by Mr. Spofford to go to Louisiana to take preliminary 
statements or Affidavits in his case. I think the first interview with him 
was in the parlor of the National Hotel; I think in April last. 

Q. In April last?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you go to Louisiana?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you take any preliminary affidavits?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State which ones you took, in the order of their time.—A. I think 
the first affidavit I took down there was Mr. Geary’s. 

Q. And the next one ?—A. The next was Mr. Seveigne’s ; the next Mr. 
Kelso’s, and Mr. Cornog’s and Mr. Lane’s; I don’t remember his given 
name. 

Q. Go on, and give all that you can remember.—A. I think that is 
all, sir. 

Q. Did you take any affidavit of Delacy ?—A. No, sir ; but I talked 
with Delacy. 

Q. What was his first name ?—A. W. John, I think. 

Q. Did you talk with J. J. Johnson and also Blackstone, another 
member of the legislature ?—A. Yes, sir; and they told me they had 
made affidavits and would make others for me if I would pay them for it. 

Mr. Merrick. I object, Mr. Chairman. In the absence of these wit* 
nesses and of their testimony on the stand, I would ask' that that tes¬ 
timony be stricken out. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I stated that I am asking these questions, not 
for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of any witness, but lor 
another effect, which will directly appear. 



SPOFFORD VS. KEDLOGG. 


1151 


Mr. Merrick. There are a great many facts which may be gotten out 
in relation to this matter, and in this way, and it is tor that reason that 
1 move to throw it all out. 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER. But, I\Ir. Chairman, these witnesses are most 
of them persons whom it is alleged Senator Kellogg bribed to go back 
on their affidavits in the case, and that fact explains the character of 
their testimony. It is a fact in the case, and I propose to show by these 
witnesses that these men, prior to the time they were subpoenaed, did 
disclose to him what was the truth and what was the motive tor their 
testimony in regard to their alleged and then acknowledged bribery. I 
wish to show that this contestant knew before they were subpoenaed 
what was the truth, and that they would not stand up to their affidavits ; 
that long before they w^ere subpoenaed Spotford knew the truth, and 
that it w^as in the opposite direction from what they had testified in their 
affidavits. 

{Senator IIill. You have stated your point, but under the rules you 
cannot argue it. 

Mr. Shellabarger. But, ]Mr. Senator, it tends to rebut the idea 
that offers were made them to make them go back on their testimonj^ 

Mr. Merrick. 1 think this charge is a very grave one, and 1 think 
it due to myself and Mr. Spoffbrd to make a remark in regard to it. 

Senator Hill. State your objection, if you have any, but we cannot 
stop to hear argument. 

Mr. Merrick. Counsel on the other side states that this man was 
Spofford’s agent, and proposes to prove by him that Spofford knew that 
the men brought here in June would testify as they did, contradictory 
to what they had stated in their affidavits. I have a paper in my 
pocket in that man’s handwriting, in which he states that he was not 
the agent of Mr. Spoffbrd, and that he had had no communication with 
him ; and therefore I move to first investigate the question of agency. 

Mr. Shellabarger. 1 ought to have stated it in this way : that this 
man told Judge Spofford that these witnesses would be of no use to 
him. 

Senator Hill. Your statement is that they stated to the agent of the 
person who is contesting that they did not tell the truth in their affida¬ 
vits and when they came here they w^ouLl say so. 

Senator Hoar. No; the proposition is to prove that they stated to a 
person reprcvseuting the contestant, and 1 think the testimony is this 
way, that the witnesses, having testified one way, were hired in Wash¬ 
ington to testify in another way. Now, he proposes to show that long 
before they came here he told the contestant that the truth was the 
other way, and that these witnesses would not testify in Washington as 
they had sworn in New Orleans. The question was here put to the 
committee as to the admissibility of the testimony under the objection 
of counsel for the contestant, and on a vote it was decided in the affirm¬ 
ative, and the examination of the witness was proceeded with. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger). Now, please state over again filenames 
of those peasons you talked to, and who were afterw'ards subpa3naed as 
witnesses whose affidavits you did not take. You have given the names 
of persons whose affidavits you took.— A. Mr. Jones is one, and Thomas 
Murray and De Lacy. 

Q. Hid you talk with Seveignes and Cornog ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. 1 understood you to ask for the names of those whose 
affidavits he did not take. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, sir. (To the witness). State to the com¬ 
mittee those persons whose affidavits you did not take, and state what 


1152 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


they said to you about the matter of their taking bribes or whether they 
knew of bribes being taken I 

The Chairman. Is it to go to that extent ? I thought you said it 
was to show that they had said their affidavits were not true. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I understood the ruling of the committee to go 
to the extent that this witness could state the fact that the affidavits of 
these men, according to their own admissions, were not true; that the 
bribery did not occur ; that the election was not induced, to their knowl¬ 
edge, by bribery, and that they made the affidavits for a consideration. 
That is my understanding of the ruling of the committee. 

Senator Hill. Do you ask for declarations made at the time and be¬ 
fore they were expected to testify ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. No, sir; I ask for declarations made prior to 
their being subpoenaed here; that they talked before that time and 
stated that their testimony which they iiad given in the form of affidavits 
Avas not true; and that, I think, comes within the ruling of the com¬ 
mittee. 

Senator Yance. After the taking of the affidavits ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. Yes, sir; I think their statements since that 
time are admissible to explain their motives for making the affidavits at 
thetimetbey were made. (To the witness). Y'ou maystate,if you please, 
any conversation you had with these witnesses at the time they made their 
affidavits, and also any declarations made by those whose affidavits you 
took, and also what they said at the time, or about the time, as to the, 
truth of them ?—A. Mr. Thomas Murray said to me- 

By Senator Yance : 

Q. Fix the time ?—A. Some time in April or the first of May. 

Q. What time?—A. Last year, sir. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Cannot you approximate or fix the time more definitely f—A. No,, 
sir. It was after the affidavits were made. I did not see Murray make 
the affidavit, but he told me he had made an affidavit and that he knew 
Thomas was there on the day of the Senatorial election. 

Senator Hill. Mr. Murray was not one of the Avitnesses charged with 
having been suborned by Kellogg. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I believe this committee has ruled that I can 
proA^e that Murray said his tesUmoiiy was false ? 

Senator Hill. You know you cannot impeach Murray unless you lay 
the foundation for it. When JMurray was on the stand you never asked 
him anything about a conversation had with this Avitness. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) I will go on, Mr. Witness, and ask you 
what Mr. Murray said?—A. He went on to state- 

Senator Hill. I object. 

(Upon explanation the objection was withdrawn and the examination 
was iiroceeded Avith.) 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) Now, go on and take their witnesses 
one by one and state Avhat they said to you about the truth of their affi-' 
daAuts. 

Senator Hill. It is my duty to say that you are going beyond the 
rules of the committee. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Now, that I may know as to the ruling that is 
to apply here to every party, I wish to state my position in offering this 
testimony. These parties are alleged to have been bribed, and I pro-_ 
pose to show that as to each at the time they made their affidaAUts it 
may be shown that they made declarations in harmony Avith their testi- 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1153 


mony given liere in Washington and contradictory of their affidavits. 
And that relates to all the witnesses, without regard to who called them 
before the committee. 

^Ir. Merrick. My understanding of the ruling of the committee was 
this: that such witnesses as were introduced by the contestant, and in 
reference to whom it is alleged that corruj)t means were used by Kellogg 
to induce them to change their testimony from their statements made 
in previous affidavits, testimony will be allowed to show what they said, 
provided it is at a time prior to the delivery of their testimony. If 
they made their statements anterior to their testifying before the com¬ 
mittee, I think myself it is competent. 

Senator Cameron. Blackstone was introduced in New Orleans, and 
in cross-examination it was shown that he had, on a certain occasion, 
made an affidavit. The first piece of paper introduced was not his affi¬ 
davit, but what the witness stated was a substantial copy, Theu 
Ewart came on the stand and produced what he said was the original. 
Now, I think this ruling covers his case the same as the others. I think 
where a witness comes on the stand, and it appears that he had made 
an affidavit, and his testimony before the committee does not agree with 
the contents of his affidavit, it is competent to hear testimony explain¬ 
ing that difference. 

iSenator Bailey. I think it is competent for Senator Kellogg to show 
that these witnesses whom it was said he corruptly suborned had made 
statements prior to their original subornation contradictory to the state¬ 
ments they made on the stand. I think testimony as to that might be 
received by the committee. 

Senator Cameron. 1 understood the ruling to relate to those wit¬ 
nesses who were called and put upon the stand, and those alone. 

Senator Bailey. Yes, sir; that is my understanding. These decla¬ 
rations may be introduced showing that these witnesses made state¬ 
ments anterior to the time of their alleged subornation in harmony with 
the statements made upon the stand, and which it is alleged they made 
in pursuance of the subornation. 

Q. (By Mr. ShellABARGER.) Now, state any conversation that you 
had prior to the time these witnesses were subpoenaed to Washington. 
Take Seveignes first. What did he tell you in regard to his affidavit 
with reference to the alleged bribery ?—A. He said that he was not 
bribed. 

Q. Bv Governor Kellogg ?—A. By Governor Kellogg. 

Q. What did he say in regard to the truth of his affidavit ?^A. He 
said that he had made one. He stated to me that he had made one, 
and that he would make an affidavit for Mr. Spotford for a consider¬ 
ation. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Was this before the affidavit was made ?—A. Yes, sir; it was 
before the affidavit was made. 

Mr. IMerrick. 1 go back to the original objection and object to that 
testimony. The witness stated that an affidavit was made and that it 
was false and he was not bribed. Now, they oiler his statement to prove 
that before he made the affidavit he said he would make one for a con¬ 
sideration. It cuts both ways. If he would make an affidavit for one 
consideration he would swear against it for another consideration. I 
submit that it is not competent testimony. 

Senator Hill (to the witness). Judge Shellabarger asked you to tes¬ 
tify to what Seveigues said before he was subpoenaed, what he said to you 

73 s K 


1154 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


about the truth of that atfidavit, and he has asked you twice and you 
have given different answers both times. Now, answer the question. 

Q. (By Mr. Shellabarger.) I will repeat that question. State if 
you had any conversation with Seveignes after he made his affidavit 
and prior to his being subpoenaed here as a witness, and what he said 
as to the truth of it.—A. That was after it was made ? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. He told me it was false. 

Q. Where and when ?—A. At my room in Judge Bay’s office. 

By Senator Logan : 

Q. Where is Judge Bay’s office?—A. On Custom-house street. 

By Mr. Shellbarger : 

Q. In regard to J. J. Johnson, who was sworn and called as a witness 
by Mr. Spoffbrd to Washington, state if you had any conversation with 
him as to the truth of the affidavit he made, and when and where.—A. I 
had a conversation with him at my room, and he stated- 

By Mr. Vance : * 

Q. W’^hen ?—A. That was about between the 1st and loth of May. 

Q. Before or after the affidavit was made?—A. After. He told me 
that he had made it, and he said that he would make another for me, 
and 1 told him if he had made one that was false I did not want another 
of that kind. 

By Mr. Shellabarger: 

Q. Hid he say the first was false ?—A. Yes sir. 

Q. Hid you have any conversation with He Lacy ?—A. Yes, sir; I had 
several interviews with him. 

Q. What did he say about the truth of his affidavit ?—A. He said that 
it was false. 

Q. State whether you reported the substance of those statements to 
Mr. Spofford.—A. I stated to him when he came to New Orleans. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. When ?—A. I think he arrived there the 30th of May, and the 
Monday following I stated to him a conversation I had had with Phil¬ 
lips and He Lacy, and that the witnesses were not going to stand by their 
affidavits. 

Q. Where was this ?—A. At his house. 

‘ By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. What was it he stated to you ?—A. He stated that he thought 
they would. Seveignes came to me and told me that he was going to 
make another affidavit for Mr. Gavanac, and that Cavanac told him he 
wanted it a little stronger than mine. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What was that ?—A. He said that he was going to make another 
affidavit for Mr. Cavanac and that Mr. Cavanac wanted it a little 
stronger than mine. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. What time did you report this to Mr. Spofford ?—A. When he 
came to New Orleans. 

Q. Hid he say anything about what he was going to get ?—A. He 
said for that he was to have $500. 

Q. That Seveignes was to have it, you mean?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He said he would make the one that Cavanac wanted him to 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1155 


make ?—A. Seveignes was to make an affidavit for him a little stronger 
than the one he had made for me, and he told me afterwards that he 
had made it, and the consideration was that he should be summoned to 
Washington and have $500 after testifying from ^fr. SpoRord or Mr. 
Cav’anac. 

By Mr. Merrick: 

Q. You say after testifying?—A. Yes, sir; and he was to be sum¬ 
moned to Washington. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. I ask you in*regard to Blackstone. lie was called as a witness by 
Senator Kellogg. lie was one of the parties alleged to have been bribed 
at Willard’s Hotel. My question is, had you any conversation with 
Blackstone prior to his coming here as a witness with regard to the 
truth or falsity of his affidavit?—A. Yes, sir; I had two or three inter¬ 
views with him; but 1 am not positive- 

By Mr. Merrick : ' 

Q. That was with Blackstone, was it?—A. Y^es, sir; he told me that 
he had made an affidavit and he could not stand up to it. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Did he ex^dain what he meant by he could not stand up to it 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Give his langauge.—A. He said that he “could not stand up to 
it.” That is what he said.* 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. What else did he state?—A. He said that he wanted to come to 
Washington, and that ho would come here and get $500 for his affidavit 
if it was taken before the committee. 

Q. You mean after being examined?—A. Yes, sir; after being exam¬ 
ined. 

Q. How did he say he would get it?—A. He said it was promised ta 
him by Mr. Cavanac as the agent of iMr. Spotford. 

Q. Did you report that to Mr. Spotford before Blackstone was sub- 
pumaed ?—A. I do not think 1 did. 

Q. What did you report to Spofford in regard to Seveignes’s statement 
to you ?—A. I told him that Seveignes had made an affidavit that he 
was not present when the vote for Kellogg was taken, but that he was 
present, and that his affidavit was false. 

Q. Anything else ?—A. No, sir; I do not recollect anything else. 

Q. Did you report anything to him as to Seveignes’s willingness to 
make another affidavit ?—A. No, sir; I do not think I did. I told him 
Seveignes had made another affidavit. 

Q. When was that ?—A. That was on Monday, the same day the wit¬ 
ness left New Orleans, as I recollect. 

Q. You told him that he had made a second affidavit ?—A. Y^es, sir ; 
and was being brought on here by Cavanac. 

Q. What did you report to him with regard to J. J. Johnson ?—A. I 
told him he was going back on it; that he would not stand to it, and 
that it was false. 

Q. What did you say as to De Lacy ?—A. The same thing. 

What did you reimrt as to Blackstone ?—A. 1 told you that I said 
nothing to Mr. Spofford as to that. 



1156 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


r>y Seuator Bailey : 

Q. You say that was the day the witnesses started to AVashington ?—A. 

I say it wasbefore they started. It was after Seveignes made the other 
affidavit and was (coming to AVashington. 

Q. Y^ou went to Spofford. Now, when was that?—A. That was the 
day after Seveignes made the other affidavit and was subpoenaed to 
AVashington. 

Q. Did you communicate the fact to him then ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

By Mr. Shellarbager : 

Q. I A\ant to ask another question. I wish to ask the question as to 
JMr. Cornog. State what Gornog said to 3 'ou in regard to what he knew 
about mone 3 ’S having been paid by Senator Kellogg or his friends. 

(The question was objected to by Senator Hill, and Mr. Merrick, the 
counsel for the memorialist.) 

Air. Shellabarger. The objection to that is that Air. Cornog’s atten¬ 
tion was not called to this statement. 

Air. AIerrick. That is the objection. 

Senator Hill. By whom was Air. Cornog examined ? 

Air. AIerrick. He was examined here in AA^ashington by Mr. Spof- 
ford. 

Senator Bailey. Y"ou propose, Judge Shellabarger, to show that he 
made other statements than those he made here as a witness? 

Air. Shellabarger. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hill. You cannot do that, we hold, unless you first lay the 
foundation in a proper and legal manner. 

(The testimony was ruled incompetent.) 

By Air. Shellabarger : 

Q. Please state whether the witness A. W. Cornog, who was exam- 
ned before this committee by Air. Spofford, has stated to you anything 
since that examination in regard to the truth of the testimony that he 
gave before this committee ; and if so, state what he said. 

Air. AIerrick. I object to that question, and I rise simp] 3 ^ to say that 
it is covered wholly by the ruling just a while ago made by the commit¬ 
tee. 

Seuator Hill. I rule that it is out of order. 

Seuator Hoar. It is a question simply of whether you will believe him 
or not. AA'hen a man gives testimony under oath, and then goes off and 
states that it is wrong, and that his testimon 3 ' was not true, I think that 
statement goes to affect his credibilit 3 ^ As to whether his attention had 
been called to the time and place before is another thing. This man has 
told his story since he has been examined on the stand. If he is a man 
who has told one story upon the stand and gone back to New Orleans 
and told another, I think it is perfectb^ legitimate to show that fact by 
any witness who can be had. 

Senator Bailev. The proper course would have been to have called 
him back to the stand and asked him the question. Then, aside from 
that, it is a question addressed to the committee and its sound discre¬ 
tion whether he should be called here, and whether the testimony is of 
that important kind which would induce the committee to postpone the 
question and call the witness, and whether the party proposing the tes¬ 
timony has brought notice to the committee that this is important testi- 
mou 3 ^, and in time to call the witness —I would sa 3 ", then, for my own 
part, thisis not important testimony, without any further statement from 
counsel. 

(On a vote of the committee the question was overruled.) 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1157 


By Mr. Kellogg : 

Q. ]\[r. Elder, did Mr. Cornog make an affidavit for you ?—A. He 
made two. 

Q. When ?—A. About the last of April or the 1st of May. I think it 
was after the other witnesses were summoned. 

Q. Did you procure one of them ?—A. I took both. One was in re¬ 
gard to the returns from lied River Parish as supervisor. The other was 
what I spoke to Mr. Walker about, and as that committee in Washing¬ 
ton was not examining that branch of the testimony, he said he would 
have to state w’hat Percy Baker said. 

Q. Who brought Cornog here?—A. He came with me. 

Q. At whose instance ?—A. Mr. Spofford’s or Mr. Walker’s. 

Q. Who paid you for bringing him here?—A. Spoftord furnished Mr. 
Walker with $200, with which he bought three tickets, and gave me the 
balance in money. 

Q. Where did you take him when you got here ?—A. Up to my house. 

Q. When did you arrive here?—A. About the 14th, I think. 

Q. When did Mr. Oornog testify ; the next day ?—A. Yes, sir. I ar¬ 
rived the 13th or 14th ; I do not know which. 

Q. In what month was that ?—A. Tliat was in June. 

Q. Did you bring him to the committee-room yourself?—A. No, sir; 
he went with me to Mr. Merrick’s office, on F street, and Mr. Spotlord 
and Mr. Cavanac and Mr. Walker w^ere there. 

(}. How long did he remain in the city after he testified ?—A. I think 
about a mouth. 

Q. Where did he go from ?—A. From my house. 

Q. From your house?—A. Y^es, sir; and he went to Philadelphia, to 
his home. 

Q. Was there any agreement with ^Ir. Cornog with regard to what 
he w’as to receive for testifying?—A. No, sir; we made no agreement 
with him. We were to bring him on, and he was just ready to come on 
to Philadelphia to his own home. 

Q. Was a ticket purchased for him?—A. Mr. Walker purchased it 
for him. 

Q. Was he promised his mileage and per diem ?--A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AYas he summoned in New Orleans?—A. No, sir; not in New 
Orleans, but after he got here. 

Q. AA^as there any difficulty about his receiving his pay ?—A. Y^s, 
sir; there was a good deal of delay. 

Q. AVas he afterwards paid any money at your house?—A. Yes, sir. 

0. AVho by?—A. By myself. 

AVhatfor ?—A. His per diem. 

Q. HowMnuch ?—A. $117. 

(,). AVlio by ?—A. By Mr. Alorse. He was on in New Y^ork. 

Q. Did Mr. Morse tell you who it was from? 

(Objected to.) 

Q. Who employed you to go to Louisiana in the first place ?—A. 
Judge Spolibrd. . 

Q. AAHiere did you have your first conversation with the judge?—A. 
At his room in the National Hotel. 

(^. Did he give you any idea or information of what he wanted you 
to do?—A. He gave me a list of members of the legislature and also 
something in regard to the law ad'ecting the punishment ot men who 

receive bribes. . , ^ t i 

(^. Did he give you a letter to any one?—A. No, sir; but i have 

what he gave me in his own handwriting. 


1158 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The witness produced-two papers, which are as follows: 

Copy iVo. 1— Voted for E, 

Senate. —T. T. Allain, Baker, Blunt, Breaux, Bryant, Burch, Cage, Dumont, Gla, 
' Harper, Kelso, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield,Young (Dave)—17. 

Home. —Speaker Michael Hahn, Barrington, Bird, Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown 
of Jefferson, Blair, Brewster of Ouachita, Bosley, Brooks, Blackstone, Carville, Como, 
Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, DeLacy, Dickinson of S’t James, Dinkgrave, 
Desmarais, D’Avy, Dctiege, Dejoie, Early, Estopinal, Fobb, Gardere, Gaude, Gantt, 
Gary, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt of East Baton Rouge, Holt (Oscar) of 
West Baton Rouge, Heath, Johnson of De Soto, Jones, Robert Johnson, Keeting, Lane, 
Leonard of Caddo, Lewis, Magloire, Martin, Milan, Moore, McMillan, Routon, Romero, 
Raby, Souer, Sweazie, Suder, Seveignes, Skelton, Simmes, Stewart (J. Ross), Thomas, 
Tolliver, Washington, Warmoth, Walker, Watson—66. 

Copy No. 2. 

The bribery act, approved Dec. 26th, 1872, makes the person who receives a bribe 
liable to fine and imprisonment, as well as the person who offers the bribe; but 
provides also that no prosecution under the act shall he allowed, unless the same is in¬ 
stituted aud commenced tvithin one year from the date of the offence. See acts of 1873, 
No. 4, page 42, section 3, entitled an act to punish the crime of bribery, signed by 
Pinchback, lieut. gov. 

Attorney-General Ogden states that by the law he cannot now even present to the 
grand jury or make any move whatever against any candidate or any member of the 
legislature who offered or received a bribe in January, 1877, that being outlawed by 
the statute then in force. ,, 

That is it aud this also, aud he told me I could see the attoruey geu- 
eral, and could say to the witnesses that they could not be prosecuted 
if they testified against Kellogg under that law, as it was barred. 

Q. Did he give you any instructions as to what you were to do there ?— 
A. He instructed me to get preliminary affidavits. 

Q. Did he give you any general instructions in detail as to what he 
wanted you to do?—A. He told me he had charged Governor Kellogg 
with bribery, aud he wanted to establish that fact. 

Q. Well, go on and state all the instructions that Mr. Spofford gave 
you.—A. 1 told him that from what I had heard I thought there was 
no difficulty in getting preliminary affidavits down there, and I told 
him I would go down there for a certain amount of money aud procure 
those affidavits. 

Q. Well, goon.—A. He said he would not talk with me upon that 
subject; that is, the money part of it, but as both of us were friends of 
Judge Elam, he would leave the fixing the price of it to him. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you say Judge Elam?—A. Yes, sir; a member of Congress 
from the fourth district. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. He was to fix what?—A. The price of my services. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did he tell you to hold out any inducement to these people to 
testify ?—A. He told me that these affidavits would be taken care of. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. Do you mean affidavits or affiants ?—A. Affiants. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did he say anything about office or money ?—A. I think he said 
he had not any money particularly to spend in that transaction, but if 
he got his seat he would get them good offices. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1159 

Q. What (lay did you arrive in New Orleans?—A. I arrived there, I 
think, on the llth of April—the IGth or 17th. 

Q. Where did you take your room ?—A. I stopped at Cassidy’s for 
a while. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Where did you stop ?—A. At Cassidy’s Hotel, for the first day or 
two. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did you commence immediately to take the affidavits ?—A. Ko, 
sir; I was conversing with them, and asking them whether they would 
or would not make the affidavit, and they would not make them until 
the case was open ; that is, until the case was open here. 

Q. Did you find any other persons co operating with you ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I found Judge Phillips. 

Q. What is his first name ?—A. Judge Phillips is all I know. 

Q. Who else ?—A. A colored man named Ward, 

Q. What were they to do—co-operate with you ?—A. Yes, sir. He 
said- 

^Ir. Merrick. Ko matter what he said. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Was he acting with you?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who else ?—Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. Who else besides Mr. Cavanac and Ward ?—A. Judge Phillips; 
that is all. 

Q. Were there no others? Do you know a man named Garrett?—A. 
Yes, sir; I was going to speak of liim. He came to me and asked- 

JMr. Merrick. No matter what he asked. 

Senator Cameron. Do you remember that AVard and Garrett were 
witnesses before the sub-committee in New Orleans—Garrett called by 
the memorialist, and Ward by the sitting member, and Garrett testified 
that he was employed- 

Senator Hill. No ; I think you are mistaken. 

Senator Kellogg. I think that Garrett testified only that he took 
Milton Jones to Spofford’s office. 

Senator Hill. AVell, I cannot tell the relevancy of this examination. 
It is all proven, and everything that you have attempted to prove to¬ 
day is in the record. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Was Mr. Garrett active in getting up the affidavits ?—A. AVell, sir, 
I do not know that I can say he wms active. 

Senator Hill. Answer the question. Was Mr. Garrett active in get¬ 
ting up affidavits?—A. Well, sir, he was. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. AVas he active and outspoken in procuring testimony against me ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AV^as there a man named Bongnon who was active in this mat¬ 
ter ?—A. I only saw him once. 

Q. AA^as he active in the matter ?—A. He seemed to be interested in 
Mr. Spoff’ord. 

On motion, the committee adjourned the further proceedings in this 
case to Tuesday morning, January 20th, at ten o’clock a. m. 




1160 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Washington, D. C., Tuesday^ January 20, 1880. 

The committee met pursuant to its order of adjournment. 

Present, a quorum of the commitfee; R. T. Merrick and C. L. Walker, 
counsel for the memorialist; the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford ; Mr. 
Shellabarger, counsel for the sitting member, and the sitting member, 
William Pitt Kellogg. 

John W. Elder, a witness called on behalf of the sitting member, 
still upon the stand. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. Where do you reside f—Answer. Ko. 941 H street, in this 
city. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I am keeping a boarding-house. 

Q. Where were you originally from ?—A. I was born in Virginia and 
raised in North Carolina. 

Q. Were you ever in Texas —A. Yes, sir; I resided in Texas. 

Q. How long ?—A. I went there, I think, in 1860. 

Q. How long did you remain there?—A. I made it my permanent 
home in 18C2-’G3, when my wife died, and then I made my home at 
Shreveport and kept up the plantation. 

Q. You have married again since the death of your wife ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. You stated in your testimony yesterday that Mr. Spofford em¬ 
ployed you to operate in this case.—A. I did. 

Q. Was your employment from Mr. Spofford?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. No one else?—A. No, sir. The employment was from Judge Spof¬ 
ford, and the price was fixed by Judge Elam and myself, and afterwards 
turned over to Mr. Morse. As Judge Elam was a member of Congress, 
he did not want to have anything to do with it. 

Q. Your employment was by Spofford ,• where at, did you say ?—A. 
At the National Hotel. 

Q. At the National Hotel?—A. Yes, sir; in his room. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Are these papers in evidence formally? 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir. 

, By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. What time was this?—A. About the 10th of April. 

Q. About the 10th of April ?—A. I think it was about that time. 

Q. State whether or not that is in your handwriting.—A. If it is in 
mine I will stand up to it. 

Q. You can tell whether it is in your handwriting or not.—A. Yes, 
sir, and I stand up to it. 

Mr. Merrick. I propose to offer it now in evidence. 

It is as follows: 

Washington, Sep. 29, 1879. 

Mr. Morse I resevd your postal card this morning you say for me to write to 
Judge Spoffor I have had no delings with Judge Spofford and have never writen 
him a letter my contract was with you and Judge Elam now I want you to write 
to Spofford and tell him to send me sum mony or 1 must get to New Orleans some other 
way I am not going to he made a fool of By Spofford or eny one els I intend to and 
have dun all that I promast and I want you to du the same on the Part of Spofford 
I want you to write Spofford such a letter that will bring and ansir and let me here 
from you as soon as possable for I must get to New Orleans and look after my wit- 
nissis or Kellogg will scoop them in I cold have Bin in a good Government Place at 
200 per month, but I wold not take It becorse I had promist you to stick to Spoffor 
untill he got his seate in the seuite and now I want fair deling and will work out 
wright. 

I will expect to here from very soon 
Truly 

Spoffords addcss is at Pulaski Tennessee. 


J. W. ELDER. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1161 


By Mr. Merrick : 

(}. Now, you state that is your letter ! —A. I do, sir. 

Q. You say in that letter you have had no dealings with Judge Spof- 
ford ?—A. That was in regard to the price. I did have a contract with 
him for going down there, but that letter was in regard to money and 
nothing else, and 1 have never written him a letter about that. 

Q. You say you had written him a letter ?—A. I say I never had. 

Q. Y^ou say, “My contract was with you and Judge Elam^?—A. 
Y^es, sir; that letter was about money, and nothing else. My contract 
to go down there was with that gentleman. 

Q. AVhich gentleman’'—A. This gentleman here, |indicating Judge 
Spofford]. 

Q. Y"ou wanted some money to get to Xew Orleans ! —A. YYs, sir; I 
wanted some money for services I had rendered. 

(^. Well, now, after you had your interview with Judge Spolford on 
the 10th of April in which he engaged your services, did you go imme¬ 
diately to see Mr. Morse and Judge Elam ?—A. I think 1 saw them the 
next night, the 11th or 12th. 

Q. When did you leave for New Orleans ?—A. On the 13th or 14th of 
April. I think I arrived there the 16th. 

Q. What did you say to JMorse and Elam at the time you first called 
about the occasion of your calling?—A. Judge Elam introduced me and 
said to me, “Do you go up in Spolford\s room and talk this matter over.’^ 
Elam knew all about it. 

(^. Judge Elam did '?—A. Y"es, sir. 

Q. Then this interview with Judge Spoliord was to make the con¬ 
tract?—A. Y^es, sir; and then Judge Spotford gave me the papers to go. 

Q. Did you see him again that night ?—A. Not that night, I do not 
think I did. 

Q. J)id you see him the next day ?—A. Probably I did. 

Q. When did you see ]\Iorse ?—A. Probably the next night. I do 
not think the next day. 

Q. Who gave you the money?—A. ^Ir. ^lorse. He has my receipt 
for it. 

(}. How much did he give you ?—A. s<2()(). 

Q. Did you and Morse have an understanding at that tiiiie what you 
would do when you got to Louisiana?—A. Yes, sir; 1 was to get pre¬ 
liminary affidavits against Kellogg. 

Q. What was that money to be used for?—A. For expenses. 

Q. Wasn’t it understood that no money was to be paid for the affida¬ 
vits ?—A. I do not think that anything was said between us about that. 

It is a subject I think you might remember, but 1 want a positive 
answer.—A. I generally lemeinber where the cash comes in. 

Q. Don’t you remember that it was understood that no money was to 
be ])aid for these aflidavits?—A. 1 cannot remember. 

Q. Y^ou cannot remember the instructions you received on so impor¬ 
tant a matter as this ?—A. I did not consider that 1 was really under his 
instructions. 

Q. Then, you did not consider yourself under ^Mr. ]\Iorse’s instruc¬ 
tions ?—A. Not after I got to Louisiana. 

Q. Then all you did with them here was to have settled the price?— 
A. Y"es, sir; and Judge Elam did not want anything to do with the 
matter, and turned it over to ]Morse. 

Q. All you had to do with Mr. 3Iorse was to settle the price ?—A. I 
did. 



1162 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Do you mean to say he was not to communicate with you there ?— 
A. I did communicate with him once or twice. 

Q. Why?—A. For him to communicate with Spofford. 

Q. Why did you not communicate directly with Spoftord yourself?— 
A. Because I did not desire to; that was the arrangement. 

Q. Why wasn’t it the arrangement ?—A. I’told you I was engaged 
by Spofford, but the price was settled by Elam and Morse. 

Q. You stated you were engaged, and Elam and Morse fixed the price, 
and after you went to Louisiana you did not have anything further to 
do with Morse?—A. I said I was not under his instructions. 

Q. Whose instructions were you under ?—A. I was there to act for 
myself. 

Q. Well, Mr. Elder, answer my question: Under whose direction were 
you?—A. I acted on my own judgment, and reported to Morse. 

Q. Why did you report to Morse ?—A. Because he settled the price, 
and was to look after that. 

Q. The arranging of the price had nothing to do with your discharg¬ 
ing your duty here to Judge Spofford ?—A. Yes, it had a good deal to 
do with it. 

Q. Didn’t you report to Morse ?—A. I wrote him one letter. 

Q. Didn’t you telegraph to him?—A. Yes, sir ; once or three times. 

Q. Didn’t you have an understanding with him as to a cipher tele¬ 
gram?—A. I might have had. 

Q. Do you know you did ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know you didn’t?—A. No, sir. 

Q. In a matter of such recent date, do you mean to say you do not 
know whether you had an arrangement about a cipher telegram ?—A. 
I do not recollect. 

Q.'You swear that you do not recollect?—A. That is what I say. 

Q. Why did you not communicate with Morse by telegraph instead of 
Spofford ?—A. I told you awhile ago. 

Q. What was it?—A. Because I didn’t want to communicate with 
Spofford. I was an applicant at the time for a position under the gov¬ 
ernment, and if it had been found out that I was acting for him, and 
that fact had not been kept secret, I would not have gotten it. 

Q. That was your arrangement with Morse, then, to keep it secret?— 
A. That was the reason I wanted it kept secret; that I was an appli¬ 
cant for a place, and if 1 had communicated with Spofford I would have 
been found out. 

Q. Are you willing to stand on what you have stated, that you had 
instructions from Morse not to pay money for witnesses ? Did you or 
did you not have such instructions?—A. I might have had. 

Q. Don’t you know you had ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That is there in your letter. You say that “ Kellogg will scoop 
them in.” What do you mean by that ?—A. Well, didn’t he scoop some 
of them in ? 

Q. I want to know what you mean. Did he scoop you in ?—A. No, 
sir; but didn’t some of his witnesses come up here and" testify the other 
way ? 

Q. Did all of them, to use a common expression, go back on him ?—A. 
Well, sir, I was not a witness for Judge Spofford. 

Q. Well, generally, have you been scooped in ?—A. No, sir. I was 
acting as an attorney and detective for Judge Spofford. 

Q. I beg pardon, but have you been scooped in on the other side?— 
A. I have not. I am here on account of justice and for Mr. Kellogg. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1163 

I found more evidence down there against Spofford than against ]Mr. 
Kellogg, and I am here to tell what I know. 

Q. You think then that justice to the American i)eoi)le reciuires that 
he should keep his seat f —A. Y^es, sir; I could not find any evidence 
against'him, but I could against Spofford, if f wanted it. 

Q. Y’^oudid not find any evidence against Kellogg ?—A. Xo, sir; none 
that they t\’ould stand up to. 

Q. And after you found that out you changed your opinion, and you 
thought Justice required you to look oat for Kellogg ! —A. 1 thought 
that after taking several of those preliminary affidavits. 

Q. That was the conclusion of your rightful judgment ?—A. That was 
the conclusion. 

(,>. That was, of course, before the examination of the witnesses here 
in June last that your judgment came to that conclusion ?—A. YYs, sir ; 
in regard to some of the witnesses. 

Q. I am not talking about the witnesses; lam talking about your 
high and righteous determination that the weight of the evidence was 
in favor of Kellogg ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. AVhy did you come with one of the witnesses and bring a batch of 
affidavits to my office and tell me that there was the truth; that the 
other witnesses had been bought up, and that they would not have 
been so bought up if you had been here ?—A. I do not recollect that. 

Q. Well, do you recollect that you did not do that?—A. 1 recollect 
that I furnished you some affidavits to fill the contract furnishing the 
preliminary affidavits and then I had nothing more to do with Spofford; 
I was out of my row. 

Q. Y'ou w ere at the end of your row ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. If you were then at the end of your row' and wanted to put into 
operation jour favorable judgment for Kellogg, wdiy did you write in 
September to go to Xew' Orleans?—A. I w'as after money. 

Q. Y^ou were after money --rA. Y>s, sir; I was after pay for what I 
had done. 

Q. Then you did not wmnt the money to go to Xew Orleans ?—xV. I 
would not have gone to Xew Orleans. 

Q. Y"ou would not have gone to Xew Orleans if you had gotten the 
money ?—A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Then you told a lie about it ?—A. X’o, sir; I did not. 

Q. Did you not say you wanted to go to Xew' Orleans and keep Kel¬ 
logg from scooping up the witnesses ?— A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. xVnd if you said that, and did not intend to use the money for 
that juirpose w as it not a lie and a false pretense ?—A. I do not look at 
it in that light; I wanted the money for my services. 

Q. 1 suppose you modified the character of the transaction by that 
means ?—A. I thought that I had earned it. 

Q. Y^s, but you ilo not say here that you had earned the money, but 
you wanted it to jiay the expenses of going to Xew Orleans to see that 
Kellogg did not scoop the witnesses ami now' you say that you w'ould not 
have gone to Xew Orleans if you had gotten the money?—A. Well, 1 
had done enougli for him for nothing. 

Q. Y'ou had done enough for nothing; w'ere you not paid?—A. Xo, 
sir. 

Q. Were vou not told three nights ago that you would be paid at the 
end of the case ?—A. O, what I was told—that is another thing; I have 
been told a good many things. 

Q. Were you not told three nights ago when you stated that you were 


1164 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


in a state of starvation and wanted the money now, that you would be 
paid for your services at the end of the case ? 

Senator Hoar. Do you mean, Mr. Merrick, three nights ago from 
now ? 

Mr. Merrick. Yes, sir. 

The Witness. Will you ask that question again ? 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) Were you not told by proper authority that 
you would be paid for your proper services when the case was closed— 
that is, for the services you had rendered as attorney and detective, 
and did you not say that you could not wait until that time !—A. I do 
not recollect. 

Q. Did you not say it to Mr. Walker ?—A. No, sirj I do not recol¬ 
lect it. 

Q. Did you say it to Mr. Cavanac?—A. No, sir; I did not. I said I 
wanted money for my services rendered in Louisiana, and I was going 
to sue Judge Spofford for it if I did not get it. 

Q. Did you not tell them that you could not wait for it, and that you 
were subpoenaed on the other side, and did you not state that you had 
been discharged?—A. Yes, sir; but I did not tell Mr. Walker that; I 
told Mr. Morse. 

Q. You told him you wanted money ?—A. Money was what I wanted; 
you have got it right. I never got any out of the other crowd. 

Q. You got money out of Spofford. Do you say you did not get any 
out of the other crowd ?—A. When I render services to them I will. 

Q. Well, which crowd is it that you did not get any money out of?— 
A. In ever got any out of the Spofford crowd. 

Q. Well, did you get any out of the other?—A. I never rendered 
them any services. I gave Spofford three months of my services, and 
never got a cent. 

Q. Were you told the other night that you would be paid at the end 
of the case ?—A. I have been told a great many things, but I pay no 
attention to them. 

Q. Did you not tell Mr. Walker that you had to have money by Mon¬ 
day, and that you were in a desperate condition ?—A. I do not recol¬ 
lect it. I know I had been out of money several months, and I was out 
then. 

Q. When you said that, were you under subpoena ?—A. No, sir; I 
had been discharged. 

Q. AYere you yesterday morning?—A. I had been discharged, I tell 
you. 

Q. You were a free man, then?—A. I was; but I was in the room, 
and they put me on the stand. 

Q. VTou said just now, Mr. Elder, that it was understood between you 
and Spofford that this agency of yours was to be secret, and that, there¬ 
fore, .you did not communicate with Spofford ?—A. That is what I said. 

Q. Did you keep the fact secret in New Orleans ?—A. I tried to do it 
until your friend Cavanac got hold of it. He thought I was going to 
get his witnesses, and he got uneasy. Several of them came to me and 
said they wanted to swear, and I said I did not want any of this double 
business. 

Q. A\nil you give their names?—A. Delacy and Johnson, Milton 
Jones and Mr. Geary. 

Q. Who else ?—A. I believe that is all that I remember now. 

Q. Did any of those men make affidavits before you?—A. No, sir; I 
would not take them. They would have made a cart-load of them. 

Q. You say you would not take them; why not?—A. Because they 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1165 


had made affidavits for ]\[r. Cavaaac, and I did not want to double on 
him like he did on me. Whenever he found out that I had one, he would 
go after them and take another, and say to tliem that he wanted them 
to make them stronger. 

Q. Whose did you take ?—A. Geary’s, Kelso’s, and Seveignes’s. That 
is the one that he said mine was not strong and he wanted him to make 
one for him, and said to him I will pay you; and then a nian by the 
name of Lane made an affidavit for me, and Mr. Cornoy. 

Q. Well, go on.—A. I believe that is all. 

Q. That is six, is it not?—A. I do not know. 

Q. J)id you take Seveignes’s?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Y"ou say that Mr. Cavanac took one from Seveignes too ?—^^A. So 
he said. Seveignes came to me and told me that Cavanac wanted one 
and wanted it a little stronger than mine. 

Q. And you said that you would not take affidavits of parties who 
had affidavits before that, or rather whose affidavits Cavanac had 
taken ?—A. No, sir ; not if I knew it. 

Q. Did 3 on take the affidavit of Seveignes ?—A. I have it—a copy of 
it, here. 

Q. A copy of the affidavit?—A. YY*s, sir; in his own handwriting. 

Q. Will you let us look at it?—A. I will. That is a copy Mr. Walker 
had taken for me. 

Q. Did you take two of Seveignes’s ?—A. Whatever there is in that 
paper I took. Mr. Walker had them copied. 

Q. Well, according to this paper, one of them appears to be on the 
15th da^^ of May and the other on the 13tli of May, and both of them 
before the same notary. Do you recollect that?—A. Yes, sir. I believe 
both of them were taken before the same notary’. 

Q. Did Cavanac take one from Seveignes too ?—A. Seveignes said 
so. 1 never saw one, Mr. ^Merrick. 

Q. Y"ou said you took both of these affidavits from Seveignes the 13th 
and 15th, did you not ?—A. Whatever is on that paper 1 took from Se¬ 
veignes. 

The paper does not show whether you took them or not. Now, 
will you tell the committee whetlier you did or not?—A. The affidavits 
I took were sworn to before Mr. Laresche; both w^ere on the same piece 
of paper. 

Q. Doth what ?—xV. Both affidavits. 

Q. Then there were two that you took from Seveignes?—xV. What¬ 
ever is there is what I took. I do not remember i)articularl 3 ’ about it. 

Q. Well, this seemed to be copied from two different papers ou the 
same sheet of j)aper ?—A. If that is so, Mr. Walker did that. 

Q. Well, now', come and tell us, did you take two or one from Se¬ 
veignes ?—xV. I do not recollect. I gave them to Mr. Walker, and he 
bad them copied. 

Q. Do you know' what Seveignes swore to?—A. lie swore that he w'as 
present the day Kellogg was elected. 

Q. Who was Seveignes?—A. xV member of the legislature. 

Q. Of which branch ?-^A. Both, I think. I mean the Nicholls legis¬ 
lature and the Kellogg legislature. 

Q. Which branch of the Kellogg legislature ?—A. The lower house. 

Q. He swore he didn’t vote for Kellogg?—A. I think that is what he 

swore to. , ^ « 

Q. Did he not swear that he got $250 from a third party for voting ? 
—A. It is not in the affidavit I took. 

Q. It is not ?—A. I do not think it is. 


1166 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Then you did not take but one?—A. Mr. Walker copied it, and he 
might have copied Cavanac’s and mine, too, on the same paper. 

Q. Was what Seveignes swore true?—A. He never claimed it as true. 

Q. How do you know he didn’t?—A.'He told me afterwards it was 
not. 

Q. What did he say at the time he gave it to you ?—A. He swore he 
was not present on the day of the election. 

Q. He swore he w^as not present on the day of the election, you say ? 
—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He told you so ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Hid he not tell you that before he made the affidavit ?—A. Yes, 
sir, that is what 1 say ; he told me that before he made the affidavit, 
and afterwards he told me he was there. 

Q. When he made the affidavit you believed it was true?—A. Yes, 
sir; at the time I did. 

Q. How came you to get him to make the affidavit?—A. I told him I 
was there in search of evidence for Mr. Spofford in the Kellogg-Spofford 
case. 

Q. What did he say ?—A. He said he would make an affidavit that 
he was present on the day of the election, and he did do so. 

Q. Hid you pay him for it ?—A. He said he wanted a small amount of 
money, but I didn’t consider that I paid him for his affidavit. I let him 
have live or ten dollars. 

Q. What were you i^aying him for?—A. For his time. He was in the 
custom-house, and I thought I was paying him for his time, but I think 
he would not have made the affidavit without my paying. 

Q. Then you paid him for the affidavit?—A. You can take it that way 
if you see fit. 

Q. Hid you take Brooks's affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that one of the affidavits that you brought on to Washing¬ 
ton ?—A. Yo, sir; 1 didn’t bring that; I brought a copy of it; Mr. 
Walker had it. 

Q. A^ou had that copy the night you came to my office ?—A. I think 
I delivered it to you. 

Q. Hid you not say that these men will tell the truth and stand up 
to it?—A. No, sir; they had already been on the stand. 

Q. Was he on the stand?—A. Yes, sir; and I think you cross-exam¬ 
ined him. 

Q. Ho you remember the date that you took Brooks’s affidavit ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. It is May 19. Now% when you took it did you believe it to be true? 
—A. I did. 1 was acting in good faith. 

Q. Hid you pay him for it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How came he to impose on you at that time?—A. What do you 
mean ? 

Q. Well, you stated that you believed at the time that it w^as true, 
and you took it with that belief. Ho you mean that you didn’t believe 
it to be true at a subsecpient time? Now, how came he to impose on you 
in that way?—A. Ho was sent to me by Mr. Geary, I believe, to make 
an affidavit. 

Q. What did he say ?—A. He asked me if I was there in Mr. Spof- 
ford’s behalf, and 1 told him I was. 

Q. You say he was sent to you by Mr. Geary ?—A. I believe he was. 

Q. Was that the first time you had met him ?—A. Yes, sir. He said 
that he had come to see me in regard to giving an affidavit. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1167 

Q. Did you talk to liim about bis affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. I asked 
him, of course, what be would swear to. 

Q. Aud be told you without your suggesting it ?—A. I told him what 
I wanted to prove. 

Q. Did be tell you what be would swear ?— A. He said that be would 
swear to that. 

Q. Aud you took the affidavit believing it was the truth ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. When did be tell you that what be had said in the affidavit was 
not true ?—A. 1 think it was a few days before be left for Washington. 

Q. flow many days ?—A. It may have been two or three. 

Q. Where did you see him ?—A. I saw him at Judge Ray’s office. 

Q. When did Seveignes tell you that what he swore was not true ?— 
A. After he made the one for Mr. Cavanac. 

Q. At what time was that ?—A. Monday, I think. 

Q. How many days before he left for Washington?—A. I think the 
same day. 

Q. Did Brooks tell you it was not true that he had received 8200 from 
a party for his vote?—A. I think he did. 

Q. Did he specify that particular fact as not true ?—A. He said that 
he had not received any money. 

Q. How came he to tell you that he had not received any money, 
having made au affidavit for you, and coming ou here under false pre¬ 
tenses to swear; he knew you were Spofford’s agent?—A. Yes, sir, he 
knew that. 

Q. You were known generally to be his agent?—A. Yes, sir; among 
the members of the legislature. 

Q. Well, you were known as his agent ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then Brooks made an affidavit that he had been paid $200, and 
made it in order that he might be brought on here to swear in the case? 
—A. No, sir; I do not think that is the fact. 

Q. You do not know that that is the fact ?—A. No, sir. 

* Q. You know he made the affidavit ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Y"ou believed it to be true?—A. Yes, sir, at the time I took it; and 
1 still believed it until he told me it was not. 

Q. Then Brooks having made an affidavit aud knowing you to be 
Spotford’s agent comes aud tells you that it is not true the day he starts 
for Washington ?—A. 1 think it was on the day he left. 

Q. Did he ask you where the affidavit was ?—A. I believe 1 told him 
that 1 had given it to Mr. Walker. 

Q. Did you not have it at the time yourself ?—A. I do not know ; I 
am not positive of that. 

Q. When he told you it was not true did you not have it ?—A. No, 
sir; I think I had given it to Mr. Walker. 

Q. Did he not ask you to give it up ?—A. I do not remember it. 

Q. Why did he come to tell you it was not true ?—A. I do not know. 

Q. Did he come and search you out to tell you ?—A. It didn’t require 
any searching to find me. I was at Judge Ray’s office all the time. 

Q. You were there all the time ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he came to find you ?—xi. Yes, sir ; and he told me so. 

Q. And he came and told 5011 it was not true the very day he left for 
Washington ?—xV. Yes, sir. 

Q. You took Kelso’s affidavit, did you not?—A. Yes, sir; I stated that. 

Q. What did you do with that ?—A. I gave that to Mr. Walker. 

Senator Bailey. Who is Judge Ray? 

Mr. Walker. Judge Ray is a prominent Republican lawyer in Lou- 


1168 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


isiana, and who has had no connection with this case except to be con¬ 
sulted, and to make suggestions from time to time. 

Senator Cameron. And he is against Kellogg too ? 

Mr. Walker. Yes, sir; I believe that is true. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick.) I find the affidavit of Kelso is the same date 
as the others, the 19th of May. 

A. I do not know as to the date. I will look and see if it is the paper 
I took. [After examining the paper.] Yes, sir ; that is the one I took. 

Q. Who was Kelso?—A. He was a member of the senate. 

Q. Now, in this paper which he gave to you I find that he makes oath 
that he was a candidate for the State senate. 

Senator Cameron. That paper has not been offered or introduced in 
evidence, and I submit whether it is quite proper for counsel to read it to 
the witness, and in that way get it into the record. 

Senator Hill. I do not think the stenographer should take it down. 
I do not know myself what is the object of it as yet. 

Mr. Merrick. My object is to get this witness to state what he said 
to Kellogg about this matter, and for this other reason, that he has 
represented himself as down there to get testimony for Spofford, and the 
manifest intention is to show that Spofford was using him to get wrong 
testimony. It is a matter purely of cross-examination. It would not 
be proper in an examination in chief, but is i)roper in a cross-examina¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I want to put on record again, and emphatically, 
my objection to this bringing in ot affidavits as testimony. 

Mr. Merrick. Noj I do not use them in that way. (To the witness.) 
Now, Mr. Witness, I am not reading this affidavit for the purpose of 
original evidence of any kind, but simply in order that I can cross- 
examine you upon it. [Mr. Merrick here read the affidavit of George 
Kelso to the witness.] 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Do you recognize that as the affidavit that Mr. Kelso made?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. He told you that, did he?—A. He wrote it down in his own hand¬ 
writing. 

Q. You believed it to be true ?—A. I did, at the time. 

Q. What subsequently occurred to make you believe it was untrue? 
—A. What he said himself. 

Q. When ?—A. Just about the time I left New Orleans, or a little be¬ 
fore. 

Q. It was before you left?—A. Yes, sir. He said he was anxious to 
come up here and go on the stand, but he said you would not get any¬ 
thing out of him that would do you any good. 

Q. Is that all he said ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then be didn’t deny that what he said was true, but simply said 
we would get nothing out of him that would do us any good ?—A. I 
thought he meant by that that it was not true. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. State his language, but do not tell what vou thought about it— 
A. I do. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. He said he wanted to come up here, but we would not get anything 
out of him that would do us any good. I suppose, then, he made the 
affidavit expecting to be summoned on the strength of it ?—A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


11G9 


Q. Was lie summoned ?—^A. No, sir. 

Did lie come here ?—A No, sir. 

(^. And the day before you started lie told you he wanted to come ?— 
A. Ves, sir; Mr. Walker bought a ticket tor him, but he went of! home, 
and missed the train 1 suiipose on tmrpose. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Don’t you tell us any more what you suppose; give us the facts, 
and we will be satisfied. 

J>y Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You suppose he missed the train on tmrpose ; do you let it go that 
way f—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. He was coming with you for the purpose, as was understood be¬ 
tween you and him, of swearing as to the truth of the contents of that 
affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If that was the case and he wanted to come, will you tell how he 
came to tell you that he would not swear to it ?—A. I didn’t say that. 
I said that he said you wouldn’t get anything out ot him that would do 
you any good. 

Q. Did you inform Mr. Walker of that fact!—A. I do not believe I 
did. 

Q. Why did you not!—A. I do not know'. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. Was this conversation’ before or after the train started on w'hich 
he was to come?—A. It w^as before ; and I have not seen him since. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Ilow' long was it before the train left!—A. It left that same day. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. He didn’t come, you say?—A. No, sir; he wasn’t summoned. 

By Mr. ^Merrick: 

Q. What time of the day was it that he told you that!—A. I cannot 
recollect the time. It was betw'een the time the train left, five o’clock, 
and breaktast that morning. 

Q. And Mr. Walker, Mr. Spofford’s counsel, bought the tickets ?—A. 
Yes, sir; he bought three. 

Q. And you, as Spofford’s attorney and detective w'as bringing on 
witnesses as you supjiosed to tell the truth' ?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. If Kelso told you that he w ould not tell the truth, wdiy did you put 
Mr. Walker to the expense of bringing him on here ?—A. 1 do not know 
that I had anything to do with it. 

Q. Well, but he told you that, did he not ?—A. Yes, sir ; but men don’t 
stand up to what they say sometimes. There are a good many people 
that 1 do not believe. 

Q. You believed, then, that Kelso w'ould stand up to this affidavit !— 
A. I do not know' that I did. 

Q. Do you know' that you didn’t!—A. I do not know\ 

Q. Yon could not tell’whether he w ould stick up to it or not ?—A. 
You cannot tell to save your life w hether one of those fellow's will stick 
or not. 

Q. You took the affidavit of Geary ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That appears to be the BIth of May, and 1 read this to you to 
cross-examine you on it as I did the other. 

[Mr. Alerricli hero read the affidavit of Geary to the witness.] 

74 s K 



1170 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


By Mr. Merrick : 

Q, Did Geary tell you wliat is in that affidavit i —A. 1 think that 
was written by Kelso. 1 do not think he told me what is in it. 

Q. He made an affidavit?—A. He made one. 

Q. Well, this appears to be that one. Look at it and see.—A. [After 
examining.] Yes, sir; that is the affidavit, and it is in Kelso’s hand¬ 
writing. 

Q. Kow, witness, at the time this was true—you believed it to be true, 
did you not?—A. I do not know that I was present when he made that 
affidavit. 

Q. It was given to you b}’ him ?—A. It was given to me by Kelso, 1 
think. 

Q. Given to you by Kelso ?—A. Yes, sir; and it is in his handwriting, 
ami I do not believe that Geary was present. 

Q. Is that all you know about it?—A. That is all. 

Q. You did not tell Mr. Walker anything about that affidavit ?—A. 
I don’t think he said anything to me about it. He said that Ward 
got one. 

Q. J>id you speak to anybody else about it?—A. I think I did, prob¬ 
ably. 

Q. Now, then, I want to eall your attention, in eonnection with the 
subject we have been examining you upon, to a letter of yours. Now, 
will you please to tell me if that is your handwriting? [Handing a let¬ 
ter to witness.] Is that your handwriting?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You admit that is.your handwriting?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Merrick. J offer this letter in connetdion with this testimony 
about the affidavits, and as evidence that the affidavits were not true. 

" [Mr. Walkei*, of counsel for the memorialist, read the letter.] 

By i\Ir. Merrick: 

Q. Who is that letter addressed to ?—A. To my wife. 

Q. Now, you say you had all the testimony straight and perfect. What 
testimony did you lefer to in that letter?—A. I referred, of course, to 
the affidavits I had. 

Q. What testimony did you refer to; what kind of testimony?—A. I 
reterred to the testimony 1 had promised to me and I had. 

Q. What was it?—A. The affidavits that you introduced there, I 
guess. 

Q. Those of Geary and those others that I took?—A. You had three 
more to get; who wer e they ? 

A. I do not know. 

Q. You'don’t recollect who they were?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any other-testimony than the affidavits to which I 
called your attention this morning?—A. No more; but I had a good 
deal of promised affidavits. 

Q. You had a good deal of promised affidavits ?—A. Yes, sir; I found 
a good deal of witnesses ready to swear. 

Q. You said, “ I have got three times as much evidence as I agreed to 
get, and will bust Kellogg.” How much did you agree to get?—A. I 
don’t know. 

Q. “I have the thing tight; I have got the thing dead. I never 
worked so hard in my life. I have been all over the country looking after 
members of the legislature to .get their affidavits.” Where did you go 
besides New Orleans?—A. I went up river. 

Q. What time did you go ; what day ?—A. Some time in May. 

Q. What day in May?- A. I cannot fix it. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1171 

(^. And you cannot tell wliat three other atlidavits you were to get; 
who they were to be made ! —A. 1 do not remember. 

Q. \ oil say you were sent for to come home. Were j’ou ordered home? 
—A. 1 think I got a telegram trom Mr. Morse to come home; I think it 
was a letter or a telegram. 

Q. What was the date of it ?—A. I do not recollect. 

Q. W as it the 13th of ]\Iay ?—A. J do not recollect. 

Q. Do you remember what cause produced that telegram from Mr. 
Morse ?—A. 1 cannot say 1 do. 

Q.^ilave you no recollection of any cause?—A, I do not remember 
now. 

Q. Don’t you recollect that Mr. Morse had been informed that you 
were under a fictitious name in New Orleans, and going contrary to his 
instructions ?—A. 1 don’t know anything about that. 

Q. You don’t?—A. 1 don’t know what Mr. Morse had been informed. 

Q. (Passing letter to witness.) Is that letter in your handwriting? 
That is enough ; you can see and tell.—A. Yes, sir; it looks like it. 

Mr. Merrick tlien introduced the following letter: 

Sunday Mdknind, Ma^, IST'J. 

Mv Dkau I5ahy : I resived teh^grapli from Mr. Moiwi to come home but I «louut in¬ 
tend to come nntill I know whither they will take testimony here or in Washington I 
have got Mr. 8i)ott‘ord’s case alt proven and in my poekit and will have my 500 (lollars 
when 1 come to Washington whether thay eommite takes evidence or m)t this Cong- 
griss it makes no difrance to me 1 have the atfadavids that inoves his case in my hands 
and will have my 500 dollars .as s ton as 1 come to Washington I have got evidence 
that will make Spotford think that I can’t be lb*at in working np evidence 1 have 
got three times as mneh evidence as I agreed to get and will Hnst Kellogg I have 
got the thing <led I have never worked so hard in all my life have Bin all ovr the 
connfry after members of the Legislator to get ther allidavids I would not go 
through the same again for one thousand dollars But I am most through now have 
only three more atfdavids to get and then 1 am dnn and will come home if thay com- 
mited doaiit coine down hero if they conm here I must stay with my witnissis Bnt 
if they doant take the testimony this Conggriss I have got all thes atiidavids of my 
w'itnissis and will have my money as soon as 1 get to Washington to pay for House 
furniture. 1 know what I am about. 

Your Baby to his Bab^’. 

Kate is in Vicksburg 1 may slip nj) there and nip her if 1 have time this week. 

Yonr Baby to Baby. 

Mr. Merrick. This next letter wliieli I now jiroiiose to read I will 
offer, ainl show that it should bear date of May 4. 

Mr. AValker, as counsel lor the iiieinorialist, read the letter, as fol¬ 
lows : 


Sunday Xcw Orleans 4 1879. 

Dkau Baijy I am compell to Stay here with iny witnissis nntill thay are summons 
for I have got my case i)roven I am going to stick to him nntill thay have given thare 
evidence for if 1 leave them Kellogg ago-nts will keep them out of the way as I have 
umlerstood that was the way that thay intend to Beet 8i)(»tlbrd when the case is opend 
they will sprite away his witnissis aiul beat him in that way and another way By 
getting witnissis to swear that Sixdlbrds i>aid members to vote for him a man come to 
me thinking I was here in the interest of Kellogg ami 1 did not tell him but what 
1 was Kellogg’s friend and he give nn'e the names of too members that he said would 
sware that tirey resiived money from 8i)otford and I hav«^ saw one of them and he is one 
my witnissis for 8j)otlbrd so 1 toohl him and 1 got a Kellogg witne.-s lor 8iK)tlord, I 
have his ease jiroven and am going to stick to him nntill Hell is frozen over and skat¬ 
ing on the ice All the custom house ollicers know 1 am at work for 8i)otford and they 
Inive otierd me a goml place in the enston-house it I v ill give up tlie evidence that 
thay understand I have they also say that Spotford will not get the i>lace if Kellogg is 
reiiioved, for they say that they will prove Irodd aganst him ; but I pay no attention 
to what thev say I am Here for SpoRord and will see him through if it takes all sum¬ 
mer thare is a mati Here By the name of Cavanac I inclose his note to me he has writ¬ 
ten to Spotford that 1 was otfering money to witnesses .Iiist becors he thinks I am 


1172 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


tow smart forliim be has bad detectives watching me and my witnissis Judge Spoflford 
sbould bave toald me of this man Spofford bas written bim about me I have written 
Mr. Morse wbare Judge Elam is Boarding wbo is working with mo But liave bad no 
anser I want you to see bim at once and know tbe reason that be doant answer my 
letters. 

Q. I see you state iu this letter that “ all the cnstom-house officers 
know that i am at work for S{)offord, and they have offered me a good 
place in the custom-house if I will give up the evidence that they under¬ 
stand 1 bave.” Is that a fact ?—A. No, sir. I was not offered anything 
there. 

Q. That was a lie, then?—A. Yes, sir. I was not on my oath^there 
when I wrote that letter j but I don’t recollect that any one spoke to me 
down there about it. 

Q. You are pretty sure you v/ere lying then, but that you are not now ? 
—A. Yes, sir; I am on my oath now. 

Q. Who was that letter written to?—A. To my wife, I suppose; but 
I don’t know how you came in possession of it. 

Q. That will be explained very satisfactory when Mr. Morse comes on 
the stand. You wrote this to your wife—that you had gotten the evi¬ 
dence, and that all the customhouse officers knew what you were doing 
—had offered you a good place? Now, that letter, being to your wife, 
was a confidential communication. What motive hhd you iu lying to 
your wife?—A. I don’t know that I had any particular motive. 

Q. Was it just simply a love of lying?—A. 1 did not consider it lying. 

Q. You did not consider it lying to tell your wife in a confidential 
letter what was not the truth ?—A. I did not tell what was not the truth. 

Q. Then you were offered a place in the custom-house to give up what 
you knew?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, fix it now to suit these. You say iu the letter that they 
knew what you were doing, and that they had offered you a place iu the 
custom-house to give up what evidence you had. Now you say that 
they did not. That is lying, or it is not. Now, which is it ?—A. I don’t 
know what I wrote it for. 

Q. It is in the letter, though. It is not a matter of recollection. It 
is in your handwriting ?—A. This letter was not written to control the 
election of any particular person. 

Q. But it was a confidential communication to your wife. Now give 
me some motive in telling her that lie.—A. I cannot find any, sir. 

Q. If it was not true, you knew it—A. Well, sir, I might have talked 
with some parties not directly connected with the custom-house. They 
might have said something about it. 

Q. Who were those parties ?—A. I do not recollect. • 

Q. To the best of your recollection ?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. But there were certain parties who talked with you ?—A. There 
must have been, or else probably I would not have written that in my 
letter. 

Q. That is what I supposed, Mr. Elder. There must have been some 
parties or else you would not have written it in your letter ?—A. I am 
positive that it was not a party directly connected with th« custom¬ 
house. 

Q. If you can recollect who that party was I should like to know it?— 
A. If I can I will tell you. 

Q. If you cannot recollect who the party was, how do you know it 
was not a party directly connected with the custom-house?—A. Because 
I know I did not have anything to do with any party directly connected 
with the custom-house. It might have been some conversation with 
some outsider. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1173 

(J. hat outsider was it?—A. Ido not know. I answered that ques¬ 
tion several times. 

Q. Then you state that there were outside parties, outside of the 
custom house, who made representations to you that satisfied you they 
had authority^ to offer you a place in the custom house ?—A. Some one 
spoke ot it, but I do not remember that he had any authoritv to do 
so. 

Q. Well, when he spoke of it what did that some one say?—A. He 
sai<l I ought to give up this matter and quit fighting Kellogg and have 
a place in the government, and I said that I would have had a place 
long ago if 1 had not comedown there. 

By Senator Bailey : 

Q. What was it they said to you?—A. They said I had better give 
up fighting Kellogg and go into the custom-house, but I do not recollect 
who it was made the remark. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Then you wrote this statement truly, that a promise was made to 
you to go into the custom-house?—A. Yes, sir; but I didn’t mean that 
I had talked to custom-house men. 

Q. I am not talking about custom house men. Do you know the 
custom-housemen?—A. I did not speak with any one I knew in the 
custom-house. 

Q. Do you know the men connected with the custom-house ?—A. I 
know the prominent men, the collector, and all of them. 

Q. How came this man, this outsider, to be so officious as to suggest 
to you to give up working for Spofford and take a place in the custom¬ 
house ?—A. He was a Republican, I suppose, and a friend of Governor 
Kellogg’s. 

Q. Well, he said to you that you ought to give up fighting Kellogg, 
quit working for Spofford, and take a place in the custom-house; that 
much you recollect ?—A. 1 suppose he must have said that, or I would 
not have written it. 

(^. And you suppose he was a Republican and a friend of Governor 
Kellogg?—A. I suppose he must have been or he would not have 
spoken to me. 

Q. Do you know that he was?—A. I do not know whether he was or 
not, but it seems to me a friend of Mr. Spofford would not have come 
and talked that way to me. 

Q. Mr. Elder, you are a man who knows something about political 
workings and about how appointments are secured, and do you think 
you are such a fool as to take the promise of an appointment from a 
man you knew could not give it to you ?—A. I did not take it as a 
promise; I do not think I did. 

Q. You wrote it that way ?—A. I wrote it, but I did not take it as a 
promise. There were a large number of those people talking to me off* 
and on. 

Q. A large number of which ])eople ?—A. IMembers of the legislature 
and Republicans down there; they said they thought I had ma(le a 
mistake in taking up Judge Spotford’s case and getting myself mixed 
up in it. 

Q. Tell me some of the members of the legislature, and how many of 
them s])oke to you about it.—A. Well, sir, there was Mr. Oarville. 

Q. Who else ? Go on.—A. Mr. Davidson. 

Q. Well, go ahead.—A. Mr. Harper. 

Q. Well ?—A. Those 1 remember distinctly- 


1174 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Try aDcl tbiuk of some more.—A.. I think Mr. Dickerson. 

Q. Well, who else?—A. I think that is all I remember now. 

Q. Who else? See if you cannot find somebody else.—A.‘I say that 
is all that I remember now. 

Q. Can you not remember any more?—A. I mi"ht after thinking some 
more. 

Q. Isn’t Carville in the custom-house?—A. I cannot state whether he 
is or not. 

Q. Was he not in the custom-house at the time he was talking to 
you ?—A. 1 did not know he was. 

Q. Do you know whether he was trying to get in ?—A, I do not. 

Q. Do you not know that he was, and that he talked about that to 
you?—A. I do not remember it. 

Q. You. do not remember whether you and he talked about it or not? 
Well, was Davidson in the custom-house ?—A. He was a member of the 
convention; J do not think he was in the custom house. So was Dick¬ 
erson in the convention. 

Q. Was it some of the men you have named over that made this state¬ 
ment to you that you had better give uj) fighting Kellogg and quit 
working for Spofford ?—A. Probably so; I am not positive. 

Q. You cannot say whether it was or not?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you cannot remember any more of the [larticulars ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. And you did not attach any more importance to it than to write it 
in this letter?—A. That seems to be all. 

Q. And you do not remember who made that promise to you ?—A. 
No, sir. I have had a great many promises in the last few years, and 1 
do not pay much attention to them. 

Q. You say that you are there for Spofford, and will see him through 
if it takes all summer?—A. Yes, sir; I was down there in good faith 
for Mr. Spofford. 

Q. Why are you not now just as anxious to see him through as you 
were then?—A. I am just as anxious. 

Q. You are?—A. I have uo particular interest in Mr. Kellogg or Mr. 
Spofford either. I was working for money; that was what I was after. 

Q. Are you working for money now ?—A. I am a witness now ; then 
I was an agent and detective. 

Q. You are a witness unsummoned, though ?—A. Y^es, sir; I was sum¬ 
moned, and discharged because I was not present. That is the way I 
understand it. 

Q. You understand it that way?—A. Yes, sir; that is the way I un¬ 
derstand it. I was called the other day and was not present, and was 
discharged. 

Q. Do you mean to say that you have been informed otherwise than 
you understood yesterday morning—that you were discharged because 
you were not present ?—A. 1 was told I was called and was not present, 
and was discharged with another witness. 

Q. Did you not tell Mr. Morse that you had been discharged, and 
would not be needed as a witness ?—A. I told him I had been dis¬ 
charged ; but I do not recollect that I said I would not be needed as a 
witness. 

Q. Did you tell him you had been discharged because you were not 
present?—A. I do not remember it. 

Q. Did you not tell him that to make an impression on his mind that 
you were not to be a witness ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not tell him that so that he could leave town and go to 


SPOFF^RD VS. KELLOGG. 1175 

New \ork ?—A. No, sir ; I had no idea he was j^oing to New York, fie 
never told me so. 

\on say, ‘‘Tliere is a man here ot the name of Cavanac. 1 inclose 
his note to me. He has written to Spottord that I am ottering money to 
witnesses just becansa he thinks lain too smart for him.*’ Now, how do 
yon know that he had so written to Spotford ?—A. I was told so by a 
man by the name of Pdowers that he sent to my room. 

Q. Is that the way you knew it ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(). And in no other way?—A. I do not remember; I know [ got it 
that way for one. 

Do you not know that you got it from Mr. .Morse?—A. I do not 
recollect. 

Q. Did not ]Mr. ]Morse say that if you were doing anything of that 
kind yoii should come home imniediatelv ?—A. No, sir; 1 do not remem¬ 
ber it. 

Q. You do not remember that he ordered yon home ?—xV. No, sir. I 
recollect that he said in a letter or dis])atch to come home; but he gave 
ine no reason. 

Q. Do not you know-that the reason given by him was that you were 
violating your agreement, anil that you denied it ?—A. No. 

(^. You say that there was no reason given by him and denied by 
you?—A. I do not recollect it; there might have been. If there is 
anything there of that sort in my handwriting I will stand up to it. 

Q. You stated in your testimony that yon and Cavanac were co-op¬ 
erating ?—A. I stated that I had talked with him. 

Q. Did you not state that you and he were trying to get up the testi¬ 
mony together ?—A. I said that when I got a witness to make an atli- 
davit he went for him and tried to get another one. 

(»). That was it, was it?—A. Yes, sir; I thiidv that was all that I 
stated. 

Q. You had a talk with Mr. Cavanac ?— A. O yes, sir; I was at his 
otlice several times. 

Q. Where did yon first meet him ?—xV. f met him on the street, and 
he asked me if my name was Polder. 

Q. Did he notask yon if you went by the name of Golden ?— A. No, 
sir. 

O. Did you not go by the name of Golden ?—xV. No, sir; my name is 
John W. Elder all over the world. 

Q. And nothing else ?—xV. No, sir. 

Q. Did yon ever have a card with that name on it ?—xV. No, sir; but 
if there is any card of that sort in my handwriting I will stand up to it. 

Did Mr. Cavanac say to you that he thought it strange for you to 
be there as the agent of fludge Spotford, when Spotford had said nothing 
to anybody else about it ?—xV. No, sir. 

Do not you know that he (piestioned your right to represent Spof- 
ford, and put a detective on your tracdv ?—xV. No, sir. 

Q. Did you tell him him that you had letters and disi)atches from 
Judge Spotford, and would bring them to his otlice the next day ?—xV. 
No, sir ; mn’ci'. 

Q. Did you call the next day ?—xV. I do not know; 1 may have done so. 

Q. Did you not call, and were not you asked about the letters, and 
you said, “ To tell the truth, I have had no conversation with Judge 
Spotfoid, and no communication with him” ?—xV. No, sir; never at all. 

(^. Did you not say that you had come down there in the interest of 
Jmlg(* Spotford to get the truth, and your contract was to do nothing 
else ?—x\. No, sir; 1 don’t remember it. 


1176 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


Q. Did he not tell you that you were using devious ways, and that he 
and Judge Spodbrd did not approve of it, and you stated that your con¬ 
tract was to get the truth, and to use no inducements to get the wit¬ 
nesses to testify*?—A. I don’t remember it. 

Q. A^ou don’t remember it ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you not say to him that there were men there whom you could 
get. and whom he could not reach *?—A. I might have said it. 

Q. Did you not say in my oflice, on the night you arrived here trom 
New Orleans and came with Oarnoy and Morse, and I tliink Cavanac 
was present, and speaking of the testimony of the witnesses who testi¬ 
fied here and went back on their affi<lavits, that Kellogg had bought 
the damned scoundrels up; but these men I liave, every man ot them, is 
an honest man, and will stand up to his affidavit*?—A. I don’t remem¬ 
ber it, sir. / 

Q. Do you remember anytldngof the kind ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Might you have said it*?—A. I might. 

Q. Why might you have said such a thing?—A. In speaking of the 
affidavits, and giving tliem over to you, 1 might have said it. 

Q. Why would you have said it ?—A. 1 have told you. 

Q. Would you have said so if you did not believe it was true?—A. I 
do not know. 

Q. Well, I ask you, would you have said so if you did not believe it 
was true?—A. I might have believed it was true. 

Q. You never would have said it unless at that time you believed it 
was true?—A. I would not have said i^ unless 1 believed it was true. 

Q. If you said at that time in my office, speaking of the colored wit¬ 
nesses who had testihed and gone back on their affidavits, that Kellogg 
had bought the damned scoundrels up, but that these men I have here 
are every one of them honest men, and will stand up to their affidavits— 
if it is shown that you did say tliat, are you prepared to say that at 
that time you believed it to be true?—A. 1 cannot answer that. 

Q. Y^ou would not have said it if you had not believed it was true, 
would you?—A. I do not think I would. 

Q. Don’t you recollect that you and I had a very close and ciitical 
conversation that night ?-^—A. I do not know windher we did or not. I do 
not know that it was particularly close and critical. 

Q. You may look back to it now when I mention it to you, and re¬ 
member that I cross-examined you on that occasion as much as I have 
done now ?—A. I do nut remember it. 

Q. Now, then, to recur to some of those affidavits and in reference to 
your return trom New Orleans, and I will begin at the beginning and 
see if we cannot trace the history, for you have now ])ut yourself on rec¬ 
ord in legard to them. Did you send that telegram? [Danding wit¬ 
ness a paper.]—A. I do not recollect ot sending such a, dispatidi. 

Q. You do not lecollect sending such a dis])atch ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect anything about it at all ?—A. I do not, sir. If it 
is my handwriting it is all riglit 

Q. It is not in your handwriting, of course.—A. AYell, if the files 
show that I sent it, it is all right, but I don’t remember it. 

Mr. Merrick. 1 'have here, Mr. Chairman, a dispatch addressed to 
Mr. Morse, and signed by J. W. Elder, which I projiose to iirove here¬ 
after. The witness does not remember it, but I will read it to indicate 
to him what it is. 

Mr. Moksk, Twenty hirty-seven F street northwest : 

Have four all right. Send names to-morrow night. If want more, answer. 

J. W. ELDER. 


SPOEFORD ^'S. KELLOGG, 


1177 


Mr. 811ELLABARGEK. Where is it (late«l ? 
Mr. Merrick. New Orleans, April 22. 


15 y Mr. ^Ierrick : 

Do you recollect anytliin^r about it?—A. No, sir. 

0* llo recollect telej^raphing that you had four all ri^ht ?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q« Did you receive any such dispatch as that? [Handing witness 
paper.)—A. Yes, sir; 1 think I received that. 

Q. You think you received that?—zA. Yes, sir; 1 think so. 

xVnd It was in reference to this order to ^o home that your testi¬ 
mony has been jjiven ?—A. I do not remember. 

Mr. Merrick then read the following dispatch, just referred to bv 
the witness: * > ■' J 


WASiiiNorox, D. C., May 1*2, 1879. 

J. W. Elokh, City Hotel, XeAv Orleans, Louisiana : 

Have seen Mrs. Elder. No letters received from you. Wrote you lifteeu days ago 
to come with the papers. 


By Mr. Merrick: 


GEO. W. MOK 8 E. 


Q. Now, here is one of the IGth of April. Will you Just look at that, 
and say if you recollect sendino- it to Mr. Morse or not. [Handing wit¬ 
ness a tape dispatch.)—A. No, sir; I d() not recollect that. 

Q. Can you say that you did send it ?—A. I do not know whether I 
did or not. I cannot tell until I see the copy. 

]Mr. Merrick. 1 will prove this one also by ^Ir. Morse when he comes 
on the stand. It is as follows : 


Ci.xx'vii, Xew Orleans, Jpl. XFIth. 

Mr. Mouse, Taenty thirty-seren Fstreet northieest, Washington, I). C.: 

Have positive proof of two thousand dollars paid direct to senators and members. 
When will you be here? Answer. Understand my business. 

J. W. ELDER. 

XXII. Paid N. 

Q. Do you recollect sending that div^ipatch ?—A. I do not. 

(^). Don't you remember sending any dispatch tliat you had proof of 
^2,000 paid direct to senators and members?—A. I do not think I sent 
any such dispatch. 

Q. Do you say, then, you did not send it ?—A. No, sir, I do not say 
that. I say I do not remember it. 

i}, 1 have a dispatch here that may be proved that you did send.— 
A. I cannot say whether 1 sent it or not. 

(,). Might you have sent it?—zV. 1 cannot say. 

Q. Do you think it likely that you sent it ?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. Do you think it possible that you might have sent such a dispatch ? 
— A. I cannot say. 

Q- Do you think you did not send it ?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. Do you think it probable that you did not send it?—A. I cannot 
say. 

Q. Well, did you have positive ])roof of $2,000 paid direct to senators 
and members ?— A. No, sir. 

Q. You say positive proof of $2,000 jiaid direct to senators and mem¬ 
bers. Di<l you have i)ositive proof of $2,000 paid direct to senators 
and menibcus?—A. No, sir; not that 1 know ol. 

Q. ])idn’t the sum total in your afiidavits in w.hich the members swore 
to the i)ayment of money amount to $2,000 ?—A. The aliidavits will 
show. I do not recollect. 1 do not recollect what amounts 1 stated in 
those affidavits. 


1178 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


■1 

Q. Yon now say that you did not have proof of $2,000 paid direct to 
senators and nieinbers ?—A. I did not say that I did. 

Q. You did not say that you liad proof of $2,000 [)aid to senators and 
members! It is here in this dis[)atch, which of course is not [)roven, 
but 1 now ask you didn’t you have it !—A. I do not remember. 

(}. Did you not have it?—A. No, sir ; I do not remember. 

Q. Then you didn’t liave it!—A. I cannot tell whether I sent that 
dispatch or not. 

Q. I am not talking about the dispatch. I am talking about the sub¬ 
stance of the transaction, what the dispatch relates to. Did you, on the 
16th day of April, have positive proof of $2,006 ])aid direct to senators 
and membeis to influence the election of U?nted States Senator!—A. I 
might have had the promise of it. I didn’t get the affidavits until the 
case was opened. There was no member or senator who would make it 
until the case was opened. 

(»>. Well, you say you might have had the proof or the promise of 
it!—A. Yes, sir; the i)romise of it. 

Q. This dispatch says ‘^positive })roof.‘’ Did you have such proof!— 

A. No, sir. .1 had no affidavits then. 

Q. Y^ou had none on the 16th of April!—A. No, sir. You will find 
the dates all there. They did not want to make the affidavits until the 
case was opened. 

Q. Did you have what you regarded as positive proof !—A. 1 might 
have had the promise of it. 

Q. Well, you relied upon them and believed in them !—A. 1 believe 
in the promise of a man until he fails to keep it. 

Q. And you say, at that time, you might have had the promise of 
it!—A. Yes, sir; the promise of it. 

Q. That they had received direct $2,000 for their participation in Kel¬ 
logg’s Senatorial election in the legislature !—A. I say I might have had 
the promise. 

Q. And the promise you believed in !—A. I cannot say I did. I do 
not believe much in any promises until they are fulfilled. 

Q. Tiien, if you do hot believe in any promise until it is fulfilled, and 
sent this disi)atch under the circumstances which you have named, you 
were playing the hypocrite with your employer !—A. I do not think I 
sent the dispatch. 

Q. Do you recollect that disi)atch ! [Handing witness a paper.]—A. 
AYs, sir ; I think 1 sent that dispatch, but I am not i)ositive. 

Mr. Merrick read the following dispatch : 

New Orleans, April 30, 1879. 

Mr. Morse, 

Twenty thirty-seven F Street,- northwe-Hf, JF. : 

Will send yon list of witnesses in a few days. Written letter explaining all 
13 Pd. i. Ps. Cs. ‘ J, W. ELDER. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Did you write a letter ex[)laining all!—xV. I suppose I must if I 
stated there'that I did. 

Q. Now, here are a couple of dispatches that 1 should like to know 
about. Do you recollect receiving that dispatch ! [Handing witness 
a jiaper].—A. No, sir; I do not recollect sending that dispatch. 

Mr. Merrick. I will read the dispatch that he admits having re¬ 
ceived, and then the reply, hereafter })roving tlic rei)ly. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


117 ^> 


Washington, D. C., Jpril 2G, 1879. 

J. W. Eldkk, 

Citjf Hotel, Xeir Orleans, La.: 

ho is .J. \\ . Golden ? Have you violated onr ajjreenient that no pecuniary induce¬ 
ment should be ottered witnesses ? Answer at once. 

J. W. MORSE. 

ilie answer is as follows : 


Xkw Orleans, April 27, 1879. 

To Mrs. Morse, 

Tuenty thirty-seren F street northwest, JVashinyton, I). C. : 

Didn’t kno.w Golden. Xoaf^recment violated nor will be. 

,, J. W. ELDER. 

Nine, p d. M. W.X". 


Q. Are you sure you didn’t send tins dispatch ?—A. I am not posi¬ 
tive. 

Q. Did you send any reply to that disjiatch in whiciiit was intimated 
that you were goin^ under the name of Golden, and usin*? money to 
procure affidavits f—A. I do not know, sii‘. 

Q. Did you answer that you did not know Golden, “ No agreement 
violated nor will be” ?—A. 1 cannot remember. 

Q. Do you remember that you did not ?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. Don’t you think you did ?—A. I might. 

Q. J)on’t you thirdc you did? Answer it. Is it not more than jiroba- 
ble, considering that distiatch was about a serious and important matter 
from your principal, that you sent a reply ?—A. I do not know any¬ 
thing of Golden. That is the first I ever heard of tlie Golden business» 
I might have sent that in answer. I cannot say whether I did or not, 
but if I did it is in my handwriting.- 

t. o 

Q. If you had sent a reply would not this have been your answer ?— 
A. Certainly. 

Q. “Didn’t know Golden”?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. “No agreement violated nor will be?”—A. Yes, sir; none was 
violated. 

Q. j\Iorse said, “Don’tpay these witnesses,” didn’t he ?—A. I do not 
think 1 was pa,ying them for their affidavits. 1 did not think so ; if I 
])aid a man like Kelso for looking around and making me acipiainted, 
I did not think that was jiaying him for his testimony. I didn’t so con¬ 
sider sit. 

Q. Now we will recur back to another [lart of the examination. Are 
you not satisfied that your siiecitic instructions were that you were not 
to pay any pecuniary consideration for getting this evidence?—A. I. 
think Mr. Spofford said he had made a charge of bribery against Sen¬ 
ator Kellogg, and he must prove it. 

Q. That is not an answer to my (piestion. You have a telegram here 
from jVIr. Morse, in which he asked you if you have “ violated our agree¬ 
ment in regard to a pecuniary consideration.” What was that agree¬ 
ment ?—A. It must refer to an agreement between myself and him. 

Q. What was the agieement?—A. That I was not to pay any money 
to witnesses. 

Q- Then you cannot admit that this is your answer to ]\Ir. Morse’s tel¬ 
egram ?—A. I cannot say whether it is or not. 

Q. What do you think ?—A. I think I might have sent it in answer 
to the other one. 

Q. Now, then, I have only a few (piestioiis more. There is one 1 want 
to ask you. You have stated that you might have said in my oflice to 
me the night you got here and to Mr. Cavanac, that these witnesses 


1180 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


who had sworn here in Washington and gone back on their affidavits, 
that Kellogg had “ bought the damned scoundrels up.” Kow, if jmu 
said that, you believed it to be true, didffit jou*?—A. I don’t think 
I })ut the “ damn” to it, for I don’t use such language. 

Q. Well, leave that out then. Perhaps I put that in. If you stated 
that, you believed it to be true?—A. I don’t think I said it. 

Q. I thought you said a while ago that you thought you might have 
said it ?—A. I do not think I did. and if I did I will take it all back. 

Q. O, you want to take it back ?—A. Yes, sir; I was not on my oath 
then, and I don’t know what I might have said. 

Q. You might have said anything then “?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Don’t you think that if you said anything to Si)offord in Kew Or¬ 
leans about these witnesses that you said the sauie thing when you came 
to see me ?—A. I know wliat I said there. 

Q. How do you come to recollect what you said there and not what 
you said here?—A. It was in the night when I went to your office and 
late, and my head was not clear, exactl 3 \ I am on my oath now and 
then I was not. 

Q. You say you told Spofford that evening when the witnesses left 
Kew Orleans that they wmuld not swear to what was in their affidavits ? 
—A. Yes, sir; and Mr. Spofford well knows it, too. 

Q. Well, Witness, that is supperadded. Where were you xt^hen you 
told him that—in his house—in Spofford’s house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Didn’t he refuse to see you in New Orleans?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t he refuse to have anything to do with you ?—A. No, sir ; I 
went to see him and talked to him, and he took all of my witnesses. 

Q. Didn’t he refuse you admission to his house for a long time ?—A. 
No, sir; I think I was there Sunday, and he sent word that he was busy; 
but I think Monday I went to see him, and met him. I met him on the 
street, and he turned around and went back to his house, and I told 
him then. 

Senator Hill. To relieve Mr. Merrick a little, I will ask you some 
questions. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. What day did you first see Mr. Spofford in New Orleans ?—A. He 
arrived there Saturday morning- 

Q. What day of the month ?—A. I think the 29th of May, or the 30th, 
or 31st of May. I went to see him on Sunday, and he sent me word he 
was engaged, and I did not see him. I think on Monday—I am not 
positive—I went up again to his house, and met him just outside, and 
made an appointment with him to be at his house the next day, and that 
evening—I believe it was the next day, I did go there. 

Q. You met him on Sunday, first?—A. No, sir; I called at his house 
but did not see him. 

Q. Y^ou went to his house?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tlien you met him first on Monday ?—A. I think it was Monday. 

Q. What conversation did you have with him?—A. We had very 
few words. I stated that I wanted to see him, and he said for me to 
call next day. 

Q. And the next day was Tuesday?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the first time you had a conversation with him ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that on the street or in his house?—A. It was in his house. 
I showed him some affidavits that day. 

Q. That was on Tuesday?—A. I think it was Tuesday; but I am not 
positive as to the day. 



SPOFFORD VS. kp:llogg. 1181 

(). I would like for you to be positive, if you cau.—A. I cannot as to 
that. 

Q. Did you say that to him at Ids house ?—A. Yes, sir. 

lie invited you in, himself?—A. Yes, sir. He asked me to come 
the next day. 

Q. Ami you went there by appointment ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(^>. Did not Judge Spottbrd refuse to look at any atlidavits you had ? 
—A. ]So, sir; he read them. 

Q. Is it not true that Judge Spoft'ord did not see you until after Mr. 
Cavanac and the witnesses left ?—A. 1 thirds they left on Monday. 

Q. Yon said you called on Judge Si)otford ?—A. Yes, sir ; I called 
Sumlay. Yes, sir. He did not see me. 1 met him on Monday, and he 
made an engagement with me out at his house. 

Q. Until alter the witnesses, and Cavanac had left ?—A. I thiidv 'not, 
sir. 1 don’t think 1 had my conversation with him until after thev had 
left. 

Q. Did not Judge Spofford make it known to you that he looked on 
you with suspicion ; and that you were an enemy of his ?—A. I think 
he remarked that he was afraid of me, my being a Republican. 

Q. Didn’t you tell him that you thought you had been belied to him, 
and that you tho ght he was prejudiced against you ?—A. 1 might have 
said so. 

Q. Did ifot he tell you that he had been advised that you assumed to 
be ins agent, when he never employed you ?—A. He never said that. 

Q. Did he say anything like that?—A. 1 don’t think he did. 

Q. J)idn’t he tell you he had been advised that you assumed tictitious 
names, and offered money to witnesses to disqualify them from testify¬ 
ing ?—A. No, sir ; he never said a word of that kind. 

Q. Now, as a matter of fact, di(in’t you know that he was afraid of 
you, as an enemy of his, and believed that you were offering money to 
witnesses to disqualify them?—A. No, sir. 

Q. VVhat was the ground of his fear, then ?—A. I suppose the report 
that 1 was going under the name of (folden whenevery body knew that 
1 was Elder. 

(^>. Didn’t he say to you that you were operating to dis(iualify wit¬ 
nesses f—A. No, sir; he never said a word of that kind. 

Q. When did he tell you ot his suspicion, and that he was afraid of 
you, and did not want any conversation with you? Didn’t you then 
tell him that they were not true—that his suspicions werejiot true, and 
that you would prove it by John Ray ? Didn’t you say you would prove 
it by'John Ray ?—-A. 1 carried John Ray up there to his house, and in¬ 
troduced him; but that was in regard to the witnesses, and it was 
not to me i)articulariy. John Ray said that he would know the wit¬ 
nesses better, that he had served in the legislature with them, and could 
tell those who were reliable. 

Q. Did not Judge Sfmfford say to you, when you i)roposed to prove it 
by John Ray, that he was opposed to him ?—A. I remember he said 
they were not on si)eaking terms, growing out of some suit or other in 
the courts. 

Q. Didn’t you tell him, on the contrary, he was opposed to Kellogg, 
and was his, 8potford’s friend, and thought he ought to have his seat ? 
J)idn’t you communicate that to Spofford ?—A. I do not remember; but 
1 remember a conversation between myselt and Ray about tliat, and 
Judge Ray seemed to be in lav'^or of Si)offord. 

Q. Diifhe not tell you that he and Ray were out and had not spoken 
for a long time on account of a suit, but if Ray would come and estab- 


1182 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


•lisli what you said, he would then look at your affidavits ?—A. No, sir ; 
I never showed him auy affidavit after that. 

Q. You said you took Johu Ray there?—A. lY.s, sir. 

Q. Was it uot your purpose iu carrying him there to convince Spof- 
ford that Ray was his friend and would indorse you?—A. No, sir j I 
never asked Judge Ray to indorse me. 

Q. What was your object in taking Ray to Spofford’s ?—A. 1 told you 
be went there with me to say to Judge Spofford that the witnesses from 
whom 1 had affidavits were the most reliable members of that legisla¬ 
ture. 

Q. What day was that?—A. I (‘.anuot tix that day. 

Q. Let us see if we can fix it. You went on Sunday, and you did not 
see him. The second day you met him ; had a few words with him, and 
made an appointment, and you met him the next day, which was Tues¬ 
day. Now, this conversation was the first of any consequence that you 
had had with Spofford. Now, it was after that that you carried Judge 
Ray there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then it was alter Tuesday, of course?—A. Yes, sir ; of course. 

Q. Well, I understand you took Judge Ray to Si)olford for Ray to 
tell Judge Spofford that those witnesses \mu had were reliable?—A. 
Well, sir, Spofford could uot understand why it was I made my head¬ 
quarters at Judge Ray’s office, and I wanted him to come and say to 
Si)oftoi‘d why it was he was taking so much interest in his case. He 
drew up himself the forms of these affidavits. 

Q. Judge Ray drew them up?—A. Yes, sir; and Judge Spofford 
could not understand how it was that Judge Ray was taking so much 
interest iu him. 

Q. And you took him there to explain that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Y^ou had Judge Ray’s office as your headquarters ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were doing what you did in taking Ray to Spofford’s 
house to remove the fears from Spofford as to your good faith and fidel¬ 
ity ?—A. No, sir: I was in good faith with Judge Spofford. 

Q. And you were trying to convince him by these t)roofs that you 
were honest with him ?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hoar. 1 wish to inquire whether, in your judgment, the de¬ 
tails of the matter are important after those confessions were made 
wdiich are fallen from this witness ? 

Senator Hill. No, sir; it is only good as establishing the reputation 
and character of these witnesses. (To the witness.) Now I want to fix 
the date as hear as we can when Ray went to Si)offord’s with you. How 
many days was it after this interview in which you learned of this gen¬ 
tleman’s distrust of you ?—A. 1 cannot give you the date. It may have 
been as much as four or live days. I am not positive. I cannot"swear 
to that. 

Q. Now then, Mr. Elder, when you saw Judge Spofford on Tuesday, 
by appointment, he made known to you his distrust, and it was natural 
that you should not communicate much to him, but four or live days 
after you went up there with Judge Ray to show him, Sj)offord, that he 
was mistaken about you?—A. I wanted to show to him that Judge Ray 
was uot his enemy. 

Q. And that you were all right ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know that before that you and Si)offordhad very little con¬ 
versation, because you were under distrust?—A. We had some little 
conversation, and he examined all my affidavits, and we had a conver¬ 
sation iu regard to Phillips and De Lacy, and 1 told him that witnesses 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1183 

Cavanac liad carrieil away had told me that they had sworn to what 
was not true. I told S{>oti()rd that at that interview. 

Q. You say he was ready to distrust you ?—A. He heard that I was 
goiii}? under assumed names. * 

Did he have much conversation with you until Kay went up there? 
—A. We had that amount that 1 speak of. 

Q. You say Si)()ftbrd retused to read your altidavits until you satisfied 
him that Kay was his friend and established your good faith?—A. O, 
yes; I shx)wed him the affidavits before that. 

Q. And he did not tell you that he and Kay did not speak ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; he told me that. 

Q. But he said if Mr. Kay would come to his house and tell him that 
what you had said about him (Kay) was correct, and establish your own 
honesty and good faith, he would see whether those affidavits were fit 
to be used ?—A. No, sir; he did not tell me that. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Now, Mr. Witness, I want to ask you a few (luestions about what 
you told Mr. Morse. 

Senator Bailey. Before he goes away from this other branch of the 
subject I will ask him a question. I understood you to say that you 
liad as an object in taking Kay that he was to assure Judge Si)olford of 
the character and reliability of your witnesses ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that he was a friend of his ?—A. That was one of the objects 
also. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. You stated that you resided in New Orleans. Now, did you not 
impress on Morse and Elam that if you went down there you could find 
out the truth ; and that Spofford was elected fairly, while Kellogg 
bought his seat?—A. 1 had no doubt that Spoftord was elected by the 
Nicholls legislature ; and 1 found a great deal of corruption about them. 

Q. AA^ell, 1 did not ask you that. You know what transpired from 
day to day and month to month. Did yoii not tell them that you knew 
this thing and could get the proof?—A. No, sir; I know from the first 
time I spoke of it to them it was not four days until 1 was on my way to 
New Orleans. 

Q. The first time you spoke of it to him ?—A. To Judge Elam. 

Q. Then it was four days until you were on your way to New Or¬ 
leans?—A. I think I left on the 14th. 

Q. Did you not tell Judge Elam and Mr. Morse that you knew these 
members of the legislature, and if you were allowed to go you could 
establish the fa(d that Kellogg bought his seat?—A. 1 might have 
stated that 1 could furnish the preliminary affidavits as to the fact. 

Q. Did you not state to Mr. Morse that you came back in June last, 
and after the night when you came to my otlice, which was the night ot 
yo ir arrival, that if you had been here the witnesses would not have 
gone back on their alfidavits; that you would have staid with them, 
and not let Kellogg buy theiu up?—A. No, sir; I never did. 

(^. Did you ever see him after you had been here?—A. 1 do not re- 
ineml)er that 1 ever did. 

Q- Bo you remember whether or not?—A. I do not remember. 

Q. Did’ you say to Mr. Morse that if you had been here you would 
have kept them out ot the way ot the other side, and that C'a\anac was 
to blame for not doing that ?—A. I do not remember. 

Q. You do not remember. What is your best recollection ?—A. I do 
not remember speaking to him about it at all. 


1184 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Didn’t you tell Mr. Morse before you were employed that Kellogg 
had paid his way into the Senate, and you could prov^e it ?—A. I do not 
think I did. I might have told him that that was the report. 

Q. Did not you say to him that evidence in Kew Orleans was positive 
that Kellogg paid for his seat in the Senate?—A. No, sir; 1 do not re¬ 
member saying that. 

Q. Do you remember that you did not?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. Did not you know Mr. Walker very well?—A. I never saw him 
until 1 saw him down there. 

Q. Did you see him frequently or seldom?—A. I saw him ver^' frC’ 
quently. 

Q. Didn’t you say to Mr. Walker that if you had been here at the 
time these witnesses testified you would have prevented their lying on 
the stand ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn’t you say you would have prevented their lying on the stand; 
that Kellogg would never have had an opportunity to buy them up?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you ever inform Mr. Walker in New Orleans that any affidavit 
taken by yourself or Cavanac was false ?—A. No, sir; I never did. 

Q. Neither him nor Spoftbrd ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever inform Cavanac?—A. No, sir. 

Q. At whose office did you first meet Mr. Walker?—A. At Judge 
Ray’s, I believe. 

Q. Was that subsequent or prior to the meeting between Spofford, 
Ray, and yourself?—A. It was afterwards, 1 believe. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Were you in New Orleans when the Senatorial election took place ? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you there in January, 1877 ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were you there during that year, the year previous, or the year 
after ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Mr. Elder, I will ask you to state to the committee if you did not 
inform me that Mr. SpoRbrd had employed you to come down there to 
take affidavits, and if you did not tell him on the Sunday before the 
witnesses left that the witnesses would go back on their affidavits ?— 
A. Yes, sir; that is true. 

Q. And I will ask you if you did not come to me and tell me that ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When I was collector of the port, did you know me ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you know me at all, intimately or otherwise?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have a passing acquaintance with me?—A. No, sir; I 
never did at all. 

Q. Just state if I didn’t say to you that I would like to have you tes¬ 
tify to that if you could do so; and if, the other day when you were in 
here, I did not have you discharged, and told you so ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did I tell you so ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And yesterday you came and stated to me that you would testify 
to these points ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And, except casually, I have had no intercourse or relationship 
with you at all ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. State to the committee if I have held out any inducement to you 
or told you how to testify ?—A. No, sir. 

Senator Hill. Governor Kellogg, do you think he would admit it if 
you had done so ? 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


1185 


StMiator Kellogg. Xo, sir ; but I ask liini the questions as a mat¬ 
ter of precaution. 1 timl I have to ask a great, many ciuestions in order 
tliat nothing may be left to interence or implication. 

lly Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Did you have any proof in Louisiana or obtain any to the fact that 
I had obtained my election by bribery '? I ask you to tell this committee 
whether you got any proof of that sort in Louisiana?—A. Xo, sir; I 
do not consider that I did. Alter those fellows came up here and went 
back on their aliidavits, they told me they had received money for 
voting for Spofford and not for you. 

Q. Did 1 understand you to say that you went there in good faith ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

. Q. To get evidence for Judge Simfford ?—A. Yes, sir. I found plenty 
of evidence, but I did not consider it reliable. Witnesses would come 
and say to me, “ Which side do you want it on and when I told them, 
they said that Si)ohord should pay more than that. 

Q. And did they say that S[)offord paid them anything?—A. I can 
get twenty affidavits in ten days down there that Spoffiord’s agent paid 
money for his election. 

Q. In the dispatches you sent to ]\Iorse you did not mean to say that 
you liad any real testimony, any reliable evidence against me?—A. Ko, 
sir. 

Q. You did not mean to say that ? 

^Ir. ?\Ierrick. I object to the witness stating what he meant; his 
dispatches are here and show for themselves in tlie light of the circum¬ 
stances surrounding him at the time. 

Senator Uoar. I will say to Governor Kellogg that the witness has 
stated that he assumed a confidential relation to Judge Spolford ; 
whether he did or not is another matter; that he had gone over to the 
other side ; that he had made to other parties outside other statenients 
than those that were true, in fact lies; that was the word he used, but 
that those were statements not under oath, and that his statements now 
to the contrary are because he is under oath ; and 1 call his attention to 
the fact to know whether he thinks any committee of the Senate will 
treat witness as a source of affirmative and reliable testimony. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. One question. There have been a great many questions asked yon 
in regard to the time and place where you first communicated to Siiof- 
ford in regard to the character of the testimony that had gone to Wash¬ 
ington. Xow, 1 want you to state exactly where that was, and, if yon 
can, the date that it was, and what affidavits were read at that time by 
him, and all that was said.—A. All the affidavits that were introduced 
here were read by him. 

Q. Where ?—A. At his house. 

Q. When ?—A. In his parlor, on Tuesday, the 2d day of June, I think. 

(^. Aft(‘r the witnesses lelt Xew Orleans ?—A. A>s, sir. 

(^. AVhat remark did you make to him as to the reliability of the wit¬ 
nesses ?—A. That they had said to me that what they swore was false. 

(^). Wfto were the persons you told him could not be trusted after 
giving their atlidavits—who were they ?—A. I spoke to him about De 
Lacy, Johnson, 3Iilton Jones, and Seveignes. 

Mr. Shellabarger, counsel for the sitting member, submitted to the 
committee, without argument, objection previously made by him to the 
testimony of L. Weber, taken by the sub-committee in Xew Orleans, 

75 S K 



1186 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


without the cross exaiuiuatioii having been i^ursued on behalf of the 
sitting member. 

Mr. Merrick, counsel for the memorialist, submitted the matter to 
the committee without argument. 

Upon the question being put to the committee, the testimony of E. L. 
Weber was unanimously stricken from the record. 

On motion the committee adjourned to Wednesday, January 21,1880. 


Washington, Wednesday^ January 21, 1880. 

The committee met pursuant to its order of adjournment. 

Present, a quorum of the committee j K. T. Merrick and C. L. Walker, 
counsel for the memorialist; the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford; Mr. 
Shellabarger, counsel for the sitting member, and the sitting member, 
William Pitt Kellogg. 

The Chairman. Dr. Green, who has been subpoenaed here, is present, 
and I propose to have him called, if there is no objection. 

TESTIMO^W^ OF DR. KORVIK GREEK. 

Dr. Koryin Green, president of the Western Union Telegraph Com¬ 
pany, called under process of the committee, sworn and examined. 

By the Chairman : 

Question. Dr. Green, you were subpoenaed for the purpose of pro¬ 
ducing before this committee certain telegrams called for in l!^ew Or¬ 
leans. These were telegrams which were sent by Governor Kellogg, 
and I believe the subpoena required the production also of all which 
were not known to have been sent by or to parties named in the sub¬ 
poena by or to Governor Kellogg. 

The Witness. I would say to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that I 
am very sorry this mishap occurred iu Kew Orleans. It may be known 
to the committee that the rules of the company, by a resolution of the 
board of directors, require the business of these offices to be kept for 
six months, and it is then forwarded to my office for desti uction. They 
are usually chopped up and sold to the paper-makers, so as to get some¬ 
thing for them, instead of burning them, and thereby losing them alto¬ 
gether. Sometimes we burn them at the small offices where they are 
not worth sending. Our general instructions are, when an^^ of our 
agents are subpoenaed to produce messages, that they shall not be de¬ 
stroyed until the question of their production is disposed of. Of course, 
we resist the production of messages so far as we legally can. I think 
we have been required to produce more than we ought to have been 
sometimes. I am sorry,, however, that this mishap occurred, as one did 
in another case before this committee. In New Orleans our agent was 
required to produce all messages for these two months, but the commit¬ 
tee finally modified its order. Still, he preserved them. He was required 
to produce the messages sent to Senator Kellogg, and when h^ had pro¬ 
duced those he was discharged by the sub committee, and when he was 
discharged, the messages being over age, they were forwarded to New 
York, but before they reached there a further demand was made for the 
answers, and consequently on reaching New York they were not un¬ 
packed, but were preserved. I telegraphed to the committee that they 
would be awaiting its order, and they were then sent to Washington to 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1187 


Captain W hitney, our ajjent. They were sent here unpacked, and con- 
seipieiitly no otlicer has seen them until now, l)ecause they remained 
unpacked until this ([uestion arose. Saturday last, I received notice 
Irom Caj)tain ^\ hitney that the committee re(juired the production, not 
oidy ot all messages from Senator Kellogg, but all which we did not 
know were not his, including all messages in cipher. That was a more 
vsweeping demand than his instructions'up to that time required him to 
obey; but there was a gen»*ral resolution of our law committee that we 
would not carry our resistance beyond what the committee might spe- 
citically rerpiire. (reneral Thomp.son, our attorne}', had been here in 
the other ca.se, and we concluded not to go to the" point of resistance 
where we would be in contempt of the committee and get ourselves before 
the Senate. We did that once before, and got into considerable trouble 
and expense. So the members of the committee, who are all pretty good 
lawyers, decided that we would not carry our resistance beyond the 
final order of this committee. On receipt of Captain Whitney’s tele¬ 
gram, I referred it to the clerk of the committee, who is an attorney 
also, but I did not see his answer, and I have not vseen it yet. Possibly 
there was some ambiguity about that which left Ca])tain Whitney in 
<loubtas to whether to produce the mes.sages or not. 1 am, like Captain 
Whitney, only an agent of the company. The governirjg power is in 
the hands of live corporation, and our company is fast drifting into the 
English custom of making the board of directors the governing power. 
The chairman of the board in England has no more power than any 
other member. In this country it has been the president who was the 
embodiment of the corporation. That day is past, and now in all 
large corporations the board of directors take the governing power into 
their own hands, and not only decide what shall be done, but direct 
what shall and shall not be done. I arrived here this morning, and found 
that Captain Whitney had put his clerks to work on the me.ssages. 
There are thirty or forty thousand of them, and they got out this list 
which is suppo.sed to cover all that which is called for by the committee. 
I have not verified it myself, as 1 am notan expert in such matters, and 
it would take too much time; nor has the manager done so, as he says 
it would take too much of his time. It took two men a day or two to 
get out the dispatches, and he says he knows the men, and that the 
work has been faithfully done. They commenced on the 1st day of 
May, and rnn to the 13th of June. In that time there were fifty mes 
sages numbered from 1 to 50. I believe they are all sent to General 
Souer or General Badger, and signed by dift'erent initials. I cannot 
direct the surrender of those messages without [H’otesting that it is a very 
broad demand. 1 do not know that they are from Kellogg or that tliey 
are not, as I have not seen them. I do not know how he is in the hubit 
of sending his messages, still I do not know but that they are covered 
by the subpcena of the committee. Captain Whitney is here in atten¬ 
dance with the messages in his possession. 

By Mr. Keknan : 

Q. Will he produce them !—A. He will if the committee demands it. 

By the Chairman : 

(2. Your only knowledge about them is such as has been derived 
as you have stated ?—A. That is all; because the messages are said to be 
in the May and June business of New Orleans. They were sent to New 
Orleans and I directed them sent here. 


1188 


SPOFFORD vs. KELLOGG. 


By Mr. Kern AN : 

Q, Was tliat last week?—A. No, sir; it was some weeks ago, whilst 
General Thompson was here. It was supposed that onr connsel, Gen¬ 
eral Thompson, would remain to supervise this question as well as the 
question made in the other case; but he had some engagements that 
called him home. 


TESTIMONY OF LEONAKD WHITNEY. 

Leonard Whitney, manager of the Western Union Telegraph Com¬ 
pany, a witness called under process of the committee, sworn and ex¬ 
amined. 

By the Chairman : 

Question. ]\Ir. Whitney, you are here under a subpoena duces tecum to 
produce certain telegrams sent by parties in Washington, to parties in New 
Orleans, or sent by Mr. Kellogg, and the subpoena duces tecum requires 
you to produce all such telegrams as you know to have been sent by 
Governor Kellogg, or such as you do not know were not sent by him. 
Are you ready to comply with that demand ?—Answer. lam sir. Before 
submitting the telegrams Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of 
the committee to the language of the subpoena. It is that I shall bring 
with me all telegrams sent to Governor Kellogg, or from Governor 
Kellogg to Lewis Badger, Marks, or Souer to New Orleans, and all tel¬ 
egrams written or sent in cipher from Washington to New Orleans, and 
all telegrams which you do not know were not sent by Governor Kel¬ 
logg to New Orleans during the mouths of May and June. That 
language would apply to all telegrams sent in cipher to New Orleans ; 
but supposing that it was intended to relate only to such telegrams as 
were sent in cipher to any of these parties, that is all that I have pro¬ 
duced. 

By Mr. Kernan : 

Q. You selected those addressed to the parties named in the sub- 
pceua?—A. Yes, sir ; although thesubpoena itself might require the pro¬ 
duction of others. I have now fifty impression copies of messages as they 
were received in New^ Orleans. None of them are signed by Senator 
Kellogg; there were nonesuch sent, but they are signed by initials or 
cipher signatures. I produce these messages to the committee, under 
its subpoena and under instructions. I also am under instructions to 
make a formal protest, which protest I now make. I have also a sched¬ 
ule of the messages, and I would ask the clerk to see that the messages 
correspond with the schedule, and receipt the schedule for me. The 
messages are numbered, and the corresponding numbers are on the 
statement. 

Q. These are all the telegrams covered by that subpoena that have 
come to your hands from New Y^ork 1—A. So far as I know, they are. 

Senator Hill. The witness explains that there are some which might 
be covered by that subpoe.na, but which do not apply to those parties, 
and I will say to him that the object was to get all the telegrams from 
Kellogg or to Kellogg to or from these parties. I imagine that what 
he has done is a substantial compliance with the subpcena, and I regard 
it as a full compliance, so far as I am concerned. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1189 


TESTIMONY OF GEORGE L. NORTON. 


George L. Norton, h witness callcil on belialf of the sitting mem¬ 
ber, sworn and examined. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. Captain Norton, I will ask you to state to tbe committee 
where you reside ?—Answer. New Orleans. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. Supervisor and inspector of steam 
ves>els. 

Q. How do you happen to he in the city '?—A. I am attending a 
meeting of the National Board of Steam Insi)ectors, which meets to-day 
at twelve o’clock. 

Q. Is it your annual meeting ?—A. A>s, sir. 

Q. State where you were on the day of election for United States 
Senator, in January, 1877.—A. I was detailed by the major-general in 
command to act as body guard for you, and I was with you all the 
time. 

Q. Whereat?—A. In the governor’s room in the State house—Gov¬ 
ernor Packard’s. 

Q. Where was I during the time the vote was being taken ?—A. In the 
governor’s room' 

Q. Did I leave there at any time while the vote was being taken?— 
A. No, sir; you were there all the time. 

(^. I will state in substance that a witness by the name of Murray 
testified some purported conversation between Milton Jones and myself 
in the speaker’s room during the election for Senator. I ask you if I 
left the governor’s room or saw Milton Jones that day ?—A. I was de¬ 
tailed especially to stay with you, and I did not see you leave there. 

Q. Were you on my official staff ?—A. I was while you were gover¬ 
nor. I was then on the staff’ of the major-general. 

C^. You were witii me on that day?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is the speaker’s room ? What relation did it bear to the 
house of representatives ?—A. It is adjoining the house of representa¬ 
tives. 

Q. What is next to it ?—A. The telegraph office. 

Q. What is next to that?—A. A large ante-room. 

Q. A reception room to the governor’s office.— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is next to that ?—A. Governor Packard’s room. 

By ^Ir. Shellabarger : 

Q. That brings how many rooms between the governors room and 
the speaker’s two rooms ?—A. Two rooms. The si>eaker’s room and the 
house of rei>resentatives. 

Q. There is the speaker’s room, the telegrai)h office, a large ante-room, 
and then the governor’s office.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Could the governor have left the governor’s room and gone to the 
s[)eaker's room during that election without your having observed it f 
_A. No, sir; because I was there to look out for him for two days pre¬ 
vious to and the dav after the election. 

Q. So you are positive that Milton Jones did not come and talk to the 
governor in the .speaker’s room ?—A. Yes, sir; on the day of the elec¬ 
tion, I am. 

By .Mr. Walker : 

Q. Are you in the government service as an inspector ?—A. Yes,^sir. 

(,). How long hav’e you been in that service ?—A. Since .lune, 1877. 


1190 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. AVere you appointed at tbe instance of Governor Kellogg ?—xi. I 
was. 

Q. You say you were in the State-house during the election, the whole 
of the day, on'the 10th January ?—A. 1 was. 

Q. Y^ou did not leave the building at all ?—A. I left at night. I usu¬ 
ally accompanied the governor to his house. 

Q. What time did you return in the mornings?—A. Sometimes at 
o’clock, or earlier or later. 

Q. Did you remain at his house every night?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you meet him at the State-house, or accompany him to it ?— 
A. I met him at the State-house. 

Q. You say you were detailed as his body-guard ?—A. I was. 

Q. By the major-general, commanding?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was that?—A. General Badger. 

Q. How large a force did that major general have?—A. He had all 
the militia. 

Q. How much militia was there?—A. 1 cannot state. 

Q. State about what there was.—A. Some 500 or 1,000 men f there 
might have been 1,000. 

Q. AA'ere they armed troops?—A. Y"es, sir; State militia. 

Q. What position were you occupying at the time ?—A. Harbor mas¬ 
ter of the port of Orleans. 

Q. Were you a[)pointed by Governor Kellogg?—A. No, sir ; by Gov¬ 
ernor Warmoth ? 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Were you in New Orleans during the time the sub committee was- 
there?—A. This last year; yes, sir. 

Q. AA^ere you then in the city ?—A. Y^'es, sir. 

Q. Were you taking quite an interest in the investigation ?—A. xVll I 
could jiossibly take, sir. 

Q. AA^ere you getting up the witnesses for Governor Kellogg?—A. 
No, sir; not particularly. I did not interview any of the witnesses. 

Q. YY)u were about the hotel all the time, were you not?—A. As 
much as I could spare the time to be. 

Q. Were you in Governor Kellogg’s room ?—A. Frequently. 

Q. A^ou could have testified there if you had been wanted ?—A. I 
could have testified if the committee had subpoenaed me. O, 1 beg 
pardon ; I think 1 was subpoenaed, but not called. 

Q. Y^ou would have come if you had been called ?—A. I would. 

Q. Did anybody tell you not to come?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did anybody tell you you were discharged from coming?—A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Y"ou knew the progress of the testimony of the witmesses who 
were called, and talked about the case frequently ?—A. I talked about 
it Irequeutly, but not to the witnesses. 

Q. Did you keep up with it fully?—A. 1 did. 

Q. I supposed, from the character of the testimony there, that you 
were taking an active part in it ?—A. 1 was aiding the case all 1 could. 

By Air. AValker : 

Q. Were you holding the position of harbor-master on the lOth Jan¬ 
uary, 1877 ?—A. No; 1 think my successor had taken the office then— 
a man appointed by Nicholls—1 won’t be positive as to tbe date, but I 
think it was on the 2()th January. I did not consider the harbor-master’s^ 
ollice as any importance at that time at any rate. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1191 


(>. ere yon holding a position in the militia wi tli Bad{;er ?—A. Yes, 
sir; I had l)een attached to tlie militia for a long time under Warrnoth. 

Were yon in the hall of the house of representatives when the 
I’.ickard house took its vote for Senator?—A. No, sir. I just told yon 
that I was with (rovernor Kellogg in (rovernor Packard’s room. 

(^ Von did not go into the hall that day ?—A. 1 may have done so 
aft or the von* was over. 

(>. Yon are positive yon were not in there at no time l>efore the vote 
was taken by the Packard house and'senate?—A. Yes, sir. 

Did yon remain in tlie forenoon ?—A. All the forenoon, sir. 

How iong were yon in Packard’s room continually without leav¬ 
ing it?—A. 1 do not know; two or three, or four or tive hours; during 
the time that Governor Kellogg was there. 1 do not remember how 
long it was. 

(^. Yon did not go into the siieaker’s room ?—A. No, air. 

(,). And yon are positive tliat Kellogg did not?—A. No, sir; he went 
nowhere nidess I was with him, and he was in the executive otlice as 1 
stated. 

Q. AVhat time of the day was that ?—A. Ijetween ten, or lather be¬ 
tween nine and two o'clock. 

(,) Yon are quite ])ositive that yon did not leave Packard’s room?— 
A. 1 do not say positively nine and two, but, as near as I can remember, 
we did not leave between those hours. 

By Senator Hill: 

Q. 1 did not understand yon. Did yon have (iovernor Kellogg per¬ 
sonally in your charge ?—A. No, sir ; but I was to stay with him. Peo¬ 
ple were liable to be assassinated there. 

Q. That day?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the State-house? Was it not barricaded?—A. Yes, sir; but 
there were persons who came there—one man who came there and tried 
to assassinate Governor Packard. I think that is known to the country. 

(^. Then yon were to look after him—Kellogg ?—A. 1 was detailed to 
see that no suspicions person caim* near him. 

(^. I suppose yon could have left him for a while?—A. Yell, we 
thought it best to stay in Packard’s room. 

Q. Did he go out of there, so far as yon know, during, the time the 
election was being held in the hall of the house?—A. He <lid not. Ke- 
j)nblican senators and governors were scarce there at that time, ami we 
did not want any of them killetl. 

(J. Then yon were protecling him from assassination ?—A. \es, sir; 
from anything that might occur. 

(^. And yon say positively that Governor Kellogg did not go into the 
sj^eaker’s, or the legislature hall, during the voting ?—A. J say that 
most assuredly ; he did not. 

Heconbi have gone had he wanted to ?—A. Yes, sir ; I would not 
have stopped him. 

(^). Jf he had gone yon think he would have been assassinated .—A. 
I did not say. 

(^>. AVhen did this danger of assassination cease?—A. When he left 
for Washington I ceased to be his body-guard. 

Q. WTien did he go?—A. After the Sth of January. 

Q. You mean after the election for Senator, on the 10th ?—A. Ye 
sir; I mean he ceased to be governor after the «sth. 

Q, Then Kellogg was a j>rivate citizen ?—A. V es, sir. 

Q. And you were ordered to be body-guard of this piivate citizen ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 


1192 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Are you the wituess alluded by a witness in New Orleans by the 
name of Grinley ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear his testimony given there ?—A. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Q. Are you the man who was eavesdropping Murray and this other 
man—what was his name ?—A. His name was Clark, Tony Clark. 

Q. Were you and Grinley eavesdropping Murray?—A. We did not 
call it eavesdropping. 

Q. But you were in one room listening to what they said when Mur¬ 
ray and Clark did not know you were there?—A. Yes, sir; I am the 
same man. 

Q. And you were there to hear him when he did know it ?—A. 

Yes, sir. 

Q. And you planned that yourself?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who did ?—A. Tony Clark. 

Q. Clark planned that he would get Murray into his house and you 
and Grinley were to meet him there and hear what passed between him 
and Murray ?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Clark is a colored man ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And so is Murray?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And this man Grindley took down the conversation ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you hear it distinctly?—A. As plainly as I hear you now. 

Q. What was your object? Were you seeking to entrap Murray ?— 
A, No, sir; Murray wanted to sell out. 

Q. Did he sell out ?—A. Nobody wanted to buy him. 

Q. Then what did >ou go there to hear him for?—A. I wanted to 
know the conditions on which he wanted to trade. 

Q. If that is true that you wanted to know the conditions of the trade 
but no body wanted to buy him out, why did you want to know those 
conditions ?—A. We thought we would like to know. 

Q. What was it that Clark was to be paid ?—A. It was Murray who 
wanted to be paid. 

Q. How much ?—A. It seemed to be $2,500. 

Q. Was anything said by Clark about sending Murray to Mexico ?— 
A Nothing was said by Clark, it was Murray who wanted to go. 

Q. You wanted,to entrap him and learn what he had to say?—A. I 
had no idea of entrapping him. I did not think he was worth that. 

Q. Why did you think he would tell Clark the conditions upon which 
he wanted to trade ?—A. I did not know anything about that until I 
heard of it from Clark. He told us to come, and as it was in the even¬ 
ing and we had nothing else to do we thought we would go up there and 
listen. 

Q. If you wanted to carry out your plan and get testimony oq Mur¬ 
ray and entrap him, why did you have so many of you—you and Clark 
and Griidey ?—A. Well, sir, Clark was a man that Murray was visiting, 
and Grinley was a stenographer. 

Q. What is that?—A. Grinley was a stenographer. He was doing 
some work for me at the time, and went up with me. 

Q. Who were you doing there ?—A. I was interested sufficiently to 
w^ant to know what they were doing on the other side. 

Q. Who were you interested for ?—A. For my friend Governor Kel¬ 
logg and the Kei)ublican party. 

Q. Did Governor Kellogg know you were doing that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You were doing anything, right or wrong, for the Republican party ? 

A. It was not necessary to do anything wrong. 

Q. How late did you stay there that night ?—A. I remember when I 
got into the car the bell striking nine. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1193 


Q. When did you "et up that plan ?—A. I did not got it up. Clark 
did. Clark came to me and said Murray was anxious to umlo the harm 
he had done the party, and was at him all the time, and came to his 
house every evening. In order to show me the fact he asked me to 
come up, and he would put me in a back rooin and I could hear it. 

Q. If ^Murray was anxious to do that, why was it nec^essary to go 
into a scheme to catch him 1 —A. We did not want any disreputable wit¬ 
nesses; it was not necessary to have at»y suc.h witnesses. 

Q. Murray, you say, was anxious to undo what he had done?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

(^. Did he undo it ?—A. I do not think he did, except in this conver¬ 
sation. 

Q. The only evidence yon had was what you heard him say to Clark 
when he did not know that you were listening, but he did not come out 
and tell that publicly f—A. Yes, sir; that is about it. 


By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. You stated that your occupation w,is supervisor and inspector of 
steamboats. Who recommended you for that position ?—A. Well, I was 
recommended l;y the steamboat frarernity at large. 

Q. What New York men recommended you ?—A. The president of 
the Pacitic Mail, in whose employment I was in quite a while ; the agent 
of the Clyde boats, General James S. Whitney, in whose employ 1 was; 
the president of the Metropolitan line, and a large majority of the 
steamship fraternity in New York. 

C^. Were you recommended by the board of underwriters of New Or¬ 
leans ?—A. Yes, sir, by both boards, there and in New York. 

Q. You say you were recommended by the Clyde line and boards of 
underwriters of New York and New (Orleans '?—A. 1 should state that 
the board of underwriters’ recommeiulation is a i>aper that I have had 
on the hies some time. 

Q. The Clyde and other lines recommended you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are their letters on hie?—A. Yes, sir. 

And 1 Just indorsed them for you ?—A. Yes, sir. I say these 
])apers were sent to the department, but I <lid not mean to say that you 
were wholly instrumental in getting that i)lace for me*. 

You were not originally my ai)poiiitee as harbormaster?—A. No, 


sir, 1 was not. 

C^. Do remember when that vote took place for Senator ?—A. The vote 
took })lace between eleven and one o’clock. 

Q. That was the joint session of the two houses ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it occurred between eleven and one ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(}. And wasn’t the vote aotnally taken between twelve and one on 
that day?—AVell, I would not be positive as to the hour; I know it was 
between eleven and one, but I was not in tiio convention or the house 
of representatives at the time. 

Q. There was a great throng of peoi)le there, was there not ?—A. \ es. 


sir. 

Q. And Governor Packard’s room it was aimed to keep exclusive ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 1 will ask you if I was not in Packard’s room, and hx the fact by 
this, that a messenger came in and reported how things ^^ere going 
in the house ?—A. 1 am positive of that, because 1 was there specially 


for that purpose. 

Q. You speak of being a body-guard to me. Were you detailed, as 
other otlicers had been, to accompany me ?—xV. Yes, sir. 


1194 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. That is on days of great occasion, or special moment?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Well, the State-house was barricaded and a great many people in 
there, were there not !—A. That I do not know. 

Q. Bat that was a day of special moment, was it not!—A. AYs, sir.- 

Q. Now, go on, Mr. Norton, and tell us about that Tony Clark mat¬ 
ter.—A. It is as I stated to the Senator from Georgia. 

Q. Who was Tony Clark?—A. When I tirst knew him he was a mem¬ 
ber of the legislature from Feliciana. 

Q. What was he in 1875! Was he elected sheriff of East Feliciana 
Parish ! Was he elected to any office!—A. I do not remember. 

Q. Was he a great friend of Murray’s ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He is a colored man, 1 believe you said ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tell us about that matter now.—A. Well, sir, as I understood, he 
was importuned for money every day to get him back into the^tlepubli- ■ 
can party. Clark came to me and told me of it, and i said that he 
would do us no good, and that I did not think he was necessary to us. 
He said to me to come up and hear what Murray .said. Grinley was^ 
doing some steuogra[)iiic work for me, and it suggtisted itself for us to 
come up and hear whaf Mr. Murray had to say. We went, and went 
into the back room, but the door was not closed. There was a table 
there, and Murray and Clark came in and sat down and had the con- 
veisation. 

Q. And you heard these speak then !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was tliat vote!—A. The first of August. 

Q. Last !—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Bailey: 

Q. Is Murray a colored man !—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : . 

Q. Do you know a man by the name of William Harrison !—A. I do 
not know as I do, unless it is Bill Harrison, the steamboat man. 

Q. That is not the man. You were subpcenaed in New Orleans, were 
you not ?—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. Didn’t I dire(?t you and ask you to come there on the last da}’ to 
be examined !—A. I was there every day. 

Q. Didn’t I specially on the last day ask you to be there to testify 
before the committee?—A. YYs, sir. 

Q. And didn’t I state to you that I didfi’t consider that the matter 
was very important, and as time was ])ressing with the committee, for 
that reason I would not call you!—A. That was the reason I was there 
every day, because I was subpceuaed. I d.o not remember that I was 
there up to the time the committee adjourned. 

Q. YY)U came here on business, did you, purely, and I happened to 
know that you were here on yesterday!—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Did you see Murray that night at Clark’s?—A. Yes, sir; I saw 
him only through the crack of the door. 

Q. He couldn’t see you !—A. No, sir; I could see him, but he could 
not see rne. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 

TK3T1.MOXY OF .MARSHALL H. TWITCOELL. 


119.5 


Marshall 11. Twitgiiell, a witnes.s called on bebalf of the sitting 
member, recalled to the stand. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Question. I want you to state to the committee if von know a man 
by the name of Harrison ?—Answer. I knew a man ‘by the name of 
Harrison. 

Q. \\ ho was he ?—A. He was my clerk during the time of your elec¬ 
tion, and was with me at the time. He was left in charge of niv jirop- 
erty, and was killed up there in 1878—in Coushatta. 

Q. AV as he killed in a difficulty ? [Objected to. I Is he alive or dead ? 
—A. He is dead. 

Q. When was he killed ?—A. In August, 1878. 

Q. When did you say lie was killed ?—A. 1 am positive it was August, 
1878. It may have been September. 1 received a telegram in Kings¬ 
ton and had to send a man there to take charge of the property and his 
sister, who was left there without a protector. 

By Senator Hill: 

(J. How do you know he is dead ?—A. I know it from report; I have 
not .seen the corpse. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Have you .seen his sister since ?—A. I have seen her since, and she 
received him in her arms when he was shot. 

(\). Is it notorious in the country that he is dead ?—A. Yes, sir; it 
was in all the jiaiiers at the time he was killed. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I wish to ask you if 1 questioned you before in regard to the testi 
mony of Garrett in reference to the conversation in the senate chamber 
—A. \"es, sir; you did. 

Q. And yon denied it?—A. A"es, sir. 

(^. Do you know Mr. Cornog ?—A. Yes, sir. 

(,>. Is he alive or dead?—A. I think he is living; 1 have heard noth¬ 
ing of his death. 

Mr. SiiELLAEARGER. I wish to ask the chairman that Mr. Bangnon, 
who was examined in New Orleans, be summoned to reappear before 
the committee for the iiurpose of our further examination of him. He is 
in the city, I understand. 

The Chairman. I think you had better bring your witnesses here by 
the regular process. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I understood the witness to say himself that he 
desired to ajipeay to make some corrections in his testimony. 

The Chairman. You see there are only three of us iire.sent, and none 
of the members of the subcommittee who were in New Orleans are 
jiresent and I cannot state to you the materiality of this testimony until 
I see them. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I asked him to come myself without any pro¬ 
cess, but he would not do so. 

Senator Hoar. I have understood, Air. Chairman, that that witness 
who testified in New Orleanis has .since stated that his testimony ought 
to be modified in an es.sential particular. Judge Shellabarger asks you 
to i.ssue a subpoma to bring him here to morrow morning. Now, issuing 
a subpcena for a witne.ss does not bind the committee to examine him if 


1196 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


the members of the committee that were down there should not think 
that it was material or proper. All Judge Shellabarger wants is the 
process to bring him here on. 

The Chairman. I have no objection to issuing the subpoena in that 
way, but I think we ought tohave it settled whether he was fully cross-ex¬ 
amined or not in New Orleans. If he was, I shall object to his being 
examined further here, and taking up the time of this committee. 

On motion, the committee adjourned the further consideration of this 
ease to Thursday, 10 o’clock a. m., January 22, 1880. 


IYashington, Thursday, January 22, 1880. 

The committee met pursuant to its order of adjournment. 

Present, a quorum of the committee; li. T. Merrick and C. L. Walker, 
counsel for the memorialist; the memorialist, Henry M. Spofford; Mr. 
Shellabarger, counsel for the sitting member, and the sitting member, 
William Pitt Kellogg. 

The question of the introduction of the witness Baugnon was taken 
up and discussed by the committee informally. 

Mr. Shellabarger. The witness is present and I ask to have him 
«worn. 

The Chairman. Do you want to put that witness on the stand ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. I want to call him for cross examination. 

The Chairman. AYas this witness on the stand in New Orleans? 

Senator Hill. He was. 

The Chairman. Was he examined there ? 

Senator Hill. He was. 

The Chairman. And cross examined ? 

Senator Hill. Yes, sir; and every bit of important testimony that 
he could give was brought out by Senator Kellogg. 

Senator Cameron. On cross-examination ? 

Senator Hill. I will state that I did not know what the witness was 
going to swear; 1 did not know what was the object of his testimony; 
1 did not know what the witness would swear to, and all that he swore 
to, all that was important in this case, and that which I suppose the sit¬ 
ting member proposes to meet, was brought out on cross-examination on 
behalf of the sitting member. 

Mr. Shellabarger. I wish to state the ground on which I desire to 
<iall this witness for cross examination. This witness has delivered tes¬ 
timony that is claimed to be damaging to Governor Lvellogg. That tes¬ 
timony stands on the record. It is correct so far as its delivery is con¬ 
cerned in New Orleans, but its trustworthiness is affected by the dis- 
-closures which have been made since as to how it was obtained. Since 
he has left the State we have found out that he has made statements 
and fallen into mistakes, and he has himself intimated a desire to cor¬ 
rect his own errors; and it is on account of that that we desire him to 
be called as a witness and to be made a witness of in this investigation. 
It was intimated the other day, at least round the table, that where a 
witness had made disclosures since he left the State, it was allowable to 
•call him and cross-examine him as to the motives, purpose, and induce¬ 
ment to. his testimony at the time. It was stated that it was our duty to 
make application to the committee to recall him, and for us to stand on his 
testimony, whether it might be to corroborate or to discredit him ; but 
this did not apply to matters which have come to our knowledge since 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1197 


tlie exaiiiiiiatioii of the witness. I ask von to bring the witness here, 
and that he shall be examined in the line and on the grounds which I 
have stated. 

^Ir. Walker. Are the matters to be asked about sucli matters as 
have, come to his knowledge since he was examined in New Orleans f 

Mr. 811ELLARARGER. So far as I know they are matters which have 
come to his recollection since. He wishes to make corrections in his 
testiim)ny as to dates and such matters. He indicates a desire to cor¬ 
rect his testimony. We do not desire to examine him as to the facts 
which have come out in his testimony, and the contrary of which has 
come to our knowledge, and which, as affecting his examination, are 
either tor us or no. 

Senator Bailey. Judge Shellabarger, you speak in general terms; 
cannot you be si)ecitic as to the facts which you want from this wit¬ 
ness ? 

Mr. Shellabarger. I cannot until I call the witness. 

Mr. Walker. I object to going outside of the record and calling on 
the witness in this informal manner. 

Mr. Shellabarger. a certain fact has been testified to by this wit¬ 
ness that he saw a certain transaction in the state-house in the telegraph 
office, where money was put into the ])ockets of a senator, now Consul 
Churchill, for his vote for Senator, and he locates that at the time when 
the legislature was in session. Now he wishes to correct that testimony 
as to the date, and in some respects, perha])S, as to the facts. I cannot 
be more specific as to that testimony; but then there is another matter 
as to why he was induced to testify and the manner in which he did, in 
New Orleans, and on which 1 wish to examine him. 

After j)reliminary discussion by the committee on the advisabilitv and 
legal propriety of the introduction of the evidence tendered in the case 
of Baugnon— 

Senator Hill. I move to call Baugnon as an original witness here. I 
move that the other side be allowed to call Baugnon to show that he 
has made different statements since he testified in New Orleans and go¬ 
ing to contradict his testimony given there. 

Senator Hoar. I amend that by permitting him to show what induce¬ 
ments were offered him to make the change. 

The Chairman. All of the committee agree, I believe, except myself. 
I object to recalling this witness; I do not believe in it. 

Oil vote of the committee it was decided to call the witness. 

Louis F. Baugnon, a witness called on behalf of the memorialists, 
sworn and examined. 

Mr. Shellabarger. Do we now put him on as our witness ? 

Senator Hill. I so understand. 

Senator Hoar. No, sir; 1 do not so understand. 

Senator Kellogg. 1 would not call a witness in my own behalf whom 
I did not believe on the stand. 

The Chairman. Why do you want him, then ! 

Senator Hoar. I move that Senator Kellogg bo allowed to call the 
witness to show that he has made statements heretofore which upon ex¬ 
amination he has found are not bgrne out by the testimony, and that 
his first testimony on the stand before the sub committee was procured 
by imi)roi)er considerations. 1 make that distinct motion, and the com¬ 
mittee can decide it. 

Mr. Merriuk. We call the attention of the committee to the fact 
that Mr. Kellogg has called the attention of the committee already this 
morning to the fact that the witness has perjured himself. 


1188 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Senator Kellogg. I know that he perjured himself in testifying in 
regard to a fact respecting myself. 

After discussion informally between the members of the committee a 
vote was taken upon the proposition. 

Senator Ho ah. Let us have the ayes and noes recorded. 

A vote was taken upon the first motion first. 

Senator Hill. No. 

Senator Cameron. Aye. 

Senator Hoar. Aye. 

Senator Vance. No. 

Senator Bailey. Aye. 

The Chairman. 1 vote “ no.’’ The committee being equally' divided 
the motion is lost. 

On the second branch of the question to introduce him as a witness 
for cross examination, a vote was taken. 

Senator Hill. If the proposition is to introduce him as Senator Kel¬ 
logg’s witness I vote “ aye ” ; if not I vote “ no.” 

Mr. SHellabarger. That is not the proposition. 

Senator Hill. No. 

Senator Cameron. Aye. 

Senator Hoar. Aye. 

Senator Bailey. No. 

Senator Vance. No. 

The Chairman. I vote “ no.’’ 

Mr. Shellabargeu. I move that I be permitted to prove the execu¬ 
tion of the affidavit that I hold in my hand, and which I will sub mit to 
the inspection of the committee, as impeaching the evidence and against 
the testimony of Louis F. Baugnou. The witness’s introduction has 
just been the subject of discussion before the committee. 

Senator Hill. What is the date of that affidavit? Just give us the 
date. 

Mr. SHELLABARGER. Well, the jurat is the 3d day of January, 1880. 
I make that motion, basing it on the same grounds upon which the affi¬ 
davits already introduced in this case were offered. 

Senator Hill. I do not understand that any affidavits have been put 
in here in the manner claimed by the counsel for the sitting member. 

Senator Vance. You mean affidavits sworn to after that testimony 
had been delivered ? 

Senator Hill Yes, sir. I understand that any affidavits are admis¬ 
sible which were made by members of the legislature, but none are ad¬ 
missible or ought to be which were not made by members of the legis¬ 
lature, and upon that ground every one of the affidavits not made by 
members of the legislature were excluded from the record in New Or¬ 
leans. Judge Shellabarger is utterly incorrect when he says that those 
affidavits were introduced, and that he has the right to introduce other 
affidavits in rebuttal. 

After considerable discussion the question of the introduction of Louis 
F. Baugnon as a witness, for the purposes of cross-examination by coun¬ 
sel for the sitting member, was passed; and the affidavit tendered by 
counsel for the sitting member, going to contradict the statements made 
by the witness upon the stand at New Orleans, was considered. 

*The Chairman. Let Mr. Shellabarger call the attention of the com¬ 
mittee to the question of the admissibility of this affidavit. 

Senator Cameron. No, sir, he does not call the attention of the com¬ 
mittee to the admissibility of the affidavit, but to the admissibility of 
the proof of its execution. It is not introduced, I believe. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1199 

Mr. SnELLABARGER. I ask to prove its execution, for the purpose of 
afterwards introducing- it. 

Tlie Chairman. I object to the i)roof of the execution of the aftidavit 
uidess the whole (juestion based upon the affidavit is fully understood 
by the coininittce. 

Senator Logan. You cannot introduce the affidavit without showing 
its execution. It cannot be introduced until its execution is proved. 

Senator Hill. Well, this couiuiittee is not going to take idle votes 
upon this matter. 

The Chairman. Shall the execution of that paper be proved ? 

Senator Hill. That is not the motion. He saul he wanted to prove 
the execution of the paper for the purpose of afterwards introducing it. 

Senator Logan. They are two questions. 

The Chairman. As to the admissibility of the paper after its execu¬ 
tion is proven, that is another matter. 

On motion a vote was taken by the committee, which stood as follows: 

Senator Hill. No. 

Senator Hoar. Aye. 

Senator Cameron. Aye. 

Senator Vance., No. 

Senator Bailey. Noj I do not tbiidv the affidavit is evidence.' 

The Chairman. I do not propose to make it evidence at this time. 

Senator Logan. I vote “aye.’’ 

Mr. Shellabarger. I will proceed to prove the execution of the 
affidavit. 


TESTIMONY OF M. H. TWITCHELL. 

M. H. Twitchell, a witness heretofore called on behalf of the sitting 
member, called to the stand and examined. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Question. Have you seen that paper before? (Handing witness a 
paper.)—Answer. Yes, sir ; I have seen it before. 1 have looked over it 
several times. 

Q. Do you know the gentleman whose signature purports to be to 
that?—A. Yes, sir; both the official signature and that of the affiant. 

Q. State whether you ever heard Mr. Baugnon say that the paper was 
signed by him ?—A. He admitted that it was signed by him before the 
officer whose name is there. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. When did he admit that to you ?—A. This morning. He ad¬ 
mitted the facts of it however to me when I first came to the city. 

Q. You say he admitted to you this morning that he had signed that 
paper?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hoar : 

Q. Are those the signatures of the parties?—A. Yes, sir; I am ac¬ 
quainted with the signatures of both of them. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Whose signature is that?—A. That of the commissioner; that is 
Wooltiey’s, the United States commissioner. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. In this city?—A. No, sir; in New Orleans. 


1200 


SPOP'FOED VS. KELLOGG. 


Mr. Shellabakger. I now offer this affidavit in evidence, the execu¬ 
tion of which has been proven. 

Senator Logan. What is the object of it ? What is the purpose—to 
sustain or to impeach the evidence of the witness to whose testimony it 
relates ? 

Senator Hill. Jud^i^e Shellabarger can answer that question. 

Mr. Shellabarger. It is offered as impeaching testimony. The wit¬ 
ness himself has stated that he desires to correct some statements made 
in his examination, and 1 desire to ask him questions which are calculated 
to explain that evidence. I pitended to do so if I had been so per¬ 
mit ed. 

Senator Bailey. Has the witness been subpoenaed ? 

Senator Logan. The committee ordered the subpcena issued. 

The Chairman. No, sir; it has not been issued. I stated to Senator 
Kellogg that if he would furnish th(‘ name of the witness to the clerk, the 
clerk would issue the subpoena. He failed to do so, and the clerk did 
not issue the subpoena for this witness. 

Senator Hoar. I take it that the chairman understood that the sub- 
pama was to be issued under the orders of the committee, and that Sen¬ 
ator Kellogg was to furnish the name to the clerk. Senator Kellogg 
did no't furnish it to the clerk, and the subpeena was not issued, but the 
witness himself is here this morning. It is only, as I understand it, a 
question of the cost of the precept. 

The Chairman. 1 want to place the action of the chairman right be¬ 
fore this committee. The name was mentioned in the committee on yes¬ 
terday, but it is a hard name to pronounce, and a harder one to spell. 
I went to the clerk myself to sign the subpeena, but I had forgotten the 
name of the witness; Senator Kellogg had not furnished it to him, and 
so there was no subpoena issued actually’. 

Senator Kellogg. I suppose that I may have heard the statement 
made by the chairman, but perhaps I was so preoccupied that I did not 
catch the particular import of it. 

Mr. Merrick. I want to state my objection to the admissibility of the 
affidavit. It is the affidavit of a witness that I understand Mr. Kellogg 
to say he would not believe on oath. The witness being in the room— 
he is not in now, I believe, but I suppose he may be considered as con¬ 
structively in, and under the control of the committee—and if he is not 
to be allowed to say himself what he has said there in that affidavit, it 
cannot be introduced. 

Senator Hoar. I understand that they propose to show by him that 
the evidence he gave before is not worthy of belief. 

After an informal discussion, of the question, upon a vote of the com¬ 
mittee, the affidavit tendered by Mr. Shellabarger was rejected. 

Mr. Hoar requested that the ayes and noes be recorded. Ayes, 
Senators Logan, Hoar, and Cameron ; noes, the Chairman (Senator 
Saulsbury), and Senators Hill, Vance, and Bailey. 

Senator Logan. Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a suggestion 
and to make it without discussion. The witness being present, and the 
committee being informed of the facts, I suggest that he be put on the 
stand for cross examination. 

Senator Cameron. That is, that he be called by the committee ? 

Senator Logan. Yes, sir. 

The motion was put to the committee and the ayes and noes recorded 
as follows: Ayes, Senators Logan, Hoar, and Cameron; noes, the 
Chairman (Senator Saulsbury), and Senators Hill, Vance, and 
Bailey. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1201 


So the uiotiou to call the uitnCvSS was rejected. 

^Ir. SiiELLARARGER, of coiHisel for the sitting meiiiber, announced 
that they had closed their testimony for the present, with the reservations 
heretofore mentioned and accorded. 

Mr. ^rERRiCK, of counsel fur the memorialist, offered in evidence the 
record made up by the sitting member and the memorialist in a former 
contest for the seat in the Senate, with all its agreements as therein 
stated. 

Mr. Shellararger. What record is that ? 

Mr. Merrick. 1 mean the whole case, the record of the case reported 
on in 1877, the printed transactions of the committee from the begin¬ 
ning to the end, and that wdll bring in naturally all the agreements, con¬ 
tracts, and testimony that have been in the record before this commit¬ 
tee. 

Mr. Shellararger, of counsel for the sitting member, objected. 

Atter an informal discussion, the question was reserved for future 
consideration and decision. 


TESTIMONY OF PETER J. OUFFY. 

Peter J. Duffy, a witness called on behalf of the memorialist, 
sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Question. Witness, state your occupation and residence.—Answer. 1 
keep the American Hotel, at the corner of Seventh street and Pennsyl¬ 
vania avenue, W^ashington City. 

Q. Were you keei)ing the American House during the months ot May 
and June, last vearf—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is of 1879?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know wlietheror not the register of your hotel in either of 
those months liears the name of “ M. Davis” ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On what day is his first enrollment there ?—A. The 2d of June. 

Q. Are there any subsequent inscriptions of that name there?—A.. 
Yes, sir; he registered on the 3d; 1 registered him myself. 

Q. Where did Mr. Davis represent himself as from ?—A. Louisiana. 

Q. Do you know' a man by the name of Barney Williams ?—A. I do 

Do you know who this party M. Davis was?— A. I do not, only 
that he w as rei)orted to be Mr. M illiams, wdio was connected in this 
Kellogg business. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Who w'as that ?—A. It was this gentleman who is reported to be 
Barney Williams and to be connected w ith the Kellogg investigation. 
He said he was here to get a pension, and that Governor Kellogg w'as to 
get it for him. 

By Mr. Walker: 

O. will you describe his appearance ?—A. He appeared to be a Jew 
and had grayish whiskers, red face, and prominent nose, and was a 
stout, thick-s*et man, and appeared to have a wound or sore on his leg, 
and was going to get a pension, he said, on account ot it. 

Q. State wiiat you know' of his movements.—A. That is all that I 

know. 

70 S K 




1202 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. State an.ytliing you know of his associations, who he was ^ 2 :oing 
from and coming to the hotel with, or any company that he kept.—A. 
I know nothing more that would throw any light on tlie subject. I 
know there was a man named Ream, a clerk in the pension office; that 
he was with a man named Steam, who keeps a clothing store on the 
avenue. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Was Steam keeping a clothing store?—A. Yes, sir; at the corner 
of Seventh and Pennsylvania avenue ; it was an outside store. 

Q. Who is the other man ?—A. Mr. Henry Ream, that used to be a 
clerk in the ])eusiou office. 

Q. Do you know where he is now ?—A. I think he was discharged 
from the office on account of having epileptic fits from wounds received 
in the war. 

Q. Do you know where that man is now' ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Do you recollect the appearance of this man Williams ?—A. Yes, 
sir ; I have described him as near as I can. 

Q. Was he an impecunious sort of man?—A. He looked like a man 
who was sort of hard up. 

Q. Did he have money to pay his board?—A. Yes, sir; he paid his 
board. 

Q. How long w^as he there?—A. A week or more, probably two or 
three days more than a week. 

Q. Can you give the date he left ?—A. 1 cannot recollect that. 

Q. Did you everturu him out in the street because he could not pay? 
—A. Ko, sir. 

Did he leave your place and go away because he could not pay his 
board ?—A. 1 think he left because he snid his room was too high. 

Q. Was he hard up while he was there at your place?—A. No, sir; 
he ])aid for what he got. 

Q. But he appeared to be im})ecunious?—A. Well, he w'as not dressed 
very fine, but he was clean and neat. 

Q. He was not a preposse.ssing sort of a man ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. He was not a man whom a stranger would pick up w'ho had never 
seen him before to attend to a delicate matter of business ?—A. That I 
do not know, sir. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. I wdll ask the witness this question : When did you ascertain that 
Davis was not the true name of this man?—A. I have not ascertained 
that yet. 

Q. You stated on your direct examination that you had, I thought ?_ 

A. No, sir; I didn’t. 1 said he was understood "to be that man Will¬ 
iams. 

Q. When did you understand that ?—A. While he w^as there at my 
house, from about the 3d of June until a week afterwards. 

Q. Who informed you of it?—A. 1 cannot recollect that; there were 
several persons, 1 suppose, in conversation who mentioned it, but I can¬ 
not recollect wdio they were ; that has i)assed out of my mind. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. You do not kuow^ as a matter of fact that he is the same man who 
testified as Barney Williams?—A. No, sir. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Q. This man, you say, said he was here looking after a pension?— 
A. Yes, sir. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1203 


TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK J. STOKES. 

Frederick J. Stokes, a witness heretofore examined on behalf of 
the memorialist, recalled to the stand. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Question. You were examined in New Orleans?—Answer. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Do yon know one Lawrence!). Herbert, colored, who has testified 
in this case ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Herbert recently?— 
A. No, not since I have been liere. 

Q. When and’where was the last time you had a conversation with 
him?—A. It was about three days before I left New Orleans 5 about 
the 7th of this month ; it was about the 6 th or 7th, either one of those 
two days; befoie I left New Orleans. 

Q. Did Herbert make any statement to you in regard to his being 
present in the Packard house on the 10th of January, 1877, when the 
balloting for Kellogg for United States Senator was in progress ?— 
A. He did. 

Q. What did Mr. Herbert state to you in regard to there being no quo¬ 
rum present for the election ?—xV. Mr. Herbei t stated to me that Thomas* 
of Bossier was not there; tiiat tliere was no quorum in the homse of rep¬ 
resentatives the day tjiey balloted for Kellogg for United Stales Senator. 

Q. Did Herbert state anything to you in regal'd to liis having informa¬ 
tion of money having been paid to members of the house and senate for 
voting for Kellogg?—xV. He told me he saw two members paid. 

Q. Did he state who they were?—xV. E think that Ixewis was one. I 
cannot remember who the other was. I do not know as he mentioned 
the other. 

Q. Did he relate the (drcumstances of the payment to De Lacy ?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Herbert with relation to the 
statement* made by James Ijcwis, who testified in New Orleans ?—A. 
l^es, sir. 

Q. Did Herbert state that he knew his testimony to be true or false, 
or what did he say about it?—A. He said that Jim Lewis had sworn to 
a lie. What I mean is, his testimony in regard to coming on here to 
Washington in Governor Kellogg’s interest. 

Q. Did he state that he heanl I^ewis boasting as to how he had beaten 
Cavanac and taken the witnesses away from him last June?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

By Senator Vance : 

Q. Give his language, as near as you can.—xV. EJerbert was laughing 
al)out it, and told how they were ail of tliem huighing at the custom¬ 
house; how Lewis beat Cavanac and took the witnesses away from him 
coming on to Washington. 

Mr. SiiELLARARGER objected that the foundation for the testimony 
had not been laid l)y proper queries addressed to the witness Herbert 
wlien on the stand. 

Alter tlie notes of Herbert’s testimony had been read, the committee, 
E)y vote, admitted the testimony. 

By Mr. MERRICK : 

Q. Now you are asked to state, as nearly as you can, the exact language 
used by Herbert when he told you what Lewis said about taking the wit¬ 
nesses away from Cavanac.-A. The con versation was a partial one at the 
time The (;onversalion started out about ^Er. ICellogg, and he stated^ 


1204 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


first, that he was going to testify against Kellogg. The conversation 
was, that he was going to testify against Kellogg, and he told me how 
he could not get into the custom-house, and how it was full of negroes, and 
how foolish they were to be there. He then turned off on Charley Gav- 
anac, and said that he did not think that he was very smart, and said, 
‘‘Look how he allowed Jim Lewis to beat him out of those witnesses,’^ 
and that if he had been there himself and attended to the matter, he 
would have thrown Jim Lewis out of the car-window; that he never 
would have reached Washington. I asked him about Jim Lewis testi¬ 
fying about going to Washington, and he told me that Jim Lewis swore 
to a damned lie, and that he had made his brags as to how nicely he 
had euchred Charley Cavanac out of those witnesses. 

Q. Did Herbert state anything to you in regard to his knowing facts 
prejudicial to Kellogg in this investigation, and that he was going to 
have a place in the custom-house to keep his mouth shut —A. I saw 
him as I was coming back from going down to see Governor Antoine. 
He was standing in his shirt sleeves at the corner of the custom-house, 
by the post-office. I said to him, “ You are a pretty man to talk the way 
you did, and then come here yourself”; and he said that he was too 
s^nart not to take care of himself; that Spofford was not paying any 
money to witnesses. I asked him if Kellogg put him in the custom-house, 
and he said he did. That was all the conversation we had, aud l passed 
on and left him standing there by the custom-house, at the post-office. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. The first time I knew him 
to know his name was in November. I have seen him for several years 
passing to and fro, but had had no conversation with him until that time. 

By Senator Cameron : 

Q. At whose instance did you come to Washington ?—A. I was sub- 
lUBuaed here on the instance of Mr. Spofford. 

Q. When were you subpoenaed ?—A. The subpoena was supposed to 
have reached New Orleans, so that I could be here by the lOth. 

Q. When were you actually subpoenaed ?—A. I was subpoenaed here 
a few days ago. 

Q. You were not subpoenaed in New Orleans f—A. No, sir. 

Q. At whose request did you start from or leave New Orleans ?—A. 
Mr. Walker’s. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Mr. Walker is counsel in this case?—A. Yes, sir; one of them. 

By Senator Cameron. 

Q. Did you come on with Mr. Walker ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Who paid your expenses from New Orleans?—A. Mr. Walker. 

Q. How long have you resided in New Orleans ?—A. Ever since 1865, 
in the month of July. 

Q. What is your occupation ?—A. My occupation is that of a laborer, 
if I have nothing to do. 

Q. When were you engaged as a laborer last ?—A. I have had noth¬ 
ing of the kind to do for some time. 

Q. Do you own any property in New Orleans?—A. Not a dollar’s 
worth in the world. 

Q. Have you ever applied to Senator Kellogg or General Badger for 
work ?—A. No, sir; not to General Badger. 

Q. Did you ask Senator Kellogg?—A. Yes, sir; I saw him in New 
Orleans, and he told me I could get into the custom-house. 

Q. When was that?—A. The last time he was there before the sub- 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1205 

coininittee came to New Orleans. I do not know the month ; but I saw 
him in the attorney-generaPs office. 

Q. Have yon had a position in the custom-house ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Wlien you speak of the attorney-generaPs office, you mean the 
State attorney-generaPs office?—A. Yes, sir; I mean the State attor¬ 
ney-generaPs office. 

Q. When did you iiave the tirst coiiversatiou that you detailed with 
Mr. Herbert?—A. I had it on the corner of Carondelet and Poydras 
streets. 

Q. I asked you wiien ?—A. The hitter part of October or November. 

Q. Fix the date as near as you can?—A. 1 cannot fix any datesj I 
have got no dates to fix. 

Q. WHio were iirej-'cnt at that conversation ?—A. Nobody but Herbert 
and myself. 

Q. Wdio comanmced the conversation?—A. I could not tell you; I 
think Mr. flerbert. 

Q. State the last time you saw him previous to that conversation?— 
A. 1 did not have but three with him ; which one do j’ou want me to 
tell you about ? 

Q. You are speaking of the first conversation, and it was the latter 
part of October or the first of November ?—A. Do you mean the first 
conversation before that? 

Q. Yes, sir.—A. Now I undestand you. I never had one with him 
before more than jiassing on the street. 

Q. When did you have the next conversation after that ?—A. It 
might have been a'week, or it might have been a day or two more. 

Q. Where did you have that one ?—A. The corner of Poydras and 
Baronne streets. 

Q. Who was present ?—A. No one but him and me. He was stand¬ 
ing up by an iron post when I accosted him. 

Q. When was the third conversation?—A. On the Gth or 7th of this 
present mouth, at the corner of the ])ost-office in New Orleans. 

Q. Who were present then ?—A. Noboby except the gentleman and 
myself. He was standing there in his shirt sleeves. 

Q. No one at all heard him except yourself?—A. No, sir. 

Q. When did you first learn Herbert’s name?—A. I learned it after 
we had the first conversation. 

Q. AYhen you had the tirst conversation yon did not know his name ?— 
A. No, sir; I learned it afterwards, and I knew him by sight only. 

Q. How long was it after that first conversation before you learned 
it ?—A. About twenty-four hours. I saw him passing along the street, 
and I asked a gentleman what was his name. 

Q. What gentleman was that ?—A. His name is Mac something. I 
cannot remember his name, but he used to be mate on a steamer. I 
think his name was McMickle. 

By Senator Kellogg ; 

Q. Mr. Stokes, have you been employed at the custom-house at all ?— 
A. No. sir. 

Q. What have you been doing during the past 2 or 3 years ?—xi. 
Nothing at all. 

Q. You have had no occupation at all?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know Captain Parker at the mint?—xV. I know him very 
well. 

Q. Did you tell him to come to me two or three days before the com¬ 
mittee came to New Orleans, and tell me that you were going to testify 
for Spoftbrd ?—A. No, sir. 


1206 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Were you in the habit of borrowing money from him, 25 cents and 
50 cents at a time?—A. !N^o, sir; but I have borrowed money from Cap¬ 
tain Parker. 

Q. How many times did you testify before the committee in New Or¬ 
leans ?—A. I testified once, and was recalled twice. 

Q. Now, when you were called first, it was on Monday, I think. Did 
you have a conversation with Captain Parker the Saturday before ?—A. 
The last time I had a conversation with him was to go to him to borrow^ 
a valise to come to Washington. 

Q. I mean when did you have your last conversation with him before 
the sub committee came to New Orleans?—A. I cannot remember. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with him, to the effect that you 
were going to testify, before the committee came; that you must have 
something to do or you would testify against me?—A. I cannot say ; I 
think it was Wednesday I went on the stand, instead of Monday. 

Q. You came in on Monday?—A. Yes, sir ; but I did not testify. I 
was sick. I beg your pardon, I did not go in on Monday; I think it 
was Wednesday; for two or three days I was under the influence of 
morphine, and I referred the chairman to the physician who gave it to 
me, and 1 would not go on the stand while under that influence. 

Q. Where did you live at that time?—A. 490 YVhite street, New Or¬ 
leans. 

Q. Have you a family there ?—A. I have. 

Q. Do they live there now ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At 490 White street ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever write to me, demanding aiflace in the custom house ? 
—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you ever write, asking a place?—A. Yes, sir; I cannot tell 
the date of it; but you told me to write to you. 

Q. Did you write to me, and propose that you would go to Burke with 
information, if you did not get a place in the custom-house ?—A. I do 
not think 1 did. 

Q. Did you not write me that ?—A. No, sir; I do not recollect it. 

Q. What did you write?—A. I wrote a letter asking for a ])lace. 

, Q. Was it an application for a position ?—A. No, sir ; not exactly. 

Q. You say you know Captain Parker ?—A. I know Captain Parker 
well. 

Q. Did you apply to General McMillen for an office ?—A. 1 did—no, 
sir; 1 did not. 1 did not apply to him, but Dr. Scott applied to him for 
a position for me. 

Q. Did you testify to the committee anything like this? 

Q. Have you ever applied to anyone else to help you to get a position ?—A. Yes, sir. 
I asked Governor McMillen for a position. 

A. I explained that. You see it was Dr. Scott who asked him, and 
told me to go there. 

Q. You go on and say: 

Q. When did you ask him ?—A. A number of times, and he would put me otf, and 
finally he said he would. He told a gentleman in the city that he would, and I staid 
there five days; and of all the meanness and inicpnty ever put into a man, it was put 
into Mr. McMillen. 

A. I told the committee that he told Dr. Scott that I could have a 
place, and for me to come. I went there, and staid there five days, just 
as I stated in New Orleans. My memory is not treacherous on points 
of that sort. I said that 1 had gone to General McMillen for a position.. 
Dr. Scott went there twice. I said he kept me there waiting for five 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1207 

days each time, and be would take a negro from one side and the other 
of me and talk to him, and no attention to me. 

Q. Did you ever apply to General McMillen for a place in the post- 
oftice ?—A. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Q. You said no a while ago, that you had not applied to him.—A. I 
said I went there after he had told Dr. Scott that he would give me a 
place. 

Q. You admit that you did apply to General McMillen A. I did. 

Q. A number of times ?—A. He told me to call a number of times, 
and I called every day, but I do not call every time I went there the 
making of an application. 

Q. But you did call a number of times?—A. That is right; uow you 
have got it. 

Q. Did General McMillen refuse to give you a position ?—A. No, sir; 
not positively ; but he did it in this way: that he kept me running there 
day after day, and finally I did not go at all. 

Q. He never did give you a place ?—A. He never did. 

Q. Did he put any indignity on you?—A. Yes, sir; I think he did. 
He took a negro from first one side of me and then tlie other, and 
wouhl leave me sitting there. 

Q. And you think he treated you with indignity ?—A. I do. 

Q. So you did apply to General McMillen ?—A. I did. 

Q. And a number of times?—A. I applied when he first took his of¬ 
fice, and I went a number of times, but he did not give me any, and I 
went away, and the next application was through Dr. Scott, and I went 
again ; but he treated me in the same way, and 1 never went back any 
more. 

Q. You said in your testimony in New Orleans that you were super¬ 
visor of registration in Catahoula Parish in 1870?—A. I did. 

Q. Where were you in 1871?—A. In Terrebonne Parish. Yfu know 
where it is ; why do you ask me for? 

Q. I want it in the record. If I remember a right, you spoke of being 
taken in irons and on a gunboat to Texas?—A. Idid not. If you read 
the testimony there, you will find out what I said. 

Q. If I remember, you were asked why you did not take out a writ of 
habeas corims^ and you said that you were taken out into the river and 
kept there all night.—A. I did not say anything of the kind. 

Q. Was there anything said about your going out in a boat in the 
middle of the riv^er?—A. Tliere wa.s. 

Q. And about their taking you to Texas?—A. There was. 

Q. I ask you as a matter of fact, were you taken out in a boat ?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did they put you out in the river?—A. No, sir; they did not put 
me into the river. 

Q. But did they take you in a boat into the river ?—A. Yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF CHABLES CAVANx\C. 

Charles Cavanao, a witness heretofore examined on behalf of the 
memorialist, recalled to the stand. 

By Mr. Walker : 

Question. Mr. Oavanac, a witness by the name of Elder has stated that 
Francis Garrett was co-operating with you in getting up witnesses ia 


1208 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


^tbe interest of Judge Spofford; is that true or not'^—Answer. I never 
had any conversation with Mr. Garrett in regard to the case in rny life, 
that I know of. 

Q. Do you know, or did you ever hear of Mr. Garrett having any con¬ 
nection with the case excei)t as a witness?—A. I never heard of any 
connection between him and the case except as a witness. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Mr. Elder spoke of goingto your office, and certain specified ques¬ 
tions were put to him as to what passed between you and him there, 
and as to whetlier or not you told him that Judge Spofford had in¬ 
structed that no money should be i)aid to witnesses or used in this case 
for the |)ayment of witnesses for their testimony. Please state what oc¬ 
curred, and state it as briefly and concisely as you can.—A. I under¬ 
stood that there was a man there by the name of Golden representing 
Spofford. 1 put a man on his track to find who Golden was, and I as¬ 
certained that he was residing at 141 Custom-house street, and this man 
came and brought me a card showing that this maids name was Elder. 
When I found out that his name was Eider 1 addressed a note to 
him on the 2d of May, asking him to come to my office. He dididt 
come to my office on that day, and i saw him on tlie street and went up 
to him. I said, “ Is this Mr. Elder f’ He said, “ Yes. sir.” I said, “My 
name is (iavanac, and I wrote a note to you to come to my office ; did 
you get it ?” He said, “ 1 believe 1 did.” 1 sai<l, “ I thought it strange 
that you should be here as a friend of Judge Sjiofford, and Judge Bpof- 
ford should not tell me anything about it.” I said, “ I should like to see 
you and have a conference with you about this matter.” He said he 
had letters and telegrams from Spofford sliowing what he was to do. I 
said to him please call the next day, and we would compare notes. He 
came and sat down in my office and I took out and showed a letter of 
Judge ^)offbrd’s. 

Mr. Shellbarger. If it is the contents of a letter do not state it. 

By Mr. WAlker: 

Q. Where is that letter ?—A. It is at home, in my desk. 

Q. If you stated to him yourself what was contained in the letter 
then you can state it to the committee. 

Mr. Shellabarger. If it is for the purpose of impeaching Elder 
simply, I make no objection. 

Mr. Merrick. It is to impeacli Elder, and not to be used as original 
evidence. 

The WiTJ\ESS. I read from that letter a portion of it. It was a letter 
addressed to me by Judge Siioffbrd, stating that he desired no testimony 
that had to be iiurchased, and he wanted no evidence except that which 
was true. I read that to Elder, and he stated to me that was exactly 
what he was doing. I said I liad received adistialcii from Spoffbrd ask¬ 
ing who Golden was, andT said “I answered that Golden was you,” and 
that 1 thought it was very strange that he was going by the name of 
Golden. He said that his name was not Golden, and he was not going 
under that name, and I took out and read to him a full description of 
himself, even to a peculiar breastpin which he wore, and I showed him 
the card of which I spoke a little while ago. 

Q. Did he admit tiiat he was Golden ?—xV. Yo, sir. 

Q. He never did ?—A. Xo, sir, and would not do it. 

Q. What else was said between you ?—A. I said to him, “ Have you 
any letters or telegrams from Judge Spofford as you stated yesterday 
evening ?” and he said, '‘Xo, I must acknowledge that 1 have none: I 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1209 


have been sent here by other ])arties, and I have had no conversation or 
coininnnication with Jnd^^e Spott'ord.'^ lie said, “There are some men 
here \yho can be approached by me and who would be afraid of yon.^^ 
He said he had been vsent there by other parties, and I said to him, “ You 
Ijave been ofterin^ money for testimony.” He said that he had not, 
and that he was instructed not to buy any testimony. 

Q. Did yon ever have any conversation with Lawrence Herbert?—A. 
Yes, sir; in April of last year, 1879. 

Q. Is he the same man who has testified here ?—A. Yes, sir; that is 
the man ; De Lacy had made an affidavit about receiving from George 
L. Smitli, in the house of representatives, when the vote was being taken 
for Senator Kellogg, a sealed envelope coiitaining money, ])aid to him 
for voting for Kellogg, lie stated that George L. Smith threw it down 
on the desk, and told him to stand by Kellogg and all would be all right. 
Herbert came and wanted to make an affidavit corroborating that state¬ 
ment of De Lacy’s. 

Q. Herbert wanted to corroborate De Lacy ?—A. Yes, sir; he came 
to me frecpiently and wanted to make an affidavit. 

Q. Was he with De Lac}^ when De Lacy made the affidavit?—xV. No, 
sir; 1 think De Lacy was with him the next <lay when he came. I 
would like, Mr. Chairman, to state, in justice to myself and Judge Spof- 
ford and one of the witnesses who testilied in relation to money being 
being handed me by Judge Spoiford, on the evening for my departure, 
June 2, Sunday evetiing, Judge Spoiford drove down to my office. No 
money had been advanced to pay the expenses of witnesses, and he 
drove down and handed me the ti(;kets tor six witnesses, I believe, and 
gave ine $25 for each w'itness. 1 handed the money to the sergeant at- 
aruis, and told him to give them the money, and take an order from 
each of them for the amount, $59.10. 

By Mr. WxVLKER : 

Q. And the money was refunded ?—xV. W‘S, sir; to Judge Spofford. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. I would like to ask the witness as to the signature to one of these 
papers. Is that the signature of Governor Hahn ?—A. 1 do not knowL 
sir; I do not know his signature. 

Q. Is that the signature of Mr. Wooltiey, the commissioner ?— A. It 
looks like it, but 1 would not be positive. 

D. That is the De Lacy affiiiavit A. Yes, sir; that is the witness 
who swa^re he never made the affidavit. 

Q. \Niis the Seveignes affidavit taken before you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. I w’ant to ask you if you w^ere not cross-examined on that subject 
in New' Orleans ?—A. I was, sir. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Nowl i\Ir. Cavanai!, 1 submit another (piestion to you, and I do not 
want you to answer until the committee say w'hether you shall or not. 
1 want you to state to the committee what the fact is witli regard to this 
(juestion and answer : 

Q. Do you know this man Williams ?—A. I saw him in Washington City. I saw 
him going up in Willard’s Hotel. I saw him going towards Governor Kelloggs 
room; it was not far from mine. I saw him there and saw him with the witnesses. 

Do you mean to say that you saw him there going to my room with 
the witnesses?—A. 1 did not mean to say that I saw him going to your 
room w'ith the witnesses, but I saw' him going towards your room and I 
saw’ him with the witnesses. 


1210 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I 


TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. MORSE. 

George W. Morse, a witness called on bebalf of the ineinorialist, 
sworn and examined. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Question. AVill you give the reporter your full name?—Answer. I have. 

Q. Where do you reside?—A. In AVashington City. 

Q. AVhat is your present occupation ?—A. My present occupation is 
pursuing the thieves who have stolen my invention of guns. 

Q. That is for the Morse Arms Company ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you have litigation on that subject ?—A. I have halt' a dozen 
different suits. 

Q. For infringement of your patents ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Sf)offord ?—A. I do know him, sir. 

Q. How long have you known him ?—A. My acquaintance began with 
him in 1845, when he went to North Louisiana, to reside in Natchitoches. 

Q. Did yon know him intimately?—A. Yes, sir, 1 did; for several 
—— 1 have not met him for a good many years until he came here on 
this case. 

Q. In the relations existing between men they shade all the way 
down Iroin mere acquaintanceship to close friendship. What were 
your relations with Spofford ?—A. Aline was the relation of the closest 
friendship when we were youiig men going to partiesand balls in INatch- 
itoches, as it was a very gay j)iace. 

Q. Did you take an interest on account of thac friendship in his contest 
for this seat?—A. The cordiality of our meeting when we came on here 
recalled those old times, and I took a very lively interest for him on 
that account. 

Q. A witness by the name of Elder has said that he had a contract 
with Spofford about getting testimony in this case. If you know Elder, 
go on and state in your own way what the relations of Elder were to the 
case. Y^ou are a gentleman of such intelligence that it is not necessary 
to ask you questions ?—A. I think your question relates to my first ac¬ 
quaintance with Air. Eider, some two or three years ago; meeting him 
with Judge Elam, whom I had known for some years. Elam came from 
my district in Louisiana and knew my people. I visited him frequently, 
and met Elder there at Elam’s frequently. Of course the political con¬ 
dition of the State came up, and its politics were frequently under dis¬ 
cussion. Air. Elder took part in the conversations. We supposed and 
believed there had been a great deal of cheating and swindling down 
there, and Mr. Elder seemed to know a great deal about it, and -from 
what I could gather had been partly connected with the men who rep¬ 
resented themselves to be Republicans in that part of the country, and 
spoke of their rascalities, and that they bribed and cheated, and all this 
sort of thing. 

Q. Are you speaking of what lie said in conversation in relation to 
Kellogg ?—A. I speak of a conversation I had after I became acquainted 
with him, and I came to the conclusion that Air: Eider knew a great deal 
about political matters in New Orleans. When Air. Spofford came here 
I was still associating with Judge Elam and Mr. Elder, and I heard 
w’hat he said about the election down there. 

Q. What did he say ?—A. He said there had been frauds committed 
and a great deal of iniquity in the election. 

Q. AVho said this ?—A. Air. Eider did; and he intimated that he could 
find it out. When the matter between Judge Spofford and Governor 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1211 


Kellofj" came up lie spoke of that also, and impressed me fully with the 
idea that he could ^ain sufhcient evidence to overturn Kellogg" and turn 
him out of his seat in twenty-four hours. I learned also from Judge 
Elam that Mr. Elder had discovered a certain forgery of, I think, the 
name of Levivsee, one of the Presidential electors. I understood that 
he had discovered that and made it known, and Elder told me that 
he had been a iletective in several other cases. I went to my friend 
Judge 8})()tford and suggested that he employ Elder to go down there 
after the testimony, llis reply was that he had evidence enough al¬ 
ready. and that he did not believe it was necessary, and, in fact, did not 
desire it. I think I went to him a second time about it, and he still 
thought there was no use in sending him, and I consulted some of Judge 
Siiofford’s friends, men whom I knew had great influence with him, 
about the iirojiriety of sending Elder anyhow, and we all thought that 
Judge Spotford was too tender-footed about hunting up witnesses. After 
one of these conversations with Elder, in which he had iinjiresseil me 
seriously that the work .should be done, I made up my mind that 1 would 
emi>loy him myself, and I went and consulted again the friends of Judeg 
Spofford, and they all said therecoidd be no harm in it. I then agreed 
to meet Elder at AVillard\s Hotel and make some bargain about his going. 
AVe consulted there in the general hallway, and 1 asked him how much 
I he wanted. He said 8500. I said, “ AVell, Mr. Elder, I cannot raise 8500, 

I and you .say you can get the necessary testimony in twenty-four hours, 
and I do not'seewiiat need you will have for that amount of money 
He said to me, “If I get the* testimony that will put him out, I want 
$500 for it.” 1 said, “ I do not know as I object to that, if you get the 
testimony and turn Kellogg out.” t did not know Kellogg and liad no 
interest in him. 1 said, “ If you get such testimony as you say you can 
get I will guarantee the $50().” 1 did not consult Judge Spofford, and 

J do not think I told Elam at first. AVheii Eider found he could not get 
the 8500, and could get a less sum, he said “You go and make your ar¬ 
rangements and I will start.” I (lid not have the money myself, and 
did not know where to get it. I went up to Judge Spofford’s room at 
the National Hotel, and 1 said, “ I come here to see you in a hurry.” I 
said, “ 1 want you to give me your check for 8150 or 8^00.” He said, “ I 
am only here temporarily,” and he had only about 8<)0 in his])ockt‘t, and 
he had'no bank account*. But said he, “ I will have it here in several 
days.” But 1 told him that did not suit me, and I left saying, “ I \yill 
get that money and have it to-night.” So I went out and borrowed a 
hundre<l dollars from one man and a hundred from another, and went 
to Willard’s to meet Elder. I took him in the back room there where 
there was a table, and 1 agreed with him that he was to receive 8-<k> on 
' exj)enses account. He was to obtain the character of testifuony that he 
I spoke of, and if he obtained such as he said could be had, and it had 
that effect, I would then be responsible for the 85()(). 1 suppose, of 

course, his expenses would be less than 8-^00 in getting it. He drew up 
a receipt, or I did, for and I took it I said to him, “ 1 may want 

to have some cories})ondence with y(ui, and it would not do to mention 
those names in a telegram.” 1 said, “ We should have some thing by 
which we can communicate.” He gave me the names on a slit) of t)a])er, 
and we agreed on certain names that wer(^ to indicate ceitain othei 
names, a sort of cipher that we were to use. He could not start that 
day but was to start the next day. 1 do not know that I have a memo¬ 
randum of it here, but it was some time in April that he went away. 

Q. Will you look at that paper (handing witness a paper.) Identify 
it and state what it is. 




1212 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The witness identified and read the following: | 

Washington, D. C., April 15, 1879. I 
Received of George W. Morse the sum of $200 to be accounted for on expense account | 
in preparation of testimony in the Spofford-Kellogg case in the Unitec^S^te^^^at^. |j 

That is the receipt I took of him. | 

Q. What is the date of it ?—A. April 15, 1879.* I took particular oc- i 
casion to impress ui)on Mr. Elder the importance of getting testimony ! 
that should be free from all taint, and that it must not be paid for. His , 
reply to me was, “ Do you think I am a fool and don’t understand my 
business?”. I said that might be or not, but I wanted that particularly 
understood that he was not to pay a cent to witnesses. Some time after 
he was gone I received a telegram from him ; 1 think it must be here j 
among the papers. ! 

fCounsel handed the witness two telegrams that had i.ot been pre- j 
viously identitied.] [j 

The witness identified the telegrams as genuine, and they were re* ! 
served to be subsequently referred to. • 

The Witness. 1 received a telegram from New Orleans from Mr. ^ 
Elder, in which he gave the names of certain parties whom he had or 
could obtain as witnesses, and he did not mention in that telegram a ^ 
single name that we had agreed upon in cipher. Not one of those names ^ 
was mentioned. Then I wrote hitn a letter in which I said to him, I 

think- r 

(Mr. Shellabarger, objected to the witness stating the contents of 
the letter.) ! 

Mr. Merrick. Just read those telegrams now to the committee, the ; 

one you sent and the reply. 

A. This telegram was received by me from Mr. Elder, dated in New 
Orleans, April 26, 1879 : 


Have positive proof of $2,000 paid direct to senators and members. When will you 
be here ? Answer. Understand my business. 

J. W. ELDER. 


Q. Is that the telegram you received from Mr. Elder ?—A. That is 
the telegram that I received from Mr. Elder. Sometime after Mr. Elder 
left here Judge Spofford came down to 1113 ^ house with a telegram which 
he had received from a friend in New Orleans. This telegram stated— 

Mr. Shellabarger objected to the contents of the telegram being 
given in evidence by the witness. 

Q. (By Mr. Merrick :) State as a fact what you did in consequence 
of that visit. Mr. Spofford came and showed you a telegram he had 
received ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then what did you do ?—A. I sent this telegram to Mr. Elder ' 


Washington, D. C., April 26, 1879.’ 

J. W. Elder, City Hotel, New Orleans, Louisiana: 

Who is J. W. Golden ? Have you violated our agreement that no pecuniary induce j 
ment should be offered witnesses f Answer at once. ^ 

GEO. W. MORSE. « 


Q. What is the date of that?—A. 2Gth of April. 

Q. Now, what is the date of that other telegram ?—A. It is dated'^ 
New Orleans, Ajiril 27, 1879. 

Q. Please read it.—A. (Beads). 

New Orleans, April 27, 1879 J 
To Mrs. Morse, 2037 F Street, Northwest, Washington, District of ColumMa : '1 

Don’t know Golden. No agreement violated nor will be. ' j 


J. W. ELDER. 







SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1213 


Soon after I telegraphed to Elder to come home, but he did not come, 
and 1 heard nothing more from him for some time; but a friend of mine 
sent me a letter which had been received by Mrs, Elder from her hus¬ 
band in New Orleans, which I believe is in evidence here. I then as 
soon as lie did not obey my orders and instructions considered him out 
of my hands. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. When was that ?—A. When he refused to come home after my 
telegram. As he neglected to obey my orders I gave him up. 

By Mr. Shellabarger : 

Q. What is the date?—A. It is the date of my telegram in which I 
ordered him home. The moment he failed to obey the order and be¬ 
came disobedient and I considered him out of my range altogether. 
Some time after a friend of mine brought a letter which Mrs. Eldersent 
to me, and after that I had information of another letter which Mrs. 
Elder had received, and I went to see her, and she gave me that letter 
and the letter is here in evidence somewhere. 1 had given up all idea 
of Mr. Elder’s being of any benefit to Mr. Spofford, and suspected him 
very seriously of being a traitor, but when he came here on the 13th of 
June with Mr. Cornog, I went to his house with Mr. Elam. Elder had 
just arrived, and Cornog was washing his face or taking a bath. I told 
him what Cornog could prove, and he had it so sure that there was no 
evading it. 1 considered his testimony very important, and my hopes 
about Mr. Elder revived. I took him to Judge Spofford and Mr. Mer¬ 
rick, and he handed him some affidavits which he had received in New 
Orleans. He stated what he had done and could do, and that he had 
been very useful. lie said if he had come on here with the witnesses 
who had just gone back on Spofford that he would have kept them so 
straight that they could not have gone back on their testimony ; that he 
would have slept with them before they should have gone back. He 
stated openly that they had been tampered with and spirited away from 
Judge Spoftbrd. 

Q. You mean the witnesses who came here in general ?—A. Yes, sir; 
he said if he had been here he would have kept them under his thumb. 
1 kei)t np some little correspondence since then with Elder and Cornog, 
which it is not perhaps essential to state. 1 have had some conversa¬ 
tion and intercourse with him since about the subjectmatter of my em- 
l)loying him. When he came back he did not ask me for the $500, and 
1 thought he had believed that he had not complied with his contract. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Do you remember whether in the last few days he came to you and 
wanted some money, and stated that he had earned it ?—A. Yes, sir; 
he came on several occasions. 

Q. Do you remember whether he came last Saturday or Sunday ?— 
A. I think it was Saturday night. He met me near Willard’s and asked 
me to see Mr. Walker and have him i)aid, and said that my word would 
bring the money. 1 think 1 met him with another gentleman, and 1 
told him whatever he had fairly earned would be i)aid him, and that 
while Spofford did not pay for witnesses he would be fairly paid for 
whatever service he had rendered. 1 said to him on Saturday that he 
had been subpienaed on the other side, and that I must go back and 
tell Spotford’s friends not to pay him until after he had been examined 
and the whole case was over; and I said to him that the cause of it 
was that he might say he was bribed. He said, “ Very well; but 1 am 






1214 


SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


dismissed.” in order that he might not be misrepresented I went, to 
Willard’s Hotel and told Mr. Merrick that he had been dismissed and 
would not be on the stand. He wanted me to remain, but I was due 
in New York, and was going there. 

Q. I insisted on your remaining, did I hot?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had you told Elder that you were going away?—A. I think I did 
on Saturday night say to him that I was going away on Monday, and I 
wanted to say to him that I had told Judge Spofford’s friends not to pay 
anything until the whole case was over. 

Q. Did he tell you then that he was discharged—dismissed, that is the 
word ? 

Q. I told you that I insisted on your remaining?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And if you did not, that he Avould certainly go on the stand?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Where were you when thesubpa3na was served on you ?—A. I was in 
the cars, about three minutes before starting. You said I must not go j 
you wanted me to come up here and walk about three or four hours 
until 11 or 12 o’clock to let them see me about here. 

Q. And you made me promise not to subpoena you?—A. Yes, sir. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. Do you mean to say that you yourself, on your own responsibility, 
hired this man to go to New Orleans?—A. 1 am soriy to say that I did. 

Q. Without the consent of Judge Spofford or his knowledge ?—A. No, 
sir;; he knew nothing of it at the time, but I stated that 1 advised with 
some of his friends. f 

Q. When you went there to his room to borrow the money did you ; 
tell him what you wanted with it?—A. No, sir; I did not. ’ v 

Q. Did Elder, Avhen he came back, tell you that he had failed to get |i 
the testimony that he desired, and that Spotford’s case had failed, and 1, 
that Kellogg’s was a good one?—A. No, sir; he never gave me any su(;h 
idea; on the contrary, he always expressed himself the other way. J| 

By Senator LoGan : ' j 

Q. From whom did Mr. Elder get his instructions—the names of the , 
members he was to see down there?—A. 1 have no knowledge of any¬ 
thing of the kind; I never gave him any list, and I do not know of any- : 
body who did. j i 

By Senator Kellogg : 1: 

Q. Mr. Morse, whose handwriting is that? (passing a i)aper to the i1 
witness.)—A. I am unable to say, sir, positively. I] 

Q. Do you know Judge Spotford’s writing?—A. I have received a few^ || 
letters from him, but I do not know it very well. I| 

Q. Have you any of them with you ?—A. No, sir; I have not. fl 

Q. Will you examine that and say whose handwriting it is? (pass- ii 
iug another paper to the witness.)—A. I do not know anything about i 
it; 1 do not know' who w^rote it. B 

Q. You said that Mr. Spofford was a friend of long standing?—A. 1| 
Yes, sir. II 

Q. Did you have much correspondence with him?—A. No, sir; not I' 
much of late years; it was a social relation simply. 

Q. Have you had any letters from him in the las*^t few years?—A. Two ^ 
or three. " « 

^ Q. Do not you know his handwriting ?—A. No, sir; I do not know it. t 
Q. 1 understood you to say that you first had a conversation with iVIr. i 
Elam regarding this man Elder, did I not?—A. I do not think I spoke t 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1215 


it in that way. I met Mr. Elder at Mr. Elam’s quarters, and we had con¬ 
versations together, but [ do not think Mr. Elam said anything to me * 
about him. 

Q. You recollect at what time you first saw him there?—A. Very 
soon after .Judge Elam was first elected. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Elam and Elder at Elam’s 
quarters about the 1st April ?—A. He was at my house, Mr. Elam was. 

Q. Did Mr. Elder go there frequently?—A. No, sir; I do not think 
he was ever there but twice, and one of those times I did not see him. 

Q. Did I understand you to say that you talked with Judge ISpo&'ord 
in the first instance about employing Elder?—A. I advised with Judge 
Spoftord about it. 

Q. After or before you saw him with Elam ?—A. I advise<l with Judge 
Spofibrd after we had those con verisations with Elam and Elder. 

Q. Then you met Judge Stmfi'ord, and told him you thought Elder 
could be of some service ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where was Spofibrd ?—A. He was at the National Hotel. 

Q. What time was this ?—A. It is impossible for me to fix the date. 

Q. How near can you come to it ?—A. It was not long before I sent 
him to New Orleans. 

Q. It was just before you sent Mr. Elder to New Orleans tliat you saw 
-Spofibrd at the Nationai Hotel regarding it?—A. Not Just before. 

Q. How long before ?—A. Some time before 1 sent Elder to New Or¬ 
leans 1 went and told Spofford that I thought Elder could be useful to 
him, and he replied that he did not want ariy more testimony. 

Q. How long was that before you ])aid the inoney to Elder at Wil¬ 
lard’s Hotel ?—A. It is imimssible for me to say. It might have been 
anywhere from a week to a m(»nth and a half. 

Q. Did Spofibrd tell you to send him down there?—A. No, sir. Judge 
Spofibrd did not want him employed, and always oi)|>osed his going. 

Q. He did not consent to it then ?—A. No, sir. I was comj)elled to 
do it against his will. I felt friendly to him, and I determined to .send 
him down there. I just took the bit in my mouth and had my own way 
about it. 

Q. You borrowed money from Si)ofibrd to pay him ?—A. No, sir; not 
from Spofibrd. 

Q. Did he not give you a check ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Whom did you borrow it from ?—A. I borrowed $100 from John 
B. Elam. 

Q. Whom did you get the $100 from ?—A. From Senator Jonas. 

By ]\lr. Merrk K : 

Q. I will ask you if you ever got that money back from Spofibrd ?—A. 
Yes, sir. I went soon after to him, and told him tliat I had sent Elder 
to New Orleans and borrowed the money to pay him, and he must give 
it back to me, so that I could pay it. 

Q. How long after Elder had gone?—A. It must have been a week or 
two, or more. 

By Senator Kellogg: 

Q. Did you give any instructions to Elder when he started to New 
Orleans?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you give him any written document or statement of what he 
was to do ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you give hiin no data regarding the members of the legisla¬ 
ture ? Did you give him no specific instructions regarding the members 



1216 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


of tbe legislature!—A. None other in the world than that he should not 
* bribe them or pay auy of them money. 

Q. Do you know the names of those members?—A. No, sir; not one 
of them. 

Q. Did you give him the names that are on these papers !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Were there auy other papers giv^en him !—A. iSo, sir ; not that I 
recollect. 

Q. Did you know that he was to take the evidence in the form of afiB- 
davits!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why did you want sworn statements instead of unsworn ones!— 
A. Because I thought men who wouid go before a justice of the peace 
or other officer and make a sworn affidavit would not go back on it. 

Q. You instructed him to take them in that way!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The affidavits were turned over to Mr. Merrick!—A. 1 do not 
know, sir. 

Q. bo you know the number of them !—A. 1 do not. 

Q. Do you know what particular affidavits Mr. Elder took !—A. Noy 
sir ; 1 could not name a single one of them. 

Mr. Merrick. I will state to Senator Kellogg that I have not offered 
a single one of his affidavits. 

Mr. Shellabaeger. If it is stated to this committee by Mr. Merrick 
that none of those affidavits given him by Elder are to be used before 
the Senate we should like to understand it and have it on the record. 

Senator Hill. What has been said about them is down. 

Mr. Shellabaeger. If any of the affidavits taken by Elder are to 
be introduced and used I want to know it now for the purpose of this 
cross-examination. 

Mr. Merrick. If counsel can point to a single one of them, then we 
will take up the question and it will be decided. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. You stated that you considered Eider entirely out of your hands 
after the 12th May, when he refused to come home.—A. Yes, sir; when 
he refused to come home. 

Q. You then considered him out of your hands!—A. Y^es, sir; out of 
my control, because he did not obey my instructions. 

Q. At what time did he come here with Cornog; did he not bring him 
up here from New Orleans!—A. Yes, sir; the 13th June. 

Q. Was it in June, after the 12th May, that you met him at Merrick’s 
office!—A. I met him when he came up here with Cornog. 

Q. And after that you met him at Merrick’s !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And then he turned over these affidavits !—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you saw him at his home before that!—A. Yes, sir : we started 
from there to go to see Merrick. I went to Elder’s housis, and took him 
to Merrick’s with Cornog. 

Q. Can you not tell us what time that was!—A. I think it was 10.30 
or 11 o’clock at night. 

Q. Do you know when the southern train comes in !—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Cornog testify the next morning before this committee !—A. 
I think he did. 

Q. Did you have auy conversation with him after he testified !_A. I 

do not remember. 

Q. Or with Elder!—A. No, sir; I do not know about that. 

Q. Do you not know^ there was some difficulty with Cornog about his 
pay!—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you not undertake to arrange it!—A. I did, and 1 did ar¬ 
range it. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1217 


Q. Did you agree with Elder that lie was to come on here and tes¬ 
tify ?—A. \es, sir; 1 tlnnk 1 did. After Elder came with Cornog I 
felt better of him, and thought the evidence was important. 

Q. \ou cut loosefrom him before that, on the 12th May ?—A. Yes, sir; 
but I took him up again because I thought the testimony of Cornog 
was good. 

Q. Then after the 12th May you had (mt loose from him and you 
coupled on again after he came here with Cornog ?—A. Yes, sir ; for "the 
reason 1 have stated. 

Q. Did you converse with Spofford about the importance of Cornog’s 
testimon^’ f—A. I think I did afterwards, but not at the time. 

Q. After Elder came up here with Cornog and you were better satisfied 
with him, did you consult about it with Spoftord?—A. I do not know 
whetlier I did or not. 

Q. Did you write that postal card to Elder ? [handing witness a postal 
card.]—A. Y^es, sir ; I did. * 

Q. Where from ?—A. From Xew Y'ork. 

Q. Will you please read it. 

[The postal card was read and admitted in evidence as follows: 

New York City, 

October 18, 1879. 

T. W. Elder, Esq., 

FI street, near the corner of lOth street, X. JF., IVashington, D. C. 

Your card received. I sent your letter to Judge Spofford. He says that you will be 
sent for at the proper time, but does not know exactly when. I am in communication 
with C., who will be called also, I presume. 

G. W. M. 

(Postmarked) New York, Oct. 21, 9:30 A. M., A. 

Q. Did you write that letter to Mr. Elder ?—A. I did, sir. 

Q. Will you read it ? 

A letter was introduced in evidence, and was read, as follows : 

New York City, September 14, 1879. 

Dk.4R Sir : Your letter is at hand, but at present I know nothing in regard to the 
whereabouts of Judge Spofford. When I sent the money to Cornog, the judge was 
somewhere away, uj) in Vermont, but informed me that he should only remain there a 
few days; and this was some months ago. I do not doubt that he will turn up in 
time, nor that he will make all things right. 

Yours, truly, 

GEO. W. MORSE. 

To J. W. Elder, Esq., 

Corner of lOth and H St., (941 // St.,) IVashington, D. C. 

Q. When did you send the money referred to in this letter to Elder 
to Cornog, that check properly indorsed f—A. I am not able to say. 

By Senator Cameron: 

Q. Fix the time as near as you can !—A. I presume it was shortly 
before this letter, but I cannot tell exactly when. 

Q. Did you write it to Mr. Polder from New York City, July 13, say¬ 
ing that you enclosed a check for 8117, projierly indorsed, to Cornog? 

(Cbjected to.) 

Q. i will change the question. Did you send a check for 8117 to Mr. 
Polder for Mr. Cornog?—A. I sent him a check for about that amount; 
it might not be exactly that. 

Q. Who drew the check ?—A. ]Mr. Spofford. 

Q. Who endorsed it ?—A. It was payable, 1 think, to my order. 

Q. And you sent it to Cornog ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you write that letter? (Passing a letter to the witness.) 

A. Yes, sir ; I think I did. 


1218 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Q. Did you write that ? (Passing-another.) 

A. Yes, sir ; I think I did. 

Q. And you have said that you know of no connection of Judge 
Spofford with the arrangement between you and Elder 1 —iV. Ko, sir ; 
none at all. 

The two letters identified by the witness were then admitted in evi¬ 
dence, as follows: 


Washington, D. C., .Ijjril 25, 1S7U. 

J. W. Eldek, Esq.: 

Deak Sir : It is utterly uucertain when an order to take testimony can be liad from 
the Senate. Other business may delay us a good while. 

We doubt whether we can get blank summonses at all. 

The names must go on the summons-book of the Senate before summonses can issue, 
All the witnesses named in your telegram of to-day, except Kelso, were fully known 
to the judge, Spofford, long ago, and he only expected you to obtain the parties named 
by you. You cannot do things in a minute ; so take your time and move cautiously. 
Delays do no harm, since we are not ready here. 

We suppose, of course, that you have Kelso’s affidavit, and that you will take affi¬ 
davits of such as you can obtain of those which you mentioned to ns. Since the evi¬ 
dence which you are expected to tind will be sufficient to oust Kellogg out of his seat 
in the Senate, it should come in a form difficult to dispute. Your men cannot deny 
their written affidavits when put on the stand here. Spofford gave you the names of 
those persons which he already had, and what we want is as many others as you can 
get. Please to sentl copies of any affidavits obtained. 

Yours truly, 


GEO. W. MORSE. 


Washington, D. C., April 27, 1879. 

J. W. Elder, Es<i., 

City Hotel, New Orleans: 

Dear Sir : The political excitement here relating to the x4rmy bill and other mat¬ 
ters, and the unavoidable absence of Judge Spofford’s counsel, will so delay action 
upon his case that no definite idea can be formed in regard to the time when it will 
be taken up. The evidence which you say yon have secured, taken in connection with 
that which had been previously obtained, will be am])ly sufficient. 

Under these circumstances it is considered advisable that you return here at once 
with whatever papers you have. 

Yours, 

GEO. W. MORSE. 


The Chairman. I wish to ask you about that letter of April 25, in 
which you state that Judge Spofford had furnished to Elder the names 
of the witnesses. I want to ask this witness if he knows of Judge Spof¬ 
ford furnishing any names f—A. I went to Kew York soon after I had 
made the arrangeinent with Elder to go to New Orleans, as I explained. 
I had a cipher with the names of the members whom he said he was to 
see. Judge Elam knew about it, for I had told him, and borrowed !|100 
from him to pay Elder. I inclosed this ciiiher in an envelope and gave 
it to my wife. I told her if any information came from Mr. Elder she was 
to open that envelope and find in it the key to inteij/ret the telegram, 
and Judge Elam was to act in my absence ami do what ever was necessary 
during that time. Some of the names were required of Spofford’s wit¬ 
nesses while I was gone. 

Senator Bailey : 

Q. You mean the names were required by the committee ?—A. T sup¬ 
pose so. I was not here, but 1 understood that Mr./Elder required the 
names of these witnesses, and that Mr. Elam inquired of Judge Spofford 
and sent them to Elder. That is the reason why I wrote in that letter 
that Judge Spofford had given him the names. Here is a memorandum 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


1219 


book ot all my trips to New York. I was in Xew York at that time, 
and when I came back I found this out. I only knew that they had 
been st*nt to him. I think my wife said she sent them, and I am sur- 
priseil that there is not a letter here from her. 1 thought perhaps one 
would turn up today. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. Yon said yon did not know how the list of names was furnished 
to Elder, the list of which you spoke in your letter of the 25th ?—A. I 
have not saiti so. I have said that xMrs. dorse induced Mr. E arn to 
get them and bring them to her. 

Do you now mean to say to the committee that yon did not know 
what conversation or interviews Judge St)ottbrd Innl with Pllder before 
he went to New Orleans, or do you mean that he did not have any 
interviews before he went ?—A. ft is impossible for me to swear that he 
had one. I can only say I knew of none and heai<l of none, and from 
what Judge Spoffbrd said to me about him I do not think he would 
have employed him any way. 

Q. And you do not believe that at the time you wrote, this letter 
Spofford had any expectations from what Elder would do in New 
Orleans?—A. I do not know what expectations Judge Spottord had 
after I told him 1 had employed Elder to go to New Orleans. 

Q. Did you leai;n from Judge S[)oftbrd, at any time after the employ¬ 
ment of Elder, that he did have any exiiectations in relation to Elder’s 
conduct in New Orleans ?—A. Judge ISpoti'ord has told me repeatedly, 
after 1 had these interviews with him, and after he had received a tele¬ 
gram from New Orleans, that Elder was going by the name of J. W. 
Golden, and that Golden and Elder was the same person. Judge Spof¬ 
ford told me repeatedly that Elder would sell him out, and always .said 
that he had no faith in him. 

Q. 1 will read a jiassage from this le;ter : ‘‘All the witnesses named 
in 3 X)ur telegram of to-day, (*xcept Kelso, were fully known to Judge 
Spotford long ago, and he only expected .you to obtain the parties 
named by you.” Now, then, if he had not employed him, and had ex¬ 
pected nothing from him, how did you come to write thatf—A. I meant 
in writing the letter to use in.y name instead of Spolford’s, because he 
had nothing to do with it. When he wrote me the telegram conveying 
the news I went up to Judge Siiolford and showed it to him, and he 
said : “ I have luul those names long ago except one, and there was no 
u.se in sending him down there to get them.” It is unfortunate for me 
that in writing I stated it that way. It was myself who expected him 
to do what he was sent to do, and Judge Spotford had no right to expect 
anything from him until after he paid the money for it. He had no 
faith in him, and told me, “George, it is always your fault to bo 
deceived by men.” 

Q. Ue paid the 8200, did he ?—A. Y'es, sir ; he paid that, because I 
borrowed it. 

Q. And he paid 8117 ?—A. Y'es, sir. 

Q. Did you take those affidavits and turn them over to Mr. .Mer¬ 
rick ?—xV.‘1 never had any thing to tlo with tiiem, and knew no more 
about them than I did of the kingdom of heaven. 

Q. “Spotford gave you the names of tho.se persons which he already 
had, and what we want is as many others as you can get. Please to 
send copies of any affidavits obtained.” How about that ?—A. That I 
have already explained to you. While 1 was gone to New York Elam 
went and got the names from Judge Spottord, and that is what I should 
have stated. 


fePOP^FORD VS. KELLOGG. 


I220 

Q. But you say S})offor(l gave tiiem to In 111 !—A. Well, I am not a 
lawyer, to write things so exactly. 

By Mr. Shellabahger : 

Q. Yon are a lawyer enough to deny that he had anything to do wilh 
the employineiit of Elder "?—A. I meant in that letter to say that the 
names had been taken and sent to him while I was gone to New York. 

By Senator Kellogg : 

Q. A"ou spoke of some letters of Mr. Elder’s ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you obtain those letters ?—A. One of them came to me 
enclosed in an envelope from a friend. 

Q. Where did the other come from ?—A. 1 went to Mrs. Elder, learn¬ 
ing she had received another letter and wanted to see me. 

By Senator Hill : 

Q. I want to understand something. You say Judge S[)offord paid 
$117 or drew a check for that amount to go to Oornog ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that to pay for his testimony or to pay his expenses?—A. 
He was not subpoenaed from New Orleans, and he was not subpoenaed 
until he got here, and we had to give him $117 more than the commit¬ 
tee allowed hijn. I w'rote to Judge Spofford thijt it was a i)roper expense, 
and he sent a draft to me to pay it. 

ByMr. Shellabakger: 

Q. Where was that promise made to Oornog ?—A. In New Orleans, 1 
suppose. 

Q. And he came on to Washington voluntarily?—A. Yes, sir j and 
then 1 fulfilled the conditions of the promise afterwards. 

Charles Oavanac recalled fora question. 

By Mr. Merrick : 

Q. Will you state what Mr. Elder said to you about the witnesses who 
went back on their affidavits?—A. He said the damned scoundrels had 
been bought up by Kellogg, and that those that he had would not do 
that way. 

Q. Hid he ever use any of those affidavits which he brought?—A. 
No, sir. 

Mr. Shellabarger. We have no more witnesses to call unless it 
should be required to meet things drawn out in the testimony to be in¬ 
troduced by Mr. Merrick. 

At this point the testimony was closed for the present, and the com¬ 
mittee adjourned the further consideration of the case to Monday, Feb¬ 
ruary 9, 1880. 


Exhibit Yi.—{Referring to the testimony of Benjamin Bloomfield.) 

ROLL OF EMPLOYES, NEW ORLEANS CUSTOM-HOUSE. 

Andersou, Thomas C., special deputy collector; June I to June 30,1879; $.3,000 per 
annum; July, August, Septniuber, October. 

Abell, Charles S., clerk ; June I to June 30, 1879 ; $1,440 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Anderson, C. B., clerk of the second class; June 1 to June .30, 1879; $1,400 per an¬ 
num; July, August, September, October. 

Ayer, James E., clerk; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,600 per annum; July, Au^^ust 
September, October. ” ’ 

Antoine, C. C., clerk and storekeeper; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $2,000 per annum; 
July, August, September, October. 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 1221 

Ad(»lphp, M. A., laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1)00 per annum; July, Au^^usfc, 
September, October, 

Allain, Lovenski J., clerk; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,000 per annum July, Au- 
gnat. 

Antoine, F. C., night inapector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $75 per month; July, AU' 
gust, September, October. 

Andrews, J., inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $90 per month; July, August, Sep* 
teniber, October. 

Anderson, E. K., laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; July, Au¬ 
gust. 

Ancoin, J. C., laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour ; July. 

Adrien, B., laborer; September 1 to September 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour. 

Adams, Hy., laborer; September 1 to September 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; Oc¬ 
tober. 

Amed6e, St. Louis, laborer; October 1 to October 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Allard, Wm., lab jrer ; October 1 to October 31, 1 ^79 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Bloomfield, Ilenjamin, auditor; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $2,500 per annum; July 
August, September, October. 

Bechtel, P. E., clerk ; .June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $1,600 per annum ; July. 

Burch, J. Henri, clerk; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,400 i)er annum: July, August, 
September, October. 

Butonuean, A., clerk; June 1 to .June 30, 1879; $1,200 per annum; July, August, 
September, October. 

Bloomfield, Geo. h., clerk; June 1 to .June 30, 1879; $1,200 per annum ; July, Au¬ 
gust, Sei)tember, October. 

Brown, Wm. G., clerk; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,400 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Brown, J. p]., messenger; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $600 per annum; July, August, 
September, October. 

Bicknell, Charles, messenger; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $600 per annum; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Blount, Alfred R., chief laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $720 per annum ; July, Au 
gust, September, October. 

Bugeson, Charles, laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $600 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Berthelot, W. II.. special inspector of drugs ; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $1,000 per an¬ 
num ; July, August. 

Bell, Henry, laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $600 per annum; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Brown, Charles F., marker ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $600 per annum ; July, August, 
Se])tember, October. 

Brooks, Richard J., night inspector; June 1 to .Juno 30, 1879; $75 per month ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Baugnon, Louis F., night inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $75 per month. 

Blanchard, Charles H., night inspector; .June 1 to June 30, 1879; $75 per month; 
.July. 

Bowen, PI. G., revenue boatman; June 1 to .June 30,1879; $600 per annum ; Jul^', 
August, Se])tember, October. 

Brooks, Thomas B., revenue boatman; .June 1 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum; 
July, August, September, October. 

liourges, Joseph P\, inspector; .June 1 to June 30,1879; $90 per mouth; .July, Au¬ 
gust, So|)tember, October. 

Barry, Robert, inspector: .Juno 1 to June 30, 1879; $90 per month ; July, August, 
Septembei, October. 

Boyle, A. O., inspector; Juno I to June 30, 1879; $90 per month; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Badger, J. S., laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, 
.September. 

Billups, H. F., laborer ; June 1 to Juno 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour ; .Inly. 

Batchelor, W. M., laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; 25 ce:.ts per hour; August, Sep¬ 
tember. 

Buckley,!). JI., laborer; Juno 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; .Inly, August, 
September, October. 

Bruno, Thomas, laborer ; July 1 to July 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Bibb, James, laborer ; August 1 to August 31, 1879; 25 cents per hour. 

Barert, William, laborer; August 1 to August 31, 1879; 25 cents per hour; Septem¬ 
ber. 

Boothby, Charles W., clerk ; September 1 to September 30, 1879 ; $1,000 per annum; 
October. 


1222 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Bryant, G. \V., laborer ; September 1 to September 31,1879; 25 cents per hour ; Octo¬ 
ber. 

Buns, J. S., laborer ; October 1 to October 31, 1879; 25 cents perbonr. 

Bull, R. J. C., clerk ; December 1, 1873 ; |1,400 per annum. 

Barrow, Jno., night inspector ; November 22, 1879 ; $2.50 per daj'. 

Crawford, John D., chief entry clerk ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $2,000 per annum ; 
July, August, September, October. 

Chapron, John M., clerk ;‘Juue 1 to .June 30, 1879 ; $1,200 per annum; July, August, 
September, October. 

Coupland, T. V., clerk ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,600 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Casanave, St. Felix, storekeeper; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,460 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Creagh, Patrick, storekeeper; June 1 to J une 30,1879 ; $1,460 per annum ; Jiily, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Cloon, F. A., assistant weigher; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,200 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Campbell, B. B., night inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $75 per month; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Cantelli, John J., night inspector ; $75 per month; July, August, September, October. 

Claus6e, Peter, revenue boatman ; .June 1 to June 30, 1879; $600 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Campbell, Henry, revenue boatman ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum ; July, 
August, September. 

Carville, J. M., inspector ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $90 per month ; one month ; July. 

Caruthers, C. F., inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $90 per month ; July, August, 
September. 

Comfort, J., laborer; June 1 to .June 30, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember. 

Clay, Charles, laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour; July, August. 

Clifford, Henry, laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour ; July. 

Clarke, E. M., laborer; JuneltoJune 30,1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, Sej)- 
tember, October. 

Carville, J. M., inspector; July 1 to July 5, 1879; $90 per mouth. 

Clark, T. M. J., laborer; August 1 to August 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour; September, 
October. 

Casey, James, laborer; August 1 to August 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Cook, Cave, laborer; October 1 to October 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Clark.son, J., laborer; October 1 to October 31, 1879; 25 cents per hour. 

Carter, John B., clerk auditing department; November 1, 1873; $1,600 per annum. 

Collier, Andrew J., chief engineer; October 3, 1879 ; $1,000 per annum. 

Casey, James, boatman; November 25, 1879; $600 per annum. 

Dumont, A. J., deputy collector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $30,00 per annum; July, 
August, September, October. 

Desrnarais, Louis, cashier ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $2,500 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Diukgrave, Wm.H., clerk ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $1,600 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Dannoy, Wm. J., laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $600 per annum ; J uly, August,, 
September, October. 

Desdunes, R. L., messenger ; June 1 to June30,1879; $600 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Duplantier, E., assistant weigher ; Junel to June 30, 1879 ; $1,200 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Dimitry, Thomas J., night inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $75 per month ; July. 

Dickey, W. B., inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $90 per month ; July, August, 
September, Octobe.'. 

Dunbar, Paul, laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August 
September, October. 

Davis, J. M., laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, 
Seittember, October. 

De Lacy, W. J. inspector; Juno 1 to June 26, 1879 ; .$90 per month ; August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Derocha, Alexander, laborer; J uly 5 to July 31,1879 ; $600 per annum; August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Dimitry, Thomas 1)., laborer; September 1 to September 30,1879; 25 cents per hour; 
October. 

Davis, Martin, boatman ; December 5, 1873; $730 per annum. 

Edwards, J., laborer; .June 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, 
September, October. ^ > 



SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG , 1223 

Eilgewortli, R., laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour ; July, August. 
Ennis, Win. J., assistant weigher; October 31, 1879;-^1,200 per annum. 

Frye, Fred.,clerk; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,200 per annum; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Fish,Carlton 11., clerk; .Tune 1 to .Tune 30, 1879; $1,400 per annum ; July, August, 
Se])tember, October. 

Fisher, F. L., messenger ; .Tune 1 to .Tune 30, 1879 ; $600 per annum; July, August, 
September, October. 

Francois, A. R., laborer: .Tune 1 to June 30,1879; $660 per annum; .Tulv, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

P'arrer,Taylor,revenue boatman; June 1 to .Tune 30, 1879; $600 per annum; July 
August, September, October. 

Farragut, J. N., inspector; June 1 to .Tune 30,1879; $90 per month; .Tuly, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Fillial, R., laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; 25 cents per hour; July, August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Franck, C. T., laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 25 cents per hour ; August. 

Francois, H., laborer; 2 hours: .Tuly, August, September. 

Fobb, Fred., night inspector; June 1 to June 30,1879: $75 per month; July, August, 
September, October. 

Farden, James A., inspector ; August 15 to August 31, 1879; $90 per month ; Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Fernandez, O. P., laborer ; August 1 to August 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour; Septem¬ 
ber, October, 

Faber, R. B., laborer ; October 1 to October 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Flanagan, John W., fireman ; December 9, 1873, to March 20, 1874 ; $2..50 ))er day. 
Flanagan, .1. P , fireman ; December 9, 1873, to March 20, 1874 ; $2.50 per day. 

Green, Simon, clerk ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $1,400 per annum ; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Gibson, F. W., clerk of first class ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $1,200 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Griftith, J. M.,examiner; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,800 per annum; July, August, 
September. 

Gaines, ,T. A,, messenger; June 1 to .Tune 30,1879: $600 per annum; .Tuly, August, • 
September, October. 

Gracien,George, laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum; July, August, 
September, October. 

Gray, Jacob, inspector and captain of the night-watch ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $90 
per mouth ; July, August, September, October. 

Glaudin, C. F., inspector; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $90 per month ; .1 uly, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Green, Wm. H., inspector ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $90 per month; August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

(Tustine, Lemuel, inspector; .Tune 1 to June 30,1879; $90 per month; July, August, 
September, October. 

(iarvin, J. W., laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, 
September. 

Grimily, George, laborer ; August 1 to August 31,1879 : 25 cents i)er hour; September, 
October. 

(iutanez, J. J., laborer; August 1 to August 31,1879; 25 cents per hour; September. 
Gnichard, Robert F., examiner; August 1 to AugustJl, 1879; $1,800 per annum ; Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

(Treen, P. IT., boatman ; November 14,1873, to February 28,1874 ; 8730 per annum. 
Hilliard, Van R. K., clerk ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $1,400 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Holland, J. M., clerk ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,6(|0 per annum ; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Herwig, August C., clerk; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,200 per annum ; July, August, 

September, October. ^ ^ , 

Halston, William A., clerk ; June 1 to June .30,1879 ; $1,400 per annum; July, August, 

September, October. 

Herbert, Robert O., superintendent of warehouse and cigar inspector ; June 1 to June 
30, 1879; $2;.500 per annum; July, August, September, October. 

Hill, Charles, storekeeper; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,460; July, August, September, 

^ Ha^rper, Lewis, night watch ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum ; J uly, August, 

September, October. ^ . 

Hall, George M., river boatman ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum; July, 

August. 


1224 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Harrison, B. S., inspeetor; June 1 to June 30,1879; $90 per month ; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Hardy, William R., inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $90 1 month; July, August, 
September, October. 

Holt, Oscar, inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879, 1 month ; July, August, September, 
October. 

Hotten, Peter, inspector ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $90, 1 mouth; July, August. 

Hart, Thomas, river boatman ; $600 per annum ; July, August, September, October. 

Hassy, John, laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Hanigan, Daniel; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Hunter, Charley, laborer; two hours, 25 cents per hour ; July, September, October. 

Hubtaid, Horace W., clerk; July 1 to 31,1879; $1,200 per annum; August, September, 
October. 

Hainu, C. E., laborer; July 1 to 31, 1879; 25 cents per hour. 

Hawkins, Thomas ; laborer ; July 1 to 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour; October. 

Harriss, William, laborer, July 1 to 31,1879; 25 cents per hour; October. 

Horace, F., August 1 to 31,1879; September and October. 

Hawkins, G. T., storekeeper; September 1 to 30,1879; $1,400 per annum ; October. 

Holten, Patrick, night inspector ; December 3,1873, to January 12,1875 ; $3 per day. 

Ingalls, C. E., examiner; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,800 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Ireland, Samuel J., inspector ; June 26 to June 30,1879; $90 1 month; July, August, 
September, October. 

Johnson, William K., clerk; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,600 per annum; July, August, 
September, October. 

Jones, Eli, laborer ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $600 per annum ; July, August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Joubert, Ernest, assistant weigher; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,200 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Jordan, John, laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum ; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

.Tones, Milton, revenue boatman; June 26 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Johnson, Fred. A., inspector; June 26 to June 30, 1879; $90 1 month; July, August, 
September, October. 

Joseph, Peter, inspector; June 26 to Juue 30, 1879; $90 1 month; July, August, 
September, October. 

Johnson, J. J., laborer; June 26 to June30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, 
September, October. 

Jones, J., laborer ; Juue 26 to June 30,1879 ; 25 cents per hour; July, August. 

Jones, Wra., laborer; June 26 to June 30 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Johnson, Robt., night inspector; July 1 to July 31,1879; $75 per month; August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Jackson, E., laborer; September 1 to September 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour. 

James, Ben,, laborer; September 1 to September 30, 1879 ; 26 cents per hour. 

Jones, Jacob, fireman; December 9, 1873, to March 20, 1874; $2.50 per day. 

Ken ua, Alex. J., clerk; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,600 per annum; July, August, 
September, October. 

Kenna, Louis M., deputy naval officer; Juue 1 to Juue 30, 1879 ; $2,500 per annum ; 
July, August, September, October. 

Kenna, R. M. J., laborer; June 1 to Juue 30, 1879; $600; July, August, September, 
October. 

Kennedy, W. J., storekeeper; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $1,460 per annum ; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Keeting, Chas. W., gauger; June 1 to Juno 30, 1879; $1,500 per annum ; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Kerapter, A. W., assistant weigher ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $1,200 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Kearney, John L., inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $90 1 month; July, August, 
September, October. 

Kennedy, J. D., inspector ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $90 1 month ; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Kenner, Hy., revenue boatman; Juue 1 to June 30, 1879; $600 per annum; July, 
August, September, October. 

Kelley, D. M., laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, 
September, October. 

Kavanaugh, J. M., night inspector; Juue 1 to June 30,1879; $75 per month; July, 
August, September, October. 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 1225 

Kelso, (i. G., laborer; August 1 to August 31,1879; 25 cents per hour; Septeiuher, 
October. 

Koepfer, Geo., ri ver inspector ; November 6, 1873 ; $3..50 per day. 

Kellogg, Juo., river inspector ; December 5 to February 28,1874; !$3.50 per day. 

Lichtenberger, Jas. D., clerk; June 1 to June 30, 1870;'Sl,600 per annum; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Lathrops, W., messenger; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $600; July, August, September, 
October. 

Lewis, James, naval officer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $5,000 ; July, August, Septem¬ 
ber. October. 

Labatal, P. O., clerk ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,800; July, August, September, Oc¬ 
tober. 

Leeke, John, messenger; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $600; July, August, September, 
October. 

Lewis, John G., night inspector ; June 1 to June 30; $75 per mouth; July, August, 
September, October. » » 

Levori, J., revenue boatman; June 1 to June 25,1879; $600 ; July, August, September, 
October. 

Lawlor, J. H., special inspector; June 1 to June 30,1879; $90 1 month ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Le Febre, L. E., laborer ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; 25 cents per hour ; August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Leonard, H., laborer ; June 1 to June 30 ; 25 cents per hour; July, August, September, 
October. 

Landry, P., laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Ludwick, J. U., clerk ; 25th July to Jlst July, 1879; $1,600 per annum ; August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Labarthe, P.* A., laborer; July 1 to July 31,1879; 25 cents per hoiir; September, Octo¬ 
ber. 

Lord, George B., laborer ; August 1 to August 31,1879 ; 25 cents per hour; September, 
October. 

Lord, George B., inspector; Se])tember 26 to Se[)tember 30,1879 ; $90 per month. 

Lee, John, boatman ; October 16.1873, to March 3,1874 ; $730 per annum. 

Lynch, Charles, boatman ; December 5,1873; $730 per annum. 

Morey, B. J., examiner ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,800 per annum ; August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Morrison, J. L., opener and packer; June 1 to June 30,1879; $720 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

McArdle, J. P., clerk ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,200; July, August, September, Oc¬ 
tober. 

McElhany, J. J., assistant weigher; June 1 to June30,1879; $2,100 per annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Martin, Bernard, night watch ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $600 ; July, August, Septem¬ 
ber. 

Morgan, Randolph, night watch ; June I to June 30,1879 ; $600; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Meyer, II., night watch ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $600 ; July, August, September, Oc¬ 
tober. 

Merrell, William, night watch ; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $600 ; .July, August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Milon, A. E., night inspector ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $75 per month ; .July, August, 
September, October. 

Mooney, William, revenue boatman ; June 1 to June 25,1879 ; $600. 

Morris, M. J., revenue boatman; June 1 to June 30,1879; $(>00; .July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Madden, C., inspector; June 1 to June 30,1879; $90 1 month; .July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Merrett, Charles H., inspector ; .June 1 to .June 30,1879 ; $90 1 month ; July, August, 
September, October. 

McCann, William, inspector; Juno 1 to June 30,1879; $90 1 month; July, August, 
September, October. 

Monaghan, William, revenue boatman; Juno 1 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum ; 
July, August, September, October. 

Mahrotr, Ily., revenue boatman ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $600 per annum ; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Malcolm, R., laborer; Juno 1 .June 30, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour; July, August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. t 

Mullin, E., l.aborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 25 cents jmr hour; August, September. 


1226 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Martin, E., laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 2.5 cents per hour; July, September, Octo¬ 
ber. 

Menzies,H. D.,laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, 
September, October. 

Murdock, Adolphe R., night inspector ; July 1 to July 31,1879 ; $75 per month ; Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Mason, W. R., laborer ; July 1 to July 31,1879 ; 25 cents per hour. 

McVean,Johu II., night inspector; August 1 to August 31. 1879 ; $90 per month; 
September, October. 

Magee, R., laborer ; August 1 to August 31, 1879; 25 cents per hour. 

Morgan C., laborer ; August 1 to August 31,1879 ; 25 cents per hour ; September. 

Mowman, W., laborer; August 1 to August 31,1879 ; 25 cents per hour; September. 

McClelland, Jno., laborer; September 1 to September 30,1879; 25 cents per hour. 

Mullen, Ed., revenue boatman ; October 4 to October 14,1879; $600 per annum. 

McCloskey, John M., revenue boatman ; October 15 to October 31,1879 ; $600 per an¬ 
num. 

Morgan, H. Hays, clerk ; October 16,1873, to November 31,1874 ; $1,400 per annum. 

Marshall, Jno. A., fireman ; December 9, 1873, to March 20,1874 ; $2..50 per day. 

Morgan Cmsar, boatman ; November 22,1879 ; $600 per annum. 

Nickerson, Wm., messenger; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $600 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Neal, M., night inspector; June 1 to June 30; $75 per month; July, August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Nash, C. E., inspector; June 1 to .Tune 30,1879 ; $90 1 month; July, August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Nagle, William, laborer; September 1 to September 30 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Noyes, Isaac E., river inspector; December 1,1873 ; $3.50 per day. 

Oglesby, George, assistant appraiser; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $2,500 i)er annum ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Otway, John A., B. O. and inspector ; December 5,1873; $4 per day. 

O’Reagan, Timothy, night watch ; November 12, 1879 ; $600 per annum. 

Pretas, Joseph, clerk ; .Tune 1 to June 30,1879; $1,600 per annum ; .July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Peterson, Frank, revenue boatman ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $600 per annum; Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Perkins, F. C., laborer ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; 25 cents per hour; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Penans, Sam., laborer ; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; 25 cents per hour. 

Peters, A. C., laborer; October 1 to October 31,1879; 25 cents per hour. 

Paxton, John, clerk; December 1, 1873, to March 31,1874 ; $1,600 per annum. 

I’olk, Felix, inspector; December 1,1873, to March 8,1874 ; $3 per day. 

Powers, Samuel, boatman ; December 2, 1873 ; $730 per annum. 

Pearson, Thomas P., B. O. and inspector; December 5,1873 ; $4 per day. 

Reach, L. M., clerk; June 1 to .Tune 30,1879; $1,200 per annum; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Robinson, R, R., clerk, 4th class; June 1 to .Tune 30,1879; $1,600 per annum; July, 
August, September, October. 

Ringgold, Charles W., examiner; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,800 per annum; July, 
August, Se{)tember, October. n 

Raby, Hy., night inspector; .Tune 1 to .Tune 30,1879 ; $75 per month; .Tnly, August, 
September, October. 

Rowan, Thomas II., night inspector; .Tune 1 to June 30,1879 ; $75 per month. 

Rogers, William, laborer; June 1 to Jane30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; July, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Richardson, James E., laborer; September 1 to September 30, 1879; 25 cents per 
hour. 

Richardson, James E., special inspector; October 1 to October 31, 1879; .$4 per day. 

Roweu, Spencer, laborer; October 1 to October 31; 25 cents per hour. 

Smith, D. D., clerk; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $1,200 per annum ; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Staes, William, clerk ; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; $1,800 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Souer, Louis J, appraiser; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $3,000 per annum ; .Tuly, August, 
September, October. 

Swazey, George A., laborer; June 1 to Juno 30, 1879 ; $600 per annum ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Starks, D. C, laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $600 per annum ; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Seveignes, .Tides, messenger; June 1 to .Tune 30, 1879 ; $600 per .annum. 


SrOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG. 


1227 


Salles, Louis E., \vei«;ber; .June 1 to June 30, 1870; ^2,000 per anuuni; July, August 
Se^>teiuber, October. 

Stanii) 8 , E., laborer ; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $000. 

Stewart, Janies K., captain of nigbt watcb; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; iSiSOO ])er an¬ 
num; July, August, September, October. 

Springer, 11. F., inspector ; June I to June 30, 1379; .^90 1 montb; July, August, 
September, October. 

Stolberger, Kuntz, revenue boatman; June 1 to Juno 30, 1879; ij'OOO jier annum ; 
July. 

Smitb, D. C., laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; 2.') cents per hour. 

Sutton, Isaac, laborer; June 1 to June 39, 1879; 2~) cents per hour; .July, August. 

Scott, Ben., laborer; 2 hours, 25 cents per bour; July, August, September. 

Seveignes, Jules, nigbt inspector; July 1 to July 31; .'?7') per montb; August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

Sullivan, W., laborer; July 1 to July 31, 1879 ; 25 cents per day. 

Starks, I). C., laborer; July 1 to July 31, 1879 ; $(500 per annum. 

Stolberger, K., revenue boatman ; August 1 to August 31; $600 per annum; Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

Sweetenbam, Hy., revenue boatman; September 1 to September 30, 1879; $600; 
October. 

Street, Hy., inspector; October 1 to October 31 ; $90 per montb. 

Smitb, Frank, boatman; December 2, 1873; $730 per annum. 

Seymour, Alfred M., boatman; December 5, 1873, to October 31, 1874; $730 per an¬ 
num. 

Swan, Hugb, boatman ; December 5, 1873; $730 per annum. 

Smitb, Peter, boatman ; December 9, 1873, to Aui^ust 6 , 1874 ; $730 per annum. 

Smitb, William, assistant engineer; August 13, 1879; .$900. 

Tomlinson, .Joseph M., chief clerk; June 1 to June 30,1879; $ 2 , 200 ; July, August, 
Se])tember, October. 

Trevigne, Paul, clerk; Juno 1 to June 30,1879; $ 1,000 per annum; July, August, 
September, October. 

Tompkins, Joseph J., nigbt inspector; June 1 to June 30,1879; $75 per montb ; July, 
August. 

Thomas, Charles, nigbt inspector; June 1 to June :10, 1870 ; $75 i)er montb ; July, Au¬ 
gust. 

Thatcher, .lobu, inspector; June 1 to Juno 30,1879; $90 i>er montb; July, August, 
September, October. 

Todd, S. W., inspector; June 1 to Juno 30.1879 ; .$90 per montb ; July, August. 

Tucker, T. D. O., laborer; Juno 1 to June 30,1879; 25 cents per liour; July, August. 

Thayer, Charles, laborer; .June 1 to June 30,1879 ; 25 cents per bour; July, August, 
September, October. 

Turato, L , laborer; July I to July 31,1879; 25 cents per bour. 

Traub, Charles, laborer ; July I to July 31,1879; 25 cents per bour ; August, Sei)tem- 
ber. 

Tompkins, J. .J , inspector; September 1 to September 30; .$90 per montb ; October. 

Ulrich, Frank (C, assistant weigher; .June I to June 30; .$1,200 per annum ; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, Octobei'. 

Ulrich, George L., laborer; .June 1 to .June 30,1879 ; 25 cents per bour ; July, August, 
September, October. 

Vigers, William, nigbt inspector; June 1 to June 30; $75 per montb; July, August, 
Se])tember, October. 

Vance, J. M., laborer; June 1 to June 30,1879; 2.5 cents per bour; .July. 

Vanvasi, IL, laborer ; July 1 to July 31,1879; 25 cents per bour; August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. • 

Weber, Thomas L., clerk ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $1,600; July, August, September, 


October. , , . , , 

White, John, messenger; .June 1 to .June 30,1879; $600; .July, August, September, 

October. . » _ . i i 4 

Wells, J. Madison, surveyor ; June 1 to .June 30,1879; .$3,.500 ])er annum; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. ^ _ 

Wells, A. C., dejuity surveyor (special); .June 1 to .June 30, 18<9 ; .$ 2,.>00 per annum ; 

Julv, August, September, October. ,14 i. o 

Weber, John, clerk; June 1 to June 30,1879 ; $1,400 per annum; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. . T 1 4 

White, J., opener and ])acker; .June 1 to June 30,1879; .$/U) per annum; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

Waterman, Tbad., storekeeper; Juiie 1 to June 30,1879 ; $1,460 per annum. ^ 

Walsh, M., laborer y June 1 to .June 30, 1879 ; $600 per annum ; Jtily, August, S«ptom- 

Wands, .James B., assistant weigher; .June 1 to .June 30,1879; $1,200; July, August, 


Sei>tembor, October. 


1228 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Wilson, William S., night inspector; Jane 1 to June 30,1879; $75 per month ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Walden, Charles E., night inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $75 per month; July, 
August, September, October. 

W'atson, Joseph R., night inspector; June 1 to June 30, 1879; $75 per month ; July, 
August, September, October. 

Winkler, L., revenue boatman ; June 1 to June 30,1879; $G00 i)er annum ; July, Au¬ 
gust, September, October. 

White, B. C., deputy collector; June 1 to .Tune 30, 1879; $39.60 1 mouth; .July, 
$40.40; August, September, October. 

Wharton, AV. AA^., inspector; .June 1 to .June 30, 1879; $90 1 month; .July, August, 
September, October. 

Wells, S. S., inspector; June 1 to .June 30, 1879; $90 1 month; .July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

AA^'akefi eld, L., inspector; June 1 to .June 30, 1879; $90 1 mouth; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

AA^ard, J., laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, October. 

AA’^arwick, George, laborer; June 1 to .June 30, 1879; 25 cents per hour; .July. 

AA^alsh, .J., laborer; June 1 to June 30, 1879 ; 25 cents per hour ; .July. 

AA^alker, G. L., night inspector; July 1 to 31, 1879; $75 per month; August, Septem¬ 
ber, October. 

AVilson, David, laborer; August 1 to August 31, 1879; 25 cents per hour. 

Washington, George, boatman ; October 16, 1873, to March 31,1874 ; $730 per month. 

AAJll, George, boatman ; October 21, 1873 ; $730 per month. 

AA’^akefield, Adolphe J., night inspector; November 12, 1879; $2.50 per day. 

AA'^hitaker, Fred. H., clerk ; November 24, 1879; $1,200 per annum. 

Young, James IJ., night inspector; July 1 to July 31, 1879; $75 per month ; August, 
September, October. 


Exhibit I. — (Telegrams/((rnished by manager of JV. U. Telegraph Company.) 


( 1 .) 


21 L.] 


AA^vsiiingtox, D. C., 2, N. 0., 55-2, 11:45 a. m. 

May 2. 


Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, N. 0.: 

Tell A^iolet send all good bales improper approaches. Can star here if grapes sound. 
Confident. Terrier ditto. A. 

18 Dhas. (l^'"^) 


( 2 .) 


AACvsiiingtox, D., 3,10 a., May 3. 


Gen. L. J. Soukr, Appraiser Custom House, X. O.: 

Hope Rose Violet keep boat Pin. If grapes are kept moon. Terrier be moon, 
all bales can hurting dish. 

20 D. 11. S. M. 


Send 

A. 


(73) 


(3.) 


13 Ct ] AALvshixgtox, D. C., 3, N. O., 5, 3, 3:20 p. m. 

Gen’l A. S. Badger, ColVr of Customs, New Orleans: 

Please crown ash & Zebra fan permanently. lmi)ortant. Hat all can while Pear, 
absent. Hawlej^ little easier. Fear away week. AMirY". 

20 Dhas. (352) 


8 W.—(4.) 


Wasihngtox, D. C., 5, 12:05 p. m.. May 5. 
Gen’l A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs N. 0., La.: 

Bales Zebra, Ash, received. Violet send others immediately. Better not his hand¬ 
writing. Gray Hubbard’s wants approved. AVrite about Murrell. AMITA^. 

20 Dh. (299) 






SPOFFORD VS KELLOGG. 


1229 


ro.) 

WASiiiydTON, D. C., r>, 12::i0 p. m. May 5. 
Geii'l L. J. St)UEi{, Aj) 2 )roiiier Custom House, X. 0.: 

1* rieiuls say ask Zebra others bales sbouhl also say never did wroii" Terrier matter. 
Can t Violet Rose jijet corrected fan. ‘ ^ 4 . 


W.-(t).) 

1-^-] WASiiix<rr()N, D. C.,7, p. m., 7 May. 

GenU A. S. Baixjkk, CoU'r of Customs, X. O.: 

Resolution take testimony passed, f^very Republican votinjj or paired against. 
Terrier made speech. Delij^hted all friends. Will send. Tell Violet. ” A. 

20 1). II. (5P^) 


( 7 .) 

70.] , Washington, D. C., 7., W.Oo p^m., May 7. 

Oen. A. S. Badgek, ColVr of Customs, X. ().: 

Think it is important that boat be moon. See to this. Confer with Violet and Oak 
immediately. CATO 

17 D. H. ■ • (;i66) 


1 W.-(8.) 


Washington, D. C., 8, 8:^50 a. m., May 8. 
Gen’l A. S. Badgee, Collector of Customs, Xew Orleans: 

If grapes Pin Amity Moon Perhaps Dish Try get Grapes immediately. Watch. If so 
8 end cotton or Oak. Wrote yesterday. T. 

20 Dh. (10.) 


25 C.—(9.) 

. Washington, D. C., 8, 12:45 p. m.. May 8. 

Gen’l L. J. Souek, Custom House, X. 0.: 

Terrier got letter from Coffin sent yon watch. There River also writes peculiar 
not very important but will send yon. J. 

20 Dh. Stamp. • (190) 


14 W.—(10.) 

Washington, 1). C., ’89, 8:25 p. m., 8 May. 
Gen’l Louis J. Souek, U. S. Appraiser, X. 0.: 

Don’t think grapes sent for present; no appropriation; Don’t think Camelia spot 
can hurt. No cipher butter. What is it? A. 

20 D. II. (424) 


( 11 .) 


f) C!Ij.] Washington, D. C., 8, 4:05 p. m., May 8. 

Gen. L. J. Souek, Appraiser, Xew Orleans, La.: 

Don’t send dispatches twenty-one words ; have pay if over twenty ; two just come ; 
dish all agree never wlu anyway. A. 

20 D. II. Stamp. (309) 









1230 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


( 12 .) 

19 \V.] Washington, D. C., 9, ’9, G:40^^. m. 9 May , 

Gen. A. S. Ladgek, Collector of Customs, X. 0.: 

After Chandler EdnioiuVs speech to-day think every lepiiblican in State stand by ter¬ 
rier watcli any departures tell violet I have written. A. 

20 D. H. li. (:39(;) 


(19.) 


5 W.] 

Gen’l A. S. Bagger, Collector of Customs, Xew Orleans : 

Friends here exi)ect Rose to Bend every energy making grapes, 
ing strong hero in Terrier Matter. 

19 D. H. 


Washington, D. C., 5-10. 


Pin and Moon feel- 

A. 

(187) 


(14.) 

G.] Washington, D. C., 12, 12:05 7 ;. m.. May 12. 

Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, X. 0. : 

Murrell approved. Tell Violet to send List figs Grapes. Go ahead with nominations 
that necessary. Good plan Make Smith* examiner. A. 

20 D. H. (27S^ 


(15.) 


IG W.^ Washington, D. C., 12, ’9, GrlG^n m., 12 May. 

Gen. L. J. Souer, V. S. Appraiser, X. O.: 

Reported Grapes coming if true send Oak Cotton or some others immediately Where 
sorghum. If grapes are pin Moon terrier. A. 

20D. 11. (4G5) 


(IG.) 

f 

13.] Washington, D. C., 13, Ip. m.. May 13. 

Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, X. 0. : 

Hat Chaprou. Answer pear letter twenty-ninth. Telegraph Terrier fact. Waldon 
also some place Camelia Dismissed to-day. Confidential. Tell violet. T. 

20 D. H. D. (235) 


(17.) 


3 Ch.] Washington, D. C, 14, i::i0p. m., May 14. 

Gen’l A. S. Badger, Collector, Xew Orleans : 

Please crown tiger for pear. Pleased Chaprou had butter approved If Rose request 
terrier get Cotton back city. Moon here. A ' 

20D. II. (407) 


(18.) 

1 W ] Washington, D. C., 17, .Y. 0., 5, 17, 8:55 a. m. 

Gen. L. J. Souer, U. S. Appraiser, Custom House, Xew Orleans : 

Go New York to-diiy Back IMonday Tell Rose Moon at Department not to worry 
rainbow here. p_ 

15 Dh. 11 GiyN 


SMITH. 









SPOFFORD VS. KKLLOGG. 


1231 


(19.) 


9 W.] ' Washington, D. C., 19, 1‘2;25, p. m., May 19. 

Geiil. A. S. llADtiKH, Collector of Casiomx, Xew Orleans : 

Wakt^lieUl lirowu Fobb Sprii)j;er Walden Joiibert Fish Cluipron Carville Adolph 
Seveignes approved. Last lot goes to-day, all nominations received approved. 


20 D. II. 


(2S7) 


( 20 .) 

25.] * WASiiiNcrroN, D. C., 20, 12:15 p. in., May 20. 

Gen. L. J. Sol’KK, U. Appraiser, Xeic Orleans : 

Terrier knows nothing whatever about Referance to Scpnish or Sorghmn in Violet 
Dish registered letter. Rainbow here If Moon grapes. A. 

20 D. II. (227^ 


• ( 21 .; 

18 W.] ' Washiniiton, 1). C., 21,7 11:25 jj. m.,21 May. 

Gen. A. S. Badgki;, Collector of C., X. O., La.: 

Hope you can get Boat rainbow; also Sorghum A: Sponge show conspiracy. When 
does Walsh leave. A. 

1() Dh.—II. ((>18) 


( 22 .) 


12 W.] Washing ton, 1). C., 22, 12:05 p. m.. May 22. 

Gen. L. J. SouEi:, Appraiser, Custom-House, X. 0.: 

Terrier Dove and Doing all possible for Bull Dog. Orange not raised linger. Ter¬ 
rier exerted himself constantly. Some Things ditticult do. .J. 

20 D. If. D. (287) 


(25.) 


H W.] Washington, D. C.,22, 11:45 a. m.. May 22. 

Genl. L. J. Souek, C. S. Appraiser, Custom-House, X. 0.: 

Letter from Sorghum Sent Vi(det Seems right Convince him will get better. 
Terrier his friend. Hope boat Bottle rainbow. J. 

19D. H. (U12) 


(24.) 

Washington, 1). C.,25,11:58 rt. m.. May 2^. 
Gen. L. J. SoHek, U. S. Appraiser, Custom-House, X. O.: 

'fell Bull Dog leave when ready. Conlident got matter Shape so continued cases 
Wont trouble hereafter. Raum gone for two weeks. A. 

20 D. 11. (2ir>) 


(25.) 

24.1 N. Y. Washington, D. C., 12:50p. .•?»., May'2\. 

(hml. A. S. Badgek, Collr.of Customs, X. O. : 

White Watson Campbell apjiroved yesterday ask Violet Tulip about. Pot tell 
Violet .Jubiter screw sponge short, riiough Terrier heard nothing. J. 

20 1). H.M. 










1232 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


(26.) 

30 W.] Washington, D. C., 26, 9,10:40 j). m., 26 Moy. 

Genl. A. S. Badger, Collector of Custo^ns. 

(Care Gen. L. J. Souer, Cnstorn-House, N. O.:) 

Think dish aiming show boat get grapes over night for Hamilton only Jnbiter boat 
others be pin cato. 

18 D. H.-stamp. (712 


(27.) 

21.] Washington, D. C., 27, 3:58p. m.,^lay 27. 

Genl. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, New Orleans : 

Dish has letter looks like Terrier’s. None private sent except rose Violet nearly. 
Every day lately Violet. Is this Moon. A. 

20b. H.D. (407) 


(28.) 


14.] . Washington, D. C., 27. 

Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, N. Orleans; 

Please crown Boothby fan ask Violet if he means that wrist Brutus for here. 
Moon here if rainbow there. A. 

19 D. H. D. (265) 


(29.) 


7 W.] Washington, D. C., 28,9, 5:20p. m., 28 May. 

Geni. L. J. Souer, V. S. Appraiser, Custom-House, N. 0.: 

Chairman say not get yet bar Terrier can’t get Jnbiter there probably tell if no 
Jockey against Amity dish busted. A. 

20 D. H. stamp. H. (433) 


(30.) 


52.] . * Washington, D. C.,28, 11:05 p. m., May 28. 

Genl. L. J. Souer, U. S. Appraiser, Custom-House, N. 0.: 

Sumner Dexter for evidence to show That five grapes were parole leaving less than 
quorum of those not paroled Jnbiter. J. 

22 D. H. D. (296) 


(31.) 

5.] Washington, D. C., 28, 2.30 p. m.. May 28. 

Genl. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, N. 0.: 

Spofford offers prove first Kellogg or agents bribed at least five members. Second 
corruptly organized preteuoed Legislature to elect him. Third was not majority 
members elected present and voting. Fourth, did not receive seventy-nine genuine free 
lawful votes. Committee agree send witnesses so as have them here Wednesday or 
Thursday. Spofford says not require more than fifteen witness. Gnat. R. 

60 D. H. (357 


(.32.) 


16.] Washington, D. C., 29, 5 p. m,. May 29. 

Genl. L. J. Souer, U. S. Appraiser, Custom House N. O. : 


Dish Brutus with officer Blank Jefferson issued chairman ; an unprecedented thing. 
We make big point this Jefferson returnable Thursday Jubiter. J.*’ 

20Dh. wn. ( 341 ^ 








SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1233 


(33.) 


Washington, D. C., 29, 10:55 a. m. May 29. 
Gen. L. J. Souer, U. S. Appraiser, Custom House, N. 0.: 

Dish brutus this morning Man accompanying cato Jubiter Every movement Jnbiter 
tar Swamp Wheelwright others hope boat rainbow. Wrote yesterday. 

28 D.H. ch. (118) 


(34.) 


306.] Washington, D. C., 31, 1 p., May 31. 

Genl. L. J. Souer, U. S. Appraiser, Custo-m House, N. 0.: 

Got letter from wrist Morgan City Jubiter Easy Rainbow if attended to if dish fail 
parole bad mess for him. J. 

20 D. H. gen. (1B6) 


(35.) 

7 W.] Washington, D. C., 31, 9, N. O., 9:20.i?. m.. May 31. 

Genl. L. J. Souer, Appraiser, care Gen. A. S. Badger, N. 0.: 

Matters going favor terrior adams given terrier officer Jefferson for eight dish also 
limited to eight Press all favoring amity adams disgusted with dish. If dish fail or 
parole he is beat. Telegraph when want Jefferson sent. Randall Rainbow. J. 
40D. H. H. (373) 


(36.) 

12 W.] Washington, D. C., 1, N. O., 11 p. m., June 1st. 

Gen’l L. J. Souer, U. S. Appraiser, N. 0.: 

When know dish Jocky sure Cucumber Jack what Jockey Jefferson for terrier have 
dish Jockey five before Brutus tell Rose. A. 

20 D.H. ' (93) 


(37.) 

17.] Ch. Washington, D. C., 2, 3.25 p. m., June 2. 

Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, Xeto Orleans, La.: 

Adams instructed Dist officer remain, serve terrier Jefferson Amity When ready 
designate friend there to name Vermont Cucumber when ready. J. 

20 D. H. Stamp Wm. (406) 


(38.) 

7 "w.] Washington, D. C., 3, 12.53 p. m., June 3. 

Gen’l A. S. Badger, Collector {care L. J. Souer), Custom-house, X. 0. : 

When know what Gin Buck to terrier chair officer who Jefferson Want Amity 
Vermont Ostend if necessary soon possible after Dish. Buck who Brutus if Saturn how 
boat is look. 

30 D. 11. D. 


(39.) 


3 Washington, D. C., 6, N. O. 6, 5, 11.20 p. m., GJune. 

A. S. Badger, ColVr X. 0.: 

Terrier says if pin foundry Leopard Templar Screw Eagle fire Let Violet corrob¬ 
orating Vermont Standard Hotel be ready. INDIGO. 

19 coll, i as X 82. (475 

78 S K 








1234 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG 


(40.) 

11 W.] Washington, D. C., 6tli, 12>30 jj. m., June 6. 

Louis J. Souer, U. S. Appraiser, New Orleans: 

Boat canters parole foundry Leopard Eagle Dexter beat pin Vermont. 

10 pd. C. 100. INDIGO. 

(189 


(41.) 


8.] Washington, D. C., 6, 12 m., June 6. 

Louis J. Souer, U.'S. Appraiser, N. 0.: 

Fire fisb boat Cantered Grapes Coming out Violet’s room showed him money re¬ 
ceived terrier parole hnnt being antelope Sergeant-at-Arms will telegraph his offi¬ 
cer to apply A. H. Leonard or P. F. Herwig for names our witnesses. INDIGO. 

38 paid 2.96. (164) 


(42.) 

6.] Washington, D. C., 7, 9, N. O. 6, 10p. m., June 7. 

Genl. A. S. Badger, Collector Customs N. 0.: 

If Watson made Bales as Boat Canter better stop Jefferson if foundry Leopard Ea¬ 
gle pin Will answer gin Boat or parole. A. 

22 collect. H. 184. (.353) 


(43.) 

19.] Ch. ■ Washington, D. C., 7, N. O., 6.15 p. m., June 7. 

A. S. Badger, ColVr Customs, N. 0. : 

Officer instructed remain Till Seven witnesses summonsed Let no Vermont made 
bale lire temper screw absolutely must not toot witness Pin sure. INDIGO. 

23 coll., as 191. (355) 


(44.) 


15.] Washington, D. C., 7, N. O., 11..55p., June 7th. 

Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, N. 0.: 

Mean no terrier grapes made bales water best seven Vermont including foundry 
Eagle make pin absolute use own judgment Watson. 1. 

21 collect i H., 89. (464) 


(45.) 


4 C.] Washington, D. C., 8, 6.45 p. m., 8 June. 

Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector Customs, N. 0.: 

Rainbow if can spare both Cotton Violet Rose Jubiter Gulfport how wands. 

13 collect Hd., 121. (3 


(46.) 


4-] Washington, D. C., 9, 10.38 a., June 9. 

A S. Badger, Collector of Customs, N. 0.: 

Officer telegraphs that he summonsed Pin for us one Keeps out of way Asks in¬ 
structions how is this. INDIGO. 

156 collect, Win. (203) 







SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1235 


(47.). 

Washington, D. C., 9, 4.05 p. m., June 9. 
Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Port, New Orleans: 

Have no fear about Pear. He is rainbow everything Rose does Blacksmith .Just 
Jockey rainbow. * 

IG collect, 142. Mnn 


(48.) 

'V-l Washington, D. C., 10, 11.45 a., June 10, 

Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs, N. 0.: 

^leirick stated to Adams bad no more Vermont until arrival two Coming’'' Cbarfc 
Messenger who they. ” 

17 collect, 149. 


A. 

(170) 


(49.) 


[Ch. 8.] Wa.shington, 2.30 p., June 12. 

Gen’l A. S. Badger, Collector Pori X. O.: 

Let Leopard Brick Chairman and service that Jefferson of Boat regarding him false. 
Also make Bale Crown Boothby. 

TERRIER VIOLET. 

18 paid, 150. (320) 


(50.) 

12 W.] Washington, D. C., 13, 1.10 p. m., June 13.. 

Gen. A. S. Badger, Collector of Customs,New Orleans: 

Is Percy Baker there, or where will telegraph reach him ? 

VIOLET. 

10 paid,102. (254)s 


Exhirit J.—(Letter submitted by Mr. S. Shellabarger.) 

To the Committee of Senate of U. S. upon Privileges and Electious: 

In the matter of the contest pending before you between W. P. Kellogg and 11. M 
Spoffbrd, for a seat in Senate, it was announced by counsel for contestant that the 
memorialist proposed to put in evidence, in said contest, the third volume of the testi¬ 
mony taken by what is known as the “ Potter Committee” of the House of Representa¬ 
tives. 

On behalf of the contestee, I submit that it is not competent to give in evidence 
said volume in mass, and without pointing out specifically the parts of said volume 
Avhich the contestant i)roposes to rely upon as evidence competent to be introduced 
and considered as evidence in said case. And said contestee objects to the introduc¬ 
tion of said volume in mass, and moves that the contestant be ordered to specifically 
designate the parts upon which he proposes to rely as evidence, and that this be done, 
and that the committee pass upon its admissibility before the contestee shall be re¬ 
quired to close his evidence in the cass. 

S. SHELLABARfJER, 

Counsel for Contestee. 


4 


ExiiiniT K.—(Letter of J. Jr. Elder, referred to in testimony of Geo. JV. Morse.) 

Washington, Sep. 29, 1879. 

Mr. Morse. I reseved your postal card this morning you say for me to write Judge 
Spoffor I have had no delings with Judge Spofford and have never written him a 









1236 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


letter my contract was with you and Judge Elam now I want you to write to Spofiford 
and tell him to send me sum money or I must get to New Orleans sum other way I 
am not going to be made a fool of By Spotford or any one els I intend to and have 
dun all that I promast and I want you to du the sam on the part of Spofford I want 
you to write Spofford such a letter and let me here from you as soon aspossable for I 
must get to New Orleans and look after my witnissis or Kellogg will scoop them in 
I cold have Bin in a good Government Place at 200 per month but I would not take It 
becorse I had promist you to stick to Spoffbr untill he got his seate in the senite and 
now I want fair deling and all will work out wright 
I will expect to here from very soon. 

Truly, J. W. ELDER. 

Spoffbrd’s address is at Pulaski Tennessee 


Exhibit L.— {Affidavit of Milton Jones.) 


State of Louisiana, 

Parish of Orleans, ss: 

Milton Jones doth declare and say: I reside in the city of New Orleans. During and 
previous to 1876 I resided in the parish of Point Coupee. I represented that parish in 
the Kellogg legislature for that year. On one occasion the Republican caucus of which 
I was a member had under discussion the question of electing a United States Senator. 
I rose and addressed the caucus in favor of Colonel Casey, brother-in-law of President 
Grant, stating that General Grant had been the friend of the colored man, and of the 
party, and that the least we could do was to send his brother-in-law to the Senate. 
Some one then suggested to send for Governor Kellogg and hear his views. Governor 
Kellogg came and remarked that he had worked and suffered for the party and that 
if they went back on him then, he would let the whole matter go to hell, to the Demo¬ 
crats. I then left the caucus angry. Governor Kellogg sent for me to come and talk 
to him. I went to the governor, but not until next day. He then told me he wanted 
to go the United States Senate, and that I must stand by him. He said if I did this 
Mr. Souer would take care of me. I told him then all right, that I would give up the 
fight and go the way of the majority. The next morning Louis Souer called me out 
of the caucus and said “Jones, you make yourself easy about this thing. You can 
make two hundred and fifty dollars out of this thing.” He told me to stand by Kellogg 
and I would be all right, or words to that effect. I told him I wanted the money 
then, that I was in debt and needed it. He said, “Jones, you are foolish; just stand by 
me and the gov'eruor and it will be all right.” Souer said he had no money then, but 
to go to the governor and he might give me some. I went to Governor Kellogg and 
asked him for fifty dollars. He told me he could not give me fifty, but he gave me an 
order on Auditor Johnson for twenty dollars. On presenting the order I received a 
check for twenty dollars. My impression is the check was on the Bank of America, 
but I do not now exactly remember. When the vote came on, I voted for Kellogg, and 
he was elected. Four or five days after there was a general pay off. Mr. Souer was 
in his room in the State-house. There was a crowd of the members outside and they 
were all called in one by one. I saw them come out, many of them with money in 
their hands, and I counted the money for some of them after they came out. They 
would not let me go in, but he came out afterwards, and brought me downstairs. He 
said I had too much mouth and advised the others to not to have anything with 
me. He then, when we were downstairs, gave me one hundred and fifty dollars. He 
said this was a loan. I told him that this was not the understanding ; that I was to 
get 1250.00 for standing by Kellogg and I had done it. He said I might have done 
better, if it had not been for my big mouth ; that he had given me money from time 
to time, and I could take that or nothing. I had to take it. Souer has never asked a re¬ 
turn of that money from me since then. 

MILTON JONES. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this fourth April, 1879. 

[SEAL.] TH. BUISSON, 3d J. P. 


Exhibit M.— {Affidavit of Jeremiah Blackstone.) 

State of Louisiana, 

Parish of Orleans; 

On this seventeenth day of April, in the year eighteen hundre d and seventy-eight, 
before me, a notary public in and for said parish and State, personally appeared Jer- 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1237 


emiab lilackHtoiie, wlio, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that be 
was a member of tbe legislature wbicb was convened at the Saint Louis Hotel tbe first 
Monday in January, 1877. 

rbat be was elected from tbe seventh ward, parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. 

lhat prior to bis election, and on or about the latter part of September, 1876, or 
about the first of October, 1876, he had a conversation with William P. Kellog^^ at tbe 
State-house known as tbe Saint Louis Hotel. 

That tbe conversation was in regard to tbe approaching election. That William P. 
Kellogg stated that be would be a candidate for United States Senator; that William 
1 ^ then and there give unto said deponent tbe sum of one thousand dol¬ 

lars (81,060), which said money was to be used in promoting tbe election of tbe Repub¬ 
lican candidates from tbe seventh, eighth, and ninth wards of the parish of Orleans ; 
and it was further understood that if the Republican candidates should be elected 
that they would pledge themselves to vote for William P. Kellogg as United States 
Senator. That in accordance with said agreement deponent paid to the folio win 
named persons the amounts as follows: “ 


Benjamin I'ranklin, one hundred and fifty dollars; Pat. Griffin (president of a club), 
three hundred dollars; Jim Kelly, fifty dollars; Joe Dray, fifty dollars ; James R. 
lirowu, one hundred dollars; for music, liquor, cigars, &,c., about one hundred dollars. 

lhat alter the election, and while dejmnent was a member of the house of represent¬ 
atives, and on or about the sixth day of January, 1877, a message was brought to him 
by one of the pages of the house to meet Mr. Kellogg in his private office at the Saint 
Louis Hotel. Upon meeting Mr. Kellogg he stated to deponent that some of the col¬ 
ored members showed a disposition to go back on him and on their i»ledge8 to vote 
for him as United States Senator; that he requested deponent to use his infiueuce 
among the colored members of the house, and also to bring to bear all of the influence 
that the ward clubs represented by their presidents or their most inllueutial members 
might have. That Kellogg stated that it was a matter of life and death to him ; that 
it was a necessity he should be elected to the United States Senate. That William 
P. Kellogg did then and there give unto deponent the sum of one thousand dollars, 
which said money was to be used in securing the election of the said William P. Kel¬ 
logg to the United States Semite. 

That William P. Kellogg also promised deponent all of the patronage in his district, 
and that he always would be cared for. 

That deponent, out of the one thousand dollars paid him by William P. Kellogg, 
paid as follow's: Jonas Hughes, of Assumption Parish, one hun<lred and fifty dollars ; 
George Bird, of East Baton Rouge, two hundred dollars; Henry Blair, of Bossier, one 
hundred dollars; J. J. Johnson, of De Soto, fifty dollars; Isham Nichols, of the ninth 
ward (a politician), one hundred dollars. 

That after the election of William P. Kellogg to the United States Senate, and on 
or about the day of January, 1877, deponent was paid by Louis J. Souer the sum 
of two hundred dollars, as an extra compensation for his services, and also for voting 
for William P. Kellogg as United States Senator. 


JEREMIAH BLACKSTONE. 


Attest: 

Wm. H. Seymour. 
Anthony Samuola. 


Sworn to and stibscribed before me the 17th day of April, A. D. 1878, and I certify 
that the contents of the foregoing declaration were by me read over and explained to 
affiant before subscribing his Jianie thereto and administering the oath. 

[SEAL.] A. J. LEWIS, 

Xotary rKhlic. 


Exhibit N .—(Affidavit of W.John De Lacy.) 


State ok Lot isiana, 

Parish of Orleans : 

Personally appeared before me this ninth daj^ of April, 1879, W. John De Lacy, who, 
being duly sworn, does depose as follows, to wit: 

1 reside in Kai)ides Parish, Louisiana; I represented that parish in the legislature in 
1877 and 1878. Am a Reimblican, and took my stand with the Packard government 
until its fall, believing it to bo the lawful government at that time. I arrived in New 
Orleans, December 9,1876, after the promulgation of the election by the returning board. 
1 attended the Reimblican caucuses before the assembling of the legislature; Colonel 
Keating was chairman of the caucus, and A. Dejoie secretary. The caucus was called 
the “ administration caucus.” The object was to elect Michael Hahn speaker and W. 
P. Kellogg United States Senator. I staid in the caucus eight days. I left the caucus, 
having refused to pledge myself to support certain measures, viz, the election of Michael 






1238 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


Hahn, to the speakership of the house of representatives. I was short of money, so I 
went to Kellogg to borrow some. He loaned me $50 with the understanding that I 
was to vote for him for United States Senator. On the day Kellogg was elected to the 
Senate, I did not vote when my name was called; neither did my colleague, Mr. Drew. 
George L. Smith came to me and told me to stand by Kellogg that I would be taken 
care of, and that I would get what I was promised. Smith then threw an envelope on 
my desk, sealed; I opened it, and saw that it contained money. Mr. L. D. Herbert, 
was present when I received the money. Members were offered from $200 to $250 for 
their vote. Several that were promised got nothing. It was the every-day talk among ^ 
the members of the legislature that Kellogg put up the money so as to beat “ Pinch- 
back,” and how much they were going to get. I got $200 for voting for Kellogg. 

W. JOHN DE LACEY. 

Sworn and subscribed before me this 9th April, 1879. 

[SEAL.] T. BUISSON, 

Third Justice of the Peace. 


Exhibit O. —{Referring to the testmong of D. J. M. A. Jewett.) 

[seal of la.] State of Louisiana, 

Office State Registrar of Voters, 

New Orleans, Nov. 4th, 1870. 

Hon. F. A. WOOLFLEY, 

Chief U. S. Supervisor of Elections, 

District of Louisiana: 

Sir : I am informed that there is on file in your office a large amount of valid evi¬ 
dence of fraudulent registrations in the parish of Orleans during the years 1874 aud|1876, 
which may legitimately be made use of, under the provisions of the United States and 
State laws for the purpose of purging the registry lists in said parish of the frauds ap¬ 
pearing on them. 

If this is the case, I respectfully ask that you will allowthe officers of the State, 
assistant supervisors of registration, and the supervisors representing the United 
States, of both the political parties, charged with those duties to inspect such evi¬ 
dence of fraudulent registration in your office, and make such use of the same as may be 
authorized by section 21, and others of the State registration act, and all other laws 
of this State and the United States bearing on this subject. 

It is highly desirable that the important work of revision should be carefully and 
fairly done, and that all official documents and records should be open to the fullest 
inspection and use of every officer invested by law with power over this subject, re¬ 
gardless of their political affiliations. 

As I understand the question, to allow the loan or use of this evidence outside of 
your office ivould transcend your duties, and I therefore make the rec^uest conveyed in 
this letter. 

Your early reply will oblige your obedient servant, 

MICHAEL HAHN, 

State Registrar of Voters. 


Exhibit P. —{Referring to testimoug of D. J. M. A. Jewett.) 


Office of Chief Supervisor of Elections, 

District of Louisiana, 

. New Orleans, November 4, 1876. 

Hon. Michael Hahn, State Registrar of Voters: 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter requesting that the 
officers of the State, assistant supervisors of registration, etc., be permitted to examine 
such evidence which I have in my office of fraudulent registrations in the parish of 
Orleans during the years 1874 and 1876, for the purpose of purging the registry lists 
of the frauds appearing upon them. 

1 have considered the same, and your request is hereby granted upon the conditions 
stated in your letter. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant. 


F. A. WOOLFLEY, 

Chief Sujpervisor of Elections, District of Louisiana. 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


1239 


Office of Chief Supervisor of Elections, 

District of Louisiana, 

New Orleans, November 2G, 1879. 
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of the original thereof. 

F. A. WOOLFLEY, 

Chief Supervisor of Elections, District of Louisiana. 


Exhirit Q .—{Referring to letter of March 11, 1879, on page 939 .—oj envelope.) 



ERRATA: 

The city telegram on page 931 should be dated March 22, 1879.” 
The telegram at bottom of page 931 is misplaQed. It is correctly 
printed on page 934. 

The testimony of E. L. Weber, pages 860 to 865, is stricken from the 
record by order of the committee. 


























r 


I^^TDEX. 


Page. 


Meeting of committee in Washington. 51 

Meeting of subcommittee in New Orleans. 501 

Appointment of clerk, stenographer, and sergeant-at-arms. 501 

Meeting of committee in Washington... 1013 


INDEX TO WITNESSES. 


Abell, C. S., testimony of. 739 

Denies that any papers belonging to the retaruing-board went out of their 

possession. 739 

Names of clerks. 743 

Alleyn, J. T., testimony of. 612 

Manager of the Western Union Telegraph Company, with reference to tele¬ 
grams sent to Senator Kellogg. 612 

With telegrams the committee desired him to produce. 678’ 

With reference to the telegrams sent by Senator Kellogg. 829 

Anderson, Thomas C., testimony of. 779 

With referenco'to the conversations he had with Bernard Williams. 780 

Denies he had a conversation with Senator Kellogg about the election re¬ 
turns. 781 

No papers taken from returniug-board. 781 

Never saw Blanchard or Jewitt writing at Governor Kellogg’s. 781 

Never saw Governor Kellogg at the meetings of the returuing-board. 781 

With reference to the protests filed with the returning-boanl. 781 

Autz, George J., testimony of... 667 

With reference to knowing Mr. Green. 667 

Bachelor, William M., testimony of. 955 

With reference to W. J. Moore’s reputation for truth. 956 

Barrow, Robert J., testimony of. 814 

With reference to Sweazle’s reputation for truth. 814 

Baugnon, Lewis F., testimony of. 661 

With reference to the rumors about the election of Uuite<l States Senator.. 662 

Saw money paid to Senator Twichell, and what was said At the time. 663 

With reference to a letter written by witness to Jewitt aud Pitkin. 661 

Behan, W. J., testimony of. 838 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. 839 

Berwin, M., testimony of. 723 

With reference to Bernard Williams’s reputation for truth. 723 

Bird, George, testimony of. 78:1 

Denies receiving money from Blackstoue to vote for Senator Kellogg. 784 

With reference to Toin Murray’s reputation for truth. 784 

Blackstone, Jeremiah, testimony of. 695 

Denies going to Senator Kellogg’s room the night of his arrival in Wash¬ 
ington . 695 

Denies receiving money from Senator Kellogg.69o 

With reference to the affidavit he signed.697-699-701 

Does not know any one who received money for voting for Senator Kellogg. 699 

Financial transaction.-. _i^60 

With reference to Dicks wanting witness to give testimony in the case.... ^01 

On his way to Washington aud in Wa'shingtou.* 705 

Bloomfield, Benjamin, testimony of.-.-.- ----;*; ■ * * •' 

With reference to persons on pay-roll in custom-house from June 1 to ^o- 

vember 1.. . - ... 

With bundle of papers the committee desired him to produce. 660 

Boatner, Charles J., testimony of . . ............. .............. 880 

What Jeremiah Blackstoue told witness about Senator Kellogg in Mr. Sey¬ 
mour’s office. .-/. 

With reference to the committee appointed to investigate the charges 

against Senator Kellogg.-....;. 

With reference to what witness said about paying for testimony. 



















































1242 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Bonrges, Albert, testimony of. 999 

With reference to Baugrson’s reputation for truth. lOOO 

Bridges, Cicero, testimony of. 796 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. 797 

Brooks, Richard J., testimony of. 283 

Saw Thomas vote for United States Senator. 283 

What Murray wanted him to do. 283 

With reference to the letter from Mr. Smith and dispatch from Mr. Newnan. 285 

What Cavanac said. 287 

Denies telling Cavanac that he got money for voting for Senator Kellogg.. 288 

With reference to his apimintment in the custom-house.288-293 

Business in New Orleans. 290 

Rumors at the time of Senator Kellogg’s election.291-292 

Never made any paper in regard to this case... 292 

What Ross Stewart said. 292 

Rumors that there was money used to elect Mr. Spolford. 295 

Denies ever making an affidavit... 496 

Brown, Charles F., testimony of. 296 

Saw Thomas and Seveignes vote for United States Senator. 296 

With reference to conversations with Murray.297-299-302-315 

Denies receiving money to vote for Senator Kellogg. 297 

With reference to proposition made by Kennedy to go over to the Nicholls 

legislature. 298 

With reference to his appointment in the custom-house.299-310-313 

Conversations with Cavanac.....304-311 

With reference to keeping tally...307-311 

With reference to Kennedy. 308 

Why Murray must have known Thomas was present..... 310 

Brown, H. T., testimony of.. 827 

With reference to a statement Morris Marks made to him. 827 

Brown, John E., testimony of. 1044 

Night-clerk at Willard’s Hotel. 1044 

No drinking or carousing in any of the rooms. 1045 

With reference to the doors and time of closing.1045-1046 

With reference to Cavanac’s room. 1045 

Does not think it possible that five men could have gone up and down with¬ 
out him knowing it. 1046 

Budreau, C., testimony of... 887 

With reference to G. A. Sweazie’s reputation for truth. . 887 

Buisson, T. J., testimony of. 985 

Justice of the peace, with reference to swearing Milton Jones and.De Lacy. 985 

Burke, E. A., testimony of. 540 

With reference to the frauds in 7th ward. 541 

With reference to the frauds in the returns of poll No. 3 in 7th ward. 546 

Cain, L. B., testimony of. 927 x 

With reference toJMorris Marks’s reputation for truth. 928 

C^rrick, John, testimony of. 897 

With reference to W. J. Moore’s reputation for truth. 898 

Carville, J. M., testimony of*.. 861 

With reference to certain members being present at the time of the election 

of United States Senator. 8 gl 

With reference to how things were going on at the time of the election.862 

Cavanac, Charles, testimony of. 208 

With reference to what De Lacy said about making a statement. 208 

Affidavit shown is the one De Lacy made. 209 

De Lacy dictated the affidavit and it was read over to him. 210 

With reference to seeing De Lacy sworn and seeing him sign the affidavit.'.* 210 

With reference to the affidavit of Milton Jones. 923 

Conversation with Jones in Washington :.I'.*.!!! 923 

• Denies telling Jones to stand up for Mr. Spofford and Murray 924 

. With reference to the affidavits of Geary, Watson, and Brooks.11^.1*924-925 

Conversation on the train with Jim Lewis. 111111. 92*5 

With reference to Dickerson and C. F. Brown, telling witness’they received * 

money... 920 

Persons present when Jones’s and Geary’s affidavits were made.926-927 

With reference to the affidavits of J. J. Johnson and Seveignes_1111111. 928 

Denies telling Ward he would be collector, or ever promising mo’ney or office 
to any one. pgg 

Denies having anything to do with Flowers in this matter 111 111 1111111 HI 1 990 






























































INDEX. 


1243 


Cavanac, Charles, testimony of—Continued. 

With reference to the reputations of Phillips, Ward, and Flowers. 990 

Denies having any conversation with Garrett in regard to this case. 1-207 

Conversation with Elder. 1208 

Conversation with Herbert. 1209 

Clark, T. M. G., testimony of. ,' 5<;4 

Conversation with Tom Murray. 804 

With reference to trying to keep Murray from testifying. 804 

Clarke, H. Conquest, testimony of. 780 

Denies being in Senator Kellogg’s room the night Bernard Williams testified 

he was. 78G 

Denies that Blanchard or Jewett ever did any writing in the room Houser 

said they did. 787 

With reference to sending telegrams. 788 

With reference to cipher telegrams. 789 

With reference to the permit given to Bernard Williams to peddle. 902 

Clover, F. A., testimony of. 409 

Thomas and Seveignes were present and voted for United States Senator.. 409 

Where Murray was when Thomas voted. 470 

With reference to his appointment as supervisor of registration. 470 

With reference to adding something to the affidavit he made.47-2-481 

With reference to his testimony before the Morrison committee. 480 

Cooper, James, testimony of. 685 

With reference to the admission of certain persons in the house of represent¬ 
atives . 885 

What he heard Johnson say about receiving money for voting for Mr. Spof- 

ford.•. 995 

Cornog, A. W., testimony of. 453 

With reference to the financial transaction with P. Baker.453-45G 

With reference to where Baker said he got his money from.454-456-4C5 

Denies offering any money to Johnson to make an affidavit.. 454 

With reference to conversation with Johnson. 454 

With reference to the day he gave witness the money. 4.57 

With reference to his being summoned.458-4G1 

With reference to his dismissal from the custom-house. 4G1 

With reference to persons he told what Baker said to him. 462 

Conversations with Frisbie and Pllder. 4GC 

With reference to his appointment as supervisor of registration. 408 

Daliet, Octave, testimony of. 804 

Conversations with Moore and Blackstone. 805 

With reference to erasure of names at custom-house.805-80G 

With reference to Blackstone’s character. 806 

With reference to false registration certificates. 807 

De Joie, Aristide, testimony of. 777 

Denies that Harris ever paid him money. 778 

De Lacy, William John, testimony of.. 

With reference to the caucus before the organization. 144 

With reference to going to Senator Kellogg to borrow money. 145 

Denies signing and making out a certain document. 146 

Denies receiving $-200 for voting for Senator Kellogg. 147 

With reference to the affidavit he did make. 148 

What Ward told him he would get if he made out this affidavit. 148 

With reference to what took place in the caucuses.. 

What Murray said he was going to get for making an affidavit. 149 

Thomas and Seveignes were present and voted. 149 

’ With reference to certain parties voting... loO 

With reference to members being paid to go over to the Nicholls legislature^ 

and voting for Mr. Spofibrd.....151-188 

With reference to certain parties working to get up affidavits for Mr. Spof- 

ford.^. 

Names of persons receiving money to vote for Mr. Spofford. loJ 

Inducements held out by the Nicholls legislature... 153 

With reference to how he knew members received money from the Nicholls 

legislature.-. 

Quorum was present when the Packard legislature met on Ist January .... lob 
With reference to the pay of members and Souer advancing money on 

vouchers...V * i ' •- 2 . i 

Certain members coming in next day and asking to record their votes —. lo/ 

Murray was not present when he made his affidavit. 159 




























































1244 


INDEX. 


Page. 

De Lacy, William John, testimony of—Continued. 

With reference to the rooms in the State-house. .. 160 

Never spelled his name De L-a-c-e-y. 160 

With reference to the investijyatiug committee.161-191 

Never heard certain parties say they received money. 162 

What Ward said in regard to making an affidavit. 166 

Denies that the magistrate ever swore him. 167 

What occurred in Cassidy’s Hotel. 167 

With reference to his being bull-dozed from his parish in 1876. 168 

Conversation with Tom Murray.171-177 

Cavanac said his statement would never be used in Washington. 171 

What he said in the affidavit he made. 17J 

With reference to the magistrate signing the paper and he being present... 175 

Magistrate did not put any seal on the paper.. 175 

Was offered |200 to vote for Senator Kellogg. 178 

With reference to certain parts in the affidavit he denies making was in the 

one he did make. 179 

With reference to the time of balloting for United States Senator. 185 

Names of i)ersons who met in caucus at the request of Mr. Demas. 187 

Told Cavanac he was going to stand by his statement. 190 

With reference to the money paid him to vote for Mr. Spofiford. 196 

What some of the members of the Packard legislature said after it fell. 199 

With reference to a quorum being present in the Nicholls legislature before 

19th April. 203 

With reference to the election of Mr. Spofibrd. 205 

Did not receive any money for voting for Senator Kellogg. 207 

With reference to the spelling of his name in the affidavit, and how he spells 

it. 214 

Derocha, Alexander, testimony of. 792 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth... 792 

Dickerson, Vincent, testimony of. 744 

Denies knowing B. Dreifus. 744 

Denies making a bill with Cargrave. 745 

Conversation with Tom Murray... 746 

Dreifus B., testimony of. 668 

With reference to Dickerson and Simmes’s pecuniary condition. 668 

Drury, George, testimony of. 799 

With reference to Hughes receiving money to vote for Senator Kellogg.... 799 

Duffy, Peter J., testimony of. 1201 

With reference to M. Davis. 1201 

Understood to be Barney Williams. J202 

Dumont, Andrew J., testimony of. 

With reference to the time of the election.. 488 

Thomas was present and voted. 489 

Quorum present in the senate the first day of the session. 489 

Elder, John W., testimony of. 1150 

With reference to being employed by Mr. Spofibrd.11.50-1157 

Persons he talked to. 1151 

With reference to what Tom Murray said. 1152 

What Seveigues said about his affidavit.. 1154 

What Johnson and De Lacy said about their affidavits. 1154 

What Seveignes said he was going to get. 1154 

What Blackstone said about his affidavit. 1155 

What he said he would get. 1155 

What witness said to Mr. Spofford about the witnesses. 11.55 

With reference to Cornog. II 57 

Persons acting with him in New Orleans. II 59 

With reference to his letter to Mr. Morse.^. 1161 

Mr. Morse gave him the money. Ugl 

With reference to who he communicated with. 1162 

With reference to the affidavits he took to Mr. Merrick’s office. 1163 

With reference to the money he was to receive for his services. 1163 

With reference to the affidavits. II 64 

With reference to the affidavit of Kelso. . 1168 

With reference to two of his letters to his wife. 1171 

Persons speaking to him about a place in the custom-house.! 1173 

What he told Mr. Morse.... 1174 

With reference to conversation with Cavanac..* 1175 

With reference to conversation with Mr. Merrick..4176-1180 

































































INDEX. 


1245 

Page 


Elder, John W., testimony of—Contiuued. 

With reference to the dispatches. . 117G 

What Mr. Spoftord said. 1181 

What witness said to Morse and Elam. 1183 

What he told Senator Kello^jr. 1184 

With reference to telling; Mr. Spohord that the witnesses said their affidavits 

were false. 1185 

Ewart, Edward J., testimony of. 890 

With reference to Blackstone’s affidavit.891,892 

With reference to Blachstone’s reputation for truth. 892 

Falls, Isaac W., testimony of. 793 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. 794 

Fitzpatrick, John, testimony of. 055 

With reference to an affidavit made by W. J. De Lacy. G55 

Fitzpatrick, John, testimony of... 846 

With reference to the reputation of Francis Garrett. 847 

Fitzsimmons, John T., testimony of. 7iK) 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. 791 

Flagg, O. J., testimony of. 8G7 

With reference to Francis Garrett’s reputation for truth. 8G7 

Flanagan, Albert W., testimony of. 599 

With reference to who Aristides De Joie voted for. 599 

Saw money pass from Harris to De Joie. GOO 

Conversation was about what the money was paid for. GOO 

Stamps got some of the money. GOl 

With reference to his making a statement.. .. G02 

Does not remember any of the conversation between Stamps and De Joie.. G04 
Thinks the conversation between Stamps and De Joie took place in January, 

187G. -605 

The date in the affidavit is wrong. G08 

Does not know positively that Harris was inspector of beeves. Gil 

Flanagan, Thomas K., testimony of. 679 

With reference to conversation with W. J. Moore. 680 

With reference to a memorandum he made as to how the parishes went.... 680 

With reference to how the State went in 187G. 813 

Flow’ers, E. H., testimony of.- - - • 980 

With reference to his ijetting up certain certificates in the Kellogg-Spofford 

case. 980 

Pay he was to receive for his services. 981 

What occurred in Cavanac’s office. 981 

With reference to Mr. Spofford giving Cavanac a package of money. 982 

With reference to Mr. Spofford giving Phillips and Ward each SoO. 982 

Conversations with Mr. Spotford and Mr. Walker. 9^ 

Flynn,Edward,testimony of. In-n 

Does not know of any transaction between Senator Kellogg and Twitchell. 19^0 

With reference to the operators’room. J. ^*^19 

Does not know Harrison.•*.•*•... ‘ }nio 

With reference to the condition of affairs in the State-house. 1972 

Procured Murray as a witness..*•*-*.-.***.... ofr 

Thought witnesses were going back on tht'ir affidavits in M ashington..... J8o 

Francisco, Salvador S., testimony of... 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. ' 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. 

Garic, Louis F., testimony of. ?}? 

With reference to a conversation he had with P. G. Desloude. oio 

Garrett, Francis, 1 estimony of.:*• V*‘ ‘; oVV '*c’“ 

With reference to the time of voting and canvassing for United States Sen¬ 
ator ...... .. 

Conversations Milton Jones had with Senator Kellogg and witness. 810 

What Senator Kellogg said in caucus. 811 

Conversation with Senator Twitchell. 

With reference to Senator Kellogg giving Milton Jones money. 8ii 

With reference to his dismissal from the custom-hou.se. 

Arrested for alleged horse-stealing. 9U1 

Explanation. ‘ , 

With reference to his being arrested in Shreveport. 

With reference to his being in jail in Jackson. 

Denies ever being tried for larceny. 

































































124(3 


INDEX. 


Page. 


Garrett, Francis, testimony of—Continued. 

/With reference to his being arrested for larceny while the military occupied 


/ 


the city. 

Denies being arrested in 1868, or in Texas... 

/ With reference to the State warrants growing out of Auditor Wickcliff’s 

defalcation. 

With reference to the alleged larceny. 

Drew pay and did no work. 905 

Gastinel, Arthur, testimony of. 713 

With reference to the rascality of Bernard Williams. 713 

Goster, D. S., testimony of. ^94 

Saw Blackstone at Mr. Seymour’s office. 894 

Conversation with Milon. 894 

With reference to talk with Dicks. 896 

Gresham, George, testimony of. 832 

With reference to the resolution passed enforcing the rules the day Senator 

Kellogg was elected. 832 

Grindley, George, testimony of. 868 

With reference to a table of figures of the twelfth, eighteenth, and twenty- 
second senatorial district. 873 


Conversation he heard between Tony Clark and Tom Murray. 873 

Guichard, Robert F., testimony of.... 345 

Chief clerk of Packard legislature. 345 

Quorum present the first day of the session. 345 

With reference to the original journal of the house. 346 

Number of members answering to their names on the 10th January. 347 

Number of senators and members present iu joint session. 347 

All the senators who are recorded as voting for Senator Kellogg did vote .. 347 

Roll of the members and who they voted for. 348 

Thomas and Seveignes were present. 349 

Senate had no quorum the day of the joint convention. 350 

With reference to telling the sergeant-at-arms to go and get absent members. 350 

With reference to the legislative committee. 437 

Names of the members of the legislative committee. 446 

Evidence taken by committee. 447 

Harris, Hart H., testimony of. 1083 

Denies the transaction that Flanagan testified to. 1083 

Denies ever paying any one any money in connection with the election .... 1084 

Heidenheim, H., testimony of. 724 

With reference to Bernard Williams’s reputation for truth. 724 

Heidingsfelder, Emanuel, testimony of...719 

With reference to Bernard Williams’s reputation for truth. 719 

Hepburn, Samuel C., testimony of. 884 

With reference to the reputation of Morris Marks. 884 

Herbert, Lawrence D., testimony of.. 1137 

Denies the transaction in DeLacy’s affidavit taking place in his presence .. 1137 

With reference to Thomas.....1139-1141 

With reference to conversation with Judge Stokes.1139-1141 

Houser, Henry, testimony of. 1 . 503 

Night watchman at Governor Kellogg’s residence. 503 

Names of persons visiting the governor at night... 504 

With reference to the election-returns. 505 


With reference to Anderson talking with Governor Kellogg about election- 


returns . 508 

Hutton, N. B., testimony of. 772 

Assistant supervisor of registration in seventh ward. 773 

Denies hearing any conversation between Williams and Moore at Moore’s 

house. 773 

Interview with Mr. Moore. 774 

Jewitt, D. J. M. A., testimony of. 816 

Denies that Blanchard or himself ever worked on any returns in Governor 

Kellogg’s house. 816 

Registration-books taken to the custom-house. 816 

Purging the lists. 817 

With reference to Grant Parish. 818 

Denies the statement of Mrs. Ward.. 822 

With reference to the supervisors’ protests.824-826 

Johnson, Joseph J., testimony of. 51 

i-ia. With reference to the legislature. 51 



























































INDEX. 


1247 


Johnson, Joseph J., testimony of—Continued. 

Milton Jones left the room where the caucus was assembled. 

Motion of witness. 

With reference to what Senator Kellogg said to the caucus. 

With reference to Senator Kellogg sending him to Souer. 

With reference to his affidavit. 

Persons present when he signed his affidavit. 

Affidavit was read to him. 

Told Cavanac everything in the affidavit was all right. 

All Senator Kellogg said was that Souer would lend him the money. 

Denies that Senator Kellogg asked him to stand by him. 

Denies that Souer said that every one who voted for Senator Kellogg would 

get $200 . 

Does not remember hearing read in his affidavit that he was paid $200 by 

Souer. 

Does not know of Washington getting any money. 

AVho William Ward is. 

What he saw Ward doing. 

Ward took him to Cavanac’s office. 

Explanation why he signed the affidavit. 

Found the affidavit written when he went to Cavanac’s office. 

Cavanac said he was working in Mr. Spofford’s interest. 

What Ward said witness would get if he signed the affidavit. 

Did not give any instructions about the affidavit. 

Denies that part with reference to Senator Kellogg saying “ that he had 

stood by the government,” &c. 

Denies that part with reference to “complaining of certain language to 

Souer,” tfcc. 

Denies that Jones said to him that he was going to Senator Kellogg to get 

some money. 

Duties of Souer as chairman of a certain committee. 

Denies that Souer paid him $200. 

Denies that Drew sai<l he got his money from Souer. 

Never authorized any one to make the statements in the affidavit. 

Never received any money for voting for Senator Kellogg. 

With reference to Ward and Stewart... 

Affidavit was written while he was prt\Rent. 

What transpired in the room while he was there. 

With reference to what Cornog said... 

What Cavanac said on the cars... 

Johnson, Robert R., testimony of.-.. 

Denies ever showing or telling Murray he got money for voting for Senator 

Kellogg.-.. 

Does not know anybody that was offered money to vote for Senator Kellogg. 

Conversation with Murray... 

Denies ever receiving money to vote for Senator Kellogg. 

Jones, Milton, testimony of. 

Did not leave the hall of the house until after the election of United States 

Senator.. .-.-.;. 

Denies receiving money for voting for Senator Kellogg. 

Denies telling Weber that he received $.>00. 

Explanation of the statement he made to Mr. Cavanac. 

Conversations with Mr. Cav'auac and Mr. Spotiord. 

Denies having conversation with Weber. 

Denies ev'er borrowing money from Weber. 

Inability to write. ..*..... 

With reference to the contents of the affidavit he signed. 

With reference to the letter he signed to L. J. Souer. 

When witnesses were in Washington...-.. . . .. 

Conversations he had with Mr. Cavanac in regard to testifying. 

Did not receive any money for signing the affidavit . 

Talk witness had with Mr. Garrett and Mr. Spofford. 

When witness first knew'Garrett. 

Kemp, Mrs. E. 13., testimony of...-. 

With reference to Francis Garrett’s reputation for truth. 

Kernberger, M., testimony of.. . . .. 

With reference to the reputation of Francis Garrett. 

Le Gardeur, Stephen, testimony of.. ,'•** . 

With reference to what Mr. Deslonde said in witness s hearing. 


Page. 


.51 

51 

52 
55 

57-58 

57 

,59 

.59 

60 

60 


62 

62 

62 

62 

66 

6)6 

66 

67 

67 

67 

68 


68 


68 

68 

()9 

71 

71 

71 

7:3 

73 

74 
74 

484 

4.S7 

341 

:141 

341 

342 
345 
906 


906 

906 

907 
907 

907 

908 
908 
908 
910 

915 

916 
916 
918 

920 

921 

842 

843 
848 
848 

594 

595 
































































1248 


INDEX. 


Lehman, Abraham, testimony of... 

With reference to Bernard Williams’s reputation for truth. 

Le Loup, Edward, testimony of. 

Connected with the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Company. 

With reference to telegrams sent to Senator Kellogg. 

Lemee, Adolph, testimony of.. ..... 

With reference to the general character of Phillips and Ward. 

Leonard, A. H., testimony of... 

Thinks there was a quorum present when United States Senator was elected . 

Levi, Abram, testimony of..-. 

With reference to Thomas being present at the election of United States 

Senator. 

Lewis, A. J., testimony of.-.-. 

With reference to the affidavits of Benjamin Franklin, Jeremiah Blackstone, 

and James Kelly. 

With reference to the election at poll three, seventh ward... 

With reference to W. J. Moore’s reputation for truth. 

Lewis, James, testimony of.-.^. 

Denies ever giving money to Bernard Williams or speaking to him about 

Senator Kellogg... 

Denies sending the telegrams referred to by Bernard Williams. 

Business he went to Washington for. 

Thinks there was quorum present when Senator Kellogg was elected. 

Connection he had with witnesses in Washington.. 

Did not visit Senator Kellogg the night he arrived in Washington.. . 

With reference to knowing certain parties. 

With reference to certain parties being in the custom-house. 

Reasons why the above are employed in the custom-house. 

With reference to the money he got from Senator Kellogg. 

Loan, W. F., testimony of...-. 

Says Mr. Flynn was not telegraph-operator in the State-house in 1877. 

Long, Webster, testimony of. 

With reference to the rumors about members in the Packard legislature... 

Maddern, Christopher, testimony of... 

With reference to the general character of Francis Garrett. 

Magloire, Pierre, testimony of. 

Denies receiving money for voting fcfl‘ United States Senator. 

Manning, W. H., testimony of. 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. 

Marcil, Louis, testimony of. 

With reference to George A. Sweazie’s reputation for truth. 

Marks, Morris, testimony of. 

Denies having spoken to Bernard Williams the night referred to. 

With reference to Bernard Williams’s reputation for truth. 

Marx, Solomon, testimony of. 

With reference to Bernard Williams committing perjury. 

Mazet, Joseph, testimony of. 

With reference to false registration papers. 

McGloin, Frank, testimony of... 

Milton Jones, affidavit in witness’s handwriting, and dictated by Milton 

Jones. 

Thinks he wrote the affidavits of Johnson and Murray. 

Persons present during the drawing up of the affidavits. 

Witness present when Johnson swore-to his affidavit. 

Conversations with Phillips, Ward, and Flowers.. 

McMillen, W. L., testimony of. 

Quorum was present the day of the election of United States Senator. 

No evidence to show that any member was paid for voting for Senator Kel¬ 
logg. 

Election of Senator Kellogg was unanimous. 

Miller, John Clark, testimony of. 

Conversation with Murray. 

Milon, Alfred Etienne, testimony of. 

Denies ever signing the affidavit testified to by Mr. Seymour. 

Acquaintance with Mr. Dicks. 

Mouier, H. D., testimony of. 

With reference to the election in the seventh ward... 

Moore, Alexander, testimony of. 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. 


Page. 

72() 

726 

614 

614 

614 

978 

979 
929 
929 

587 

588 
834 

834 

837 

837 

624 

625 
628 
630 
630 
632 
641 
643 
648 
653 
652 

775 

776 
826 
826 
847 
847 

1,099 

1,100 

833 

833 

888 

888 

724 

725 
725 

716 

717 

589 

590 
987 

987 

987 

988 
988 
988 

998 

999 

999 

999 

619 

620 

799 

800 
800 
539 
539 
795 
795 

































































INDEX 


1249 


Page. 

726 


726 

726 


/29 

732 

732 

732 

735 

738 


Moore, W. J,, testimony of. 

With reference to what occurred at the meeting of supervisors and clerks in 

the custom-house... 

With reference to Mr. Burke’s testimony. 

Denies that Peter Williams gave him a package of blank certificates. 729 

With reference to the registration. 

Conversations he had in regard to Senator Kellogg. 

Quorum was present when Senator Kellogg was elected. 

Denies that duplicate registration papers were issued. 

Conversation with Mr. Walker. 

Understanding after conversation with Mr. Walker. 

With reference to the striking olf of names from the registration. 831 

Morse, George W., testimony of.•. 1210 

With reference to his acquaintance with Elder. 1210 

Conversation with Elder, and how he came to give him the money. 1210 

With reference to the telegrams.. 1212 

Conversation with Elder in Washington. 1213 

Sent Elder to New Orleans on his own responsibility. 1214 

With reference to his instructions to Elder. 1216 

With reference to the postal card to Elder. 1217 

With reference to the list of witnesses. 1218 

With reference to the letters to Elder. 1219 

What Elder said about the witnesses who went back on their affidavits... 1220 

Moss, George W., testimony of. 1075 

No money shipments by Jackson, Jones, Blackstoiie, or De Lacy from 1st 

June, 1879, to 31st July. 1076 

Murray, Thomas, testimony of. 85 

Sergeant-at-arms of the house of representatives. 86 

With reference to Senator Kellogg sending for him to show members to 

Soner’s room. 86 

What some of the members told and showed him after leaving Souer’s room 92 

Current rumor was that all got money. 93 

Names of persons saying they got money to vote for Senator Kellogg. 94 

With reference to Sweazie. 94 

With reference to James Lewis. 95 

Conversations with Sweazie. 95 

Conversations with James Lewis. 98 

Was present when De Lacy made his affidavit. 100 

De Lacy said he was going to stand by his affidavit. 100 

Saw Seveigues write his affidavit and s^tear to it. 100 

With reference to members of the Packard legislature in the custom-house 100 

What Mr. King said to witness. 103 

Where he went with Cavanac the morning they left New Orleans. 103 

Names of witnesses that went to Cavanac’s office to be summoned . 104 

With reference to the rooms in the State-house.107-112 


With reference to the pay of members... 

The general jmactice of members in regard to their i)ay. 

With reference to a law' the Nicholls legislature ])assed.. 

Thinks there was a quorum present in both houses on first day of the session. 
Quorum in both houses the day they counted the vote for govermir....... 

With reference to a quorum being present the day they voted for United 

States Senator, and w'hat witness did. 

When Senator Kellogg sent for members he was governor... 

Saw Souer pay money to some members after the warrants w'ere issued... 
Does not know of any money being ])aid during the time Senator Kellogg 


108 

109. 

110 

110 

113 

114 

115 

116 


was governor... 

With reference to the vouchers.119-121 

120 
121 


With reference to certain officials ... 

James Lew'is said he should tell nothing but the truth. 

Saw the two men receive money from Souer. 123 

With reference to the Souer combination.... 123 

Did not see the men that Souer paid give him any paper. 124 

How witness came to see Souer give these men the money. 125 

With reference to the value of the warrants.- —. 126 

With reference to the number of members present the day of the election.. 128 

Thomas was not present, and reasons why he was not there .. —.130-136 

With reference to Watson saying he voted in Thomas’s place. 139 

Ifenies that he directed Watson to take Thomas’s seat and vote in his place. 140 
With reference to w'ituess offering Watson money for an affidavit. 141 






























































1250 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Murray, Thomas, testimony of—Continued. 

With reference to Watson’s affidavits.. 141 

With reference to sending Watson to Thomas’s seat. 141 

With reference to the door of the room where Souer was locked. 142 

Names of the two persons he saw get money from Souer. 143 

Going with De Lacy to Cavanac’s office. 211 

What De Lacy said about his affidavit.—. 211 

Explanation of how he expected to make money out of this case. 214 

With reference to Dickerson’s reputation for truth. 849 

Denies conversation testified to by Dickerson. 849 

Conversations with George Bird. 850 

Conversation with Miller. 851 

What Jim Lewis said he went to Washington for. 851 

Persons who met the witnesses at the depot. 852 

Conversation with the witnesses._. 852 

What Bernard Williams said to witness in Washington. 853 

Arrested in Washington. 854 

What Aristide De Joie said.-. 855 

Proposition witness made to Clark. 857 

Explanation. 858 

Conversation with W. J. Moore. 860 

With reference to his discharge from the mint. 994 

Denies that Flowers procured him for Mr. Cavauac. 995 

Nicholls, Isham, testimony of. 884 

Denies ever receiving money from anybody in the interest of Senator Kel¬ 
logg . 884 

Norton, George L., testimony of. 1189 

Senator Kellogg did not leave his room on the day of the election. 1189 

Milton Jones did not talk with Senator Kellogg on that day. 1189 

With reference to listening to conversation between Murray and Clark.. 1192-1194 

Parker, Lorenzo D., testimony of. 795 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth.. 795 

Perkins, Joseph H., testimony of. 905 

With reference to George A. Sweazie’s reputation for truth. 905 

Phelps, John B,, testimony of. 1077 

No money shipments sent by certain witnesses to New Orleans during June.. 1073 

Phillips, W. B., testimony of... 930 

With reference to his connection with the Kellogg-Spofford case.....930-932 

With reference to the affidavits of Jones and J. J. Johnson. 931 

Money promised to Jones and Johnson. 932 

With reference to Mr. Spofford giving Cavanac a package of money....... 933 

Money received from Mr. Spofford. 934 

Money W ard received. 934 

With reference to Ward and witness going to Washington. 934 

With reference to contents of letters from. Mr. Spofford while in Washington.. 934 

What occurred in Mr. Walker’s office. 935 

No understanding between witness and Mr. Spofford that he was to pay 

money to anybody for dishonest work. 936 

Affidavit of Geary in witness’s handwriting. 936 

Understood that Geary’s affidavit was false. 937 

Affidavit of Milton Jones in witness’s handwriting, and believed it to be 

false. 937 

His purpose to get false affidavits. 938 

What Mr. Spofford said to him about wanting a Republican to find out testi¬ 
mony .:. 939 

With reference to the man Johnson. 940 

With reference to the affidavits he got. 941 

Expected them to go back on their affidavits . 942 

With reference to deceiving Mr. Spofford and working for Senator Kellogg. 943 

Telegram about proving the affidavits a lie. 944 

Persons who knew he was deceiving Mr. Spofford. 945 

Conversation with Johnson_'. 946 

With referoice to his commission as judge of Grant Parish. 948 

With reference to his being charged with murder, perjury, and illegal 

voting.. 948 

Explanation of the charge of murder. 952 

With reference to writing De Lacy’s affidavit. 950 

Conversation with Mr. Walker. 950 

Cavanac told witness he did not want anything but the truth. 951 





























































INDEX. 


1251 


rage. 

Phillips, W. B., testimony of—Continued. 

With reference to his recommendation from the Democratic committee.... 952 

With reference to the communications with Senator Kellogg;. 9.53 

Pincus, Sam., testimony of. 722 

With reference to Bernard Williams’s reputation for truth. 722 

Pitkin, J. R. G., testimony of. 962 

Explanation with reference to what Phillips testified to about him. 962 

Price, J. B., testimony of. 1068 

Ni^ht detective at Willard’s. 1068 

With reference to closing the F-street entrance. 1068 

Witnesses could not have been in the house after midnight without his 

knowing it. 1069 

Randall, William L., testimony of. 258 

Minute clerk in the Packard legislature. 260 

Was present the day of the election and recorded the votes. 261 

Seveignes and Thomas w'ere present. ‘ 261 

Number of members present when a United States Senator was elected_ 262 

Names of members coming in next day to record their votes. 262 

With reference to the day of the election. 262 

With reference to the notes he made. 263 

With reference to the joint session. 264 

Quorum present in the house all day. 2()4 

With reference to the sergeant-at-arms going for absent members. 264 

Saw every man that answered to his name in the joint session. 265 

Names of the old and the new members. 265 

With reference to meeting and going to see the witnesses. 268 

Thomas was present every day until the 24th of January. 269 

With reference to the memorandum he made.269-271, 272-277 

With reference to the time of Thomas leaving the legislature on Tuesday.. 270 

Persons to whom he showed his memorandum. 272 

With reference to the time of trying to get a quorum. 275 

Thomas voted for United States Senator. 275 

With reference to the way of sending the sergeant-at-arms for members- 277 

Persons in Senator Kellogg’s room the night of 4th of June. 1047 

Time he left the room . 1947 

Conversation with Cavauac. 194~ 

Neither of the five witnesses or Barney Williams were in the room while 

he was there. 1947 

Conversation with Tom Murray. 1948 

With reference to the suit with bis wife...1048-1067 

With reference to being short in his cash while in the post-otfice. 1049 

' With reference to the charge of perjury.; lOoO 

With reference to signing Isabella’s bond.10;)0-1067 

With reference tow'hat his brother testified to.- 1050 

With reference to the testimony of Hiram Smedley.10o2-1067 

With reference to the testimony of Mrs. Beauvois. 1953 

With reference to the testimony of Mrs. Killian. 1954 

With reference to his appointment in the Treasury Department.1063-1064 

Did not see any of the witnesses iu Senator Kellogg’s room. 1964 

What Barney Williams went to see Senator Kellogg for. 1064 

Ryan, Thomas H., testimony of. 

With reference to W. J. Moore’s reputation for truth. 92J 

Sambola, Anthony, testimony of. 22!! 

With reference to the election in the 7th want. ^3J 

With reference to W. J. Moore’s reputation for truth. c40 

Sandak, Jacob, testimony of... 

With reference to Bernard Williams’s reputation of truth. 

Seveignes, Jules, testimony of.. - -.- - - - - - - • . 

With reference to writing and signing his affidavit. 22- 

Denies that the affidavit is true. 

Drouett knew' his affidavit was false.. .. *224 

With reference to certain parties inducing him to make his atiidavit, know- 

ing it to be false. 

Wrote his affidavit without any assistance.. ................ ^2 > 

With reference to the inducements ofi’ered before he made his affidavit.... 2^) 

What Drouett said to him about the affidavit.. 

With reference to why he made the affidavit .. 

With reference to his positions in the custom-house.^31-254-.-3J 






























































1252 


INDEX. 



Page. 


Seveignes, Jules, testimony of—Continued. . , . , 

With reference to calling on Senator Kellogg the night of witness s arrival^ ^ 

in Washington. 

Voted for United States Senator.-. 

r What Murray told him when he wanted to go to Cavanac’s office . 233 

Told Murray he was not present the day of the election. 233 

Did not receive anything for making his affidavit. 234 

Made two similar affidavits.-... 

Told Cavanac he was not present at the time of the election.. 236 

Never told any one the manner in which he deceived Cavanac and others in 

regard to the affidavits...... 

What Drouett said he could get if he recorded his vote in the Nicholls legis¬ 
lature ... 

Told Murray the record lied. 238 

Mr. Elder said he was getting up testimony for Mr. Spofford. 242 

How he came to make an affidavit for Mr. Elder. 242 


Conversation with Tom Murray in regard to getting up affidavits for Mr. 


Spoiford. 243-244 

What Cavanac said Mr. Spofford would do if he got his seat.243-247 

Names of x>erson8 they were dei)ending on for affidavits.. 244 

What they said he would get if he went over to the Nicholls legislature— 248 

Seymore, Wiliiam H., testimony of.. 685 

With reference to the affidavit of Mr. Milon. 685 

With reference to the affidavit of Benjamin Franklin. 688 

With reference to affidavits of James Kelly and Jeremiah Blackstone. 690 

With reference to the investigating committee.1101-1115 

Persons Milon came to his office with. 1102 

With reference to Milon’s affidavit. 1102 

With reference to the identity of Milon.1103-1115 

With reference to Blackstone’s affidavit. 1103 

With reference to Ewart and Spearing. 1104 

With reference to the transactions. 1107 

Saw Blackstone sign the affidavit of 17th April, 1878. 1108 

With reference to the pajiers. 1107 

With reference to the letter from Spearing. 1109-1112 

With reference to the contract. 1112 

With reference to his being employed in the case. 1116 

Sharkey, Miles, testimony of. 843 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth. 843 

Simms, Kichard, testimony of.-. 316 

Thomas was jiresent and voted, and why he knew he was present. 316 ‘ 

Seveignes was present the day of the election for United States Senator... 317 

Denies ever showing money to Murray, and saying he got it for voting for 

Senator Kellogg. 318 

What he heard about bribery.318-320 

Conversation with Murray in Washington.318-321 

With reference to the caucus.. 319 

What Dickerson told him. 320 

With reference to his testimony before the legislative committee. 448 

Denies he raised money to vote for Senator Kellogg. 785 

With reference to what B. Dreifus testified to about him. 785 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth... 786 

Souer, Louis J., testimony of. 1116 

With reference to how members got their jjay...1116 

How the members were situated financially... 1118 

Denies ever paying any one for voting for United States Senator.1118-1122 

Denies paying Milon money to vote for Senator Kellogg . 1119 

Advanced Milon some money on warrants. 1119 

With reference to caucus... 1119 

Denies jiaying Blackstone anything for voting for Senator Kellogg. 1120 

Advanced Blackstone money on vouchers. 1120 

Senator Kellogg was not in the caucus...1121-1136 

Denies the conversation with Milton Jones. 1121 

With reference to advancing money to the members the latter part of Jan¬ 
ary . 1121 

Denies paying Jones $150. 1121 

With reference to the transaction with Jones. 1122 

With reference to vouchers...1123-1128-1133 

Who furnished the money to pay the vouchers.. 1123 



































































INDEX. 


Page. 

8 ouer, Louis J., testimony of—Continueil. 

With reference to what the Packard legislature did. 112.5 

Personal fortuue iu January, 1-^77. 1127 

With reference to the value of the warrants. 1130 

Staes, Eugene, testimony of. 7*20 

With reference to Bernard Williams’ reputatiou for truth. 720 

Stamps, Thoa. B., testimony of. 1078 

Denies the transaction testified to by A. W. Flanagan. 1079 

Denies being in Judge Dibble’s office that day. 1082 

St. Armaud, Rafael, testimony of. 721 

With reference to Bernard Williams being a prisoner on Ship Island. 721 

Stokes, Frederick J., testimony of. 009 

Conversation he had with Senator Kellogg with reference to the election iu 

Grant Parish. 609 

With reference to his being sent to Texas. 072 

Conversation between Blanchard, Jewett, Ward, and witness. 073 

Why Senator Kellogg wanted him to pay money to Phillips. 675 

At whose instance he was sent to Texas. 676 

Ward did not return to Grant Parish. 837 

With reference to Phillips’ and Ward’s reputation for truth. 989 

With reference to what Herbert said. 120;{ 

With reference to Lewis taking the witness from Cavauac. 1203 

Conversation with Herbert with reference to applying for a place. 1200 

Stokes, Jelierson, testituony of. 779 

With reference to Thomas being present at the time of the election for 

United States Senator. 779 

Snrls, W. M., testimony of. 950 

With reference to Francis Garrett’s reputatiou for truth. 950 

Sweazie, G. A. J., testimony of... 749 

Denies all Beinard Williams testified to against him. 750 

Conversations with Tom Murray. 750 

Denies giving Major Burke names of certain members who were paid to 

vote for Senator Kellogg. 757 

With reference to his going to West Feliciana. 759 

With reference to his election to the legislature.*'.701-702-700 

Conversation with Major Burke. 704 

Does not think any of the witnesses left the hotel the night of their arrival 

in Washington. 705 

With reference to Murray’s testimony in Washington. 765* 

With reference to the killing of W. D. Winter and John Gear and the poi¬ 
soning of Dr. Saunders.-. 771 

With reference to the pecuniary condition of Lucius Early iu 1877. 990 

Denies the conversation that Weber said he had with witness. 99»j 

What Weber said to witness..... 997 

Denies ever carrying a letter to Weber from Mr. Twitchell. 998 

Sypher, J. Hale, testimony of. 19*J8 

With reference to the day the witness arrived. 102J 

Time ho left Senator Kellogg’s room.....- 1029 

None of the witnesses in Senator Kellogg’s room the night of their arrival 

while he was there. f029 

Barney Williams was not in Senator Kellogg’s room. 1030 

No money was paid while he was in the room. 1030 

What Barney Williams came to his ofiice for. 1030 

Persons in Senator Kellogg’s room the night of the 4th of June. 1035 

With reference to Molliere. 1035 

With reference to Barney Williams. 1037 

Tennison, Otto M., testimony of.-. 

With reference to the election at poll No. 8 in the seventh ward. 879 

With reference to W. J. Moore and Jeremiah Blackstone’s reputatiou for 

truth... 

Tomlinson, J. M., testimony of..- - -.. 0'5«1 

With reference to persons employed iu the custom-house. 083 

With book of custom-house employes. 888 

With reference to Garrett’s dismissal from the custom-house. 890 

Tournade, Gustave, testimony ....... J>15 

With reference to the election at poll 3, in the seventh ward. 01b 

Tracy, T. G., testimony of...:. 

With reference to the dismissal of Tom Murray from the mint. 8<0 






























































1254 


INDEX. 


I’a^e 


Trevigne, Paul, testimony of. 

With reference to the election at poll 6 in seventh ward. 828 

Twitchell, Marshall H., testimony of. 

Denies the transaction testified to by Bangnon. 1086 

Denies ever being ofibred money for any purpose. 1086 

Denies certain conversations with Garrett. 1087 

Quorum in the joint session on lOl'h January. 1088 

No money was used for Senator Kellogg’s election. 1089 

Senator Kellogg never urged his election in caucus. 1089 

With reference to the improvement of Lake Bistenay. 1089 

With reference to the scrip in the parish of Red River. 1095 

With reference to the letter he sent to Weber. 1097 

What Bangnon said he got for his testimony... 1098 

With reference to Harrison. 1195 

With reference to the paper Bangnon admitted to have signed. 1199 

Vigers, John, testimony of.-. 710 

With reference to arresting Bernard Williams. *711 

Conversation with Tom Murray. 711 

Walsh, H. H., testimony of... 826 

With reference to Tom Murray’s reputation for truth... 827 

Walsh, John A., testimony of. 1017 

With reference to the time of his taking rooms at Willard’s.1018-102J- 

With reference to going to Senator Kellogg’s room.,. 1018 

No such man as Williams or any colored man in Senator Kellogg’s room the 

night referred to.1019-1021-1024 

Location of the rooms and furniture in the room.1020-1026 

Saw DeLacy and Sweazie in Senator Kellogg’s room. 1024 

Randall was in the room that night. 1025 

Did not have any conversation with anybody about his testimony.1038-1042 

With reference to the suits of the United States against him. 1039 

Witness was in New Orleans during the meeting of subcommittee. 1043 

Wands, J. B., testimony of. 897 

With reference to the papers McGloire signed. 897 

Ward, William, testimony of... 964 

His connection with the Kellogg-Spofibrd case... 964 

Conversation with Johnson and Mr. Spoflford. 965 

With reference to the getting up of the affidavits of Jone^ and Johnson... 966 

Jones and Johnson said they had not received any money from Senator Kel- 

* logg.-. 966 

With reference to the getting up of the affidavits of Geary and DeLacy.... 966 

With reference to getting Brooks a conimission_.•. 967 

With reference to the affidavits of Watson and Blackstone. 967 


Conversation with Tom Murray. 968 

Copy taken of Jones’s affidavit..•. 969 

With reference to the contents of the letter from Mr. Spofford to Phillips.. 969 

With reference to the interviews with Mr. Spoflbrd. 970 

With reference to Mr. Spofford telling witness that Senator Kellogg was 

elected dishonestly. 970 

With reference to what the affidavits were for. 971 

What was promised to the boys. 971 

Murray wanting to make an affidavit. 972 

Told Mr. Spofford that Senator Kellogg was elected by bribery. 973 

What Judge Spofford told witness. 974 

Thinks it would have been different if he had gone to Washington. 975 

Amount of money witness received from Mr. Spofi^'ord. 977 

Warmoth, Henry Clay, testimony of. 886 

With reference to th^ rumors afloat and the election of United States Sena¬ 
tor. 886 

Does not know if there was a quorum present. 887 

Waters, George W., testimony of.. 801 

What Blackstone said about Senator Kellogg’s election. 802 

With reference to the election at poll 9 in the seventh ward. 802 

Watson, Joseph R., testimony of. 323 

Denies answering for Thomas and voting in his place.324-334 

What he was doing on the 10th January^l877.324, 325-341 

Conversation with Tom Murray with reference to Murray saying Thomas 

was present and voted. 327 

Arrangements between Murray and witness.1 327 






























































INDEX. 1255 

Page. 


Watson, Jo.seph R., testimony of—Continued. 

With reference to Murray saying the affidavits were all false. 3*29 

With reference to the affidavit witness signed..330-3:12 

Who was present when he made his affidavits. :131 

Conversation with Senator Kellogg. 335 

Told Cavanac he was willing to sw*ear to his affidavit. :i:36 

Conversation with Cavanac. 336 

With reference to his working in the custom-house. 338 

With reference to letter to Cavanac. 339 

With reference to why he went hack on his affidavit. :139 

Wharton, Jack, testimony of. 1000 

With reference to E. L. Weber’s reputation for truth. 1000- 

Williams, Bernard, testimony of. 556 

With reference to what he was employed to do with witnesses in Washing¬ 
ton . 557 

Names of witnesses. 558 

With reference to telegrams sent by Jim Lewis. .5.58 

With reference to Senator Kellogg telling the witnesses they must go back 

on their affidavits and giving each $500.. . .559 

Taking the witnesses to Senator Kellogg’s room and who was in the room.. 559 

Conversation with Senator Kellogg_!. 562 

Names of persons witness told that Senator Kellogg gave money to wit¬ 
nesses .1. 564 

Conversation with Morris Marks.’. .566 

Conversation with Jim Lewis. 569 

Jim Lewis gives witness money to go to Washington. .570 

Conversation with John Anderson. 571 

With reference to his running away from the confederate army. 577 

Denies the charge of larceny. 580 

Explanation with reference to Sweazie while in Washington. 9.58 

With reference to a permit to peddle. 959 

Denies being arrested for larceny by John Vigers. 959 

Denies being a prisoner on Ship Island. 959 

With reference to what passed between Senator Kellogg and Milton Jones 

about his not testifying in Washington. . 960 

De Lacy received the money in Washington instead of Sweazie. 960 

With reference to the letter from Anderson to Senator Kellogg. 961 

Williams, Peter, testimony of.J... 519 

With reference to the supervisors of registration. 520 

Conversation he had with Mr. Moore with reference to the election of Sen¬ 
ator Kellogg. 521 

Conversation with Mr. Moore with reference to the election of Le Gardeur 

, and Blackstone to the legislature. 523 

With reference to the blank certificates of registration of 1874. 524 

Denies writing to Senator Kellogg that unless he got a position he would 

testify against him. 528 

Conversation with Mr. Moore and Tom Murray. 521 

Received points from Guitterez. 538 

Does not know whether there was a quorum present when Senator Kellogg 

was elected. b.34 

Does not know that any blank certificates were used in the election. 534 

With reference to the census of 1875 and the returns of the wards of the 

city.-. *"’36 

Mr. Hutton heard conversation between Moore and witness. 844 

Financial condition of Dickerson and Johnson...-. 844 

Yeiser, Dr. Philip, testimony of. ^>4 

With reference to Francis Garrett’s reputation for truth. 964 

Zacharie, F. C., testimony of. 990 

With reference to the committee appointed to investigate the charges 

against Senator Kellogg. 990 

With reference to the returns in the 7th ward.991-992 

Number of names stricken ofi’ in the 7th ward. 992 

Adjournment. 1000* 


























































1256 


INDEX. 


DOCUxMENTARY EVIDENCE. 


AFFIDAVITS. Page. 

Jeremiah Blackstone, affidavit;. 1236 

W. John De Lacy, affidavit.. 1237 • 

Albert W. Flanagan, affidavit.1. 610 

Joseph J. Johnson, affidavit.. 252 

Milton Jones, affidavit. 1236 

A. E. Milon, affidavit./..•' 686 

Jules Seveignes, affidavit. 253 

James McGuire, affidavit. 644 

TELEGRAMS. 

From Mr. Spofford to W. B. Phillips. . 931 

From W. B. Phillips to Mr. Spofford. 9.39 

From Norvin Green, president W. U. T. Co. 955 

Telegrams furnished by manager W. U. T. Co. 1228 

Telegrams to Senator Kellogg while in Washington. 1007 


LETTERS. 

Instructions of Michael Hahn. 728 

Note from T. C. Anderson to Senator Kellogg introducing B. Williams. 780 

Extract from letter from Supt. Foote to the Secretary of the Treasury. 877 

Letter from Wm. Ward and A. B. Philips to Mr. Spofford. 939 

Letter from W. B. Philips to Mr. Spofford .............. 939 

Paper from General U. S. Grartt to General C. C. Auger. 158 

Letter from Wm. K. Spearing to W. H. Seymour. 1107 

Letter from Mr. Elder to Mr. Morse.. 1160 

Papers Mr. Spofford gave Elder .... 1158 

Letters from J. W. Elder to his wife. 1171 

Letters from Geo. W. Morse to J. AV. Elder. 1218 

Paper memorandum purporting to be in Senator Kellogg’s handwriting. 581 

Letter submitted by Mr. S. Shellaberger. 1235 


OFFICIAL JOURNALS. 


Of the proceedings of the senate of the State of Louisiana for week ending Jan¬ 
uary 6,1877. 

Of the proceedings of the senate of the State of Louisiana for week ending Jan¬ 
uary 13,1877 . 

Of the proceedings of the house of representatives for week ending January 6 , 

Of the proceedings of the house of representatives for weekending January 13, 
1877 ....*_ 


Thirteenth day’s proceedings of the house, January 15,1877 . 

Twenty-tirst day’s proceedings of the house, January 24,1877. 

Senate journal of January 10,1877 ... 

Certified list of senators elected at an election held 2d November, 1874 
Certified list of representatives returned elected. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


Exhibit A, referring to testimony of E. A. Burke. 

B, referring to testimony of A. E. Milon.. 

C, referring to testimony of A. E. Milon. 

D, referring to testimony of C. S. Abell... 

E, statement of facts by F. J. Stokes .. 

F, statistics of population, &c., in the 12 th, 18th, and* 22 d senatoriai'diV- 

tricts... . 

H, roll of employes in New Orleans custom-house. 

O, referring to testimony of D. J. M. A. Jewett. 

P, referring to testimony of D. J. M. A. Jewett. 

Q, referring to letter of March 11, 1879, on page 939. *!!!] 

Agreement between E. J. J. Ewart, George Dicks, and Jeremiah Blackstone...! 

Third ward Democratic and Conservative ticket.. 

Statistics of population, *fec., in Louisiana from 1867 to 1876, inclusive__ ..... 

Credentials of W. B. Phillips from Democratic committee. 

Credentials of W. B. Phillips from Republican senators. 

Credentials of William Ward from the Democratic party. 

Certificate of the result in the seventh ward. 

Certificates of B. Offenher and others with refere 

nard Williams.Tj. 

Discharge of Tom, Murray from the mint.ri. 



353 


379 

390 

421 

437 

440 

449 

444 

445 


1000 

1001 

1001 

1001 

1002 


1005 

1220 

1238 

1238 

1239 
1107 

543 

819 

951 

954 

977 

993 


957 

994 


O 























































|v X 









« 




I 




■7^ 



V 


t 


r' 


« 



J 



















*' e , ^ * 


y^o ^ -<V «•«*. 

■ » : -- 

, ^<iy •%. ^ s< , 

» ^ ' • <» '^ c o ® ^ 

o jP ’7^ ’■ 

O' TJSxviWVCs^ ^ ^ •■ 

o V 0 



< o. 

L^ v<y 






o 

C. vP * 

«? " 

> -CL^ ci* 

^ ,*0 

o 0^ . ^ ^ K 





• / T 


• « 


S® V O 



0 ' 0 ''*«>- 









V 


0 N 0 


“•' 'v- 4 . 0 - 

' 0 ^ ,‘ 





V V^ 

%. 



u ' a 


'* 


0 





0 


On® 



® 'c O 







«> ’' * o.- 


2 

* A.G °o 

0 ^ '^O 0 

-op ' 


\Vy^ 



4 O 

> ^ ^ 

^ s * •-* ' - < 

•o P 

: : 

*° P'V "oT 

> Kp- • ) -i 



• ft 


*1 o. 

-q? 

K O ' 



O ^ C 


?> 


O. ^cVo’ ,0 



^ or 




„. '!> •''•,# ‘■•"O’ V!.° <»J 

^ A x-^*^ ^ V 5^'. 




o 4 P c ° " ® -» X 


ft ft 






4 o 
<r> ^ 























Vo OJ 








:Mk.. %,<?■ ;^, :A. %,,»• ••< " 

* oV ^^\n* ■• A V V*. • A '^'V 

'C* '•••' '''*' <U ^^•'‘ .0^ 

' ^ ^ y^/TTP^' i 

!t* .,^1^^* '*b •«- .-i’^ 


-^o 


^ • 4 0 

“s a> ^ •■ 




o • » 


" "O V 

* A ^' o •' 0 

^ *' o « 0 ’ ^0 ’•#■«- ^ 

* ^ ^ ^^i/h,\ '% ^ * 

^ 'V ^ '’J 

^ 'O..* 'A. ^ 






' 4 " .A*" ^ * 

-u ® • * - A ^ G^ o -0.4 

^ O - * 1 ^ • *P C^ ^ ^ 

^ •* '^O ^ ° 


A V ' • • * 

v's » <rvN\\\hHL * ^ ^ ' 





C, vP 

5^lMil^ * aG 

' A^ • ts' ^ 

^ '■ ®**’ a\’’ ^'.. s' . 0 ^ 'O,** 

:- r<, .c° c° ''i-^^' °o ^ 


°^ * <■ « ^ 

V^ 5* Vl'v .0 

SfiS^ • ^ cT^ 



i - ^o V 




• A^'^ 

* 'V A^' 

A '''Tvr-^ 0^ ^o '0.4 

-i^ -il°* ^w:. . 0 '^ .•‘"* ^O 

N t. cS^vWn'^ <f ^. V ♦ 







' 'V > 

’* a\^ '**‘ 

A^ ofT®-* 

bv*^ 

O X® ^ 

0 'i •^%»'<»;' < 


%. '♦^^' "V ''TT."’ y- 

.^wa' :miA\ \A ' 



- A'^„ . 



O • A 


. I»• - 0 ® " ® -» ^ 


A^ o 

<. '- ?•. .«' , 0 <- '^o 

r* '*°'^ • 

^Q ■*♦ *> ^*' 


- ^ <^ '^'Vr*'' , 0 ^ 



® 



A- V •»•* 

' "V «^ ’ '>* 

\/ V"^-/ ^ 

• » -aVa-. -Jl^- ■ 



‘vP 




* aV-^ 

• ^xf«. • 


AUG 83 

N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 
■ B P jL^RiJLr"! %J 



\* ^ ‘*4^ 

''TVs' jy o 'o,A* .A ^ ..., 

, 0 ^ t*''*-* O c®"®-* '<^ 




ov^' 

' y tc.. 



* 


■^» »<» 

























